8 depending on how I count.
Robin
Printable View
8 depending on how I count.
Robin
allL ,their, apart of/from ?Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
a(?) part ofQuote:
Originally Posted by vox05
As you alll know... at 7:00 p.m at the... The festival is being (will be) held from October 23rd-25th. It will cost $10 and a_part of the proceeds for the festival goes to (will go to) Breast Cancer awareness. I will be attending and going to the reception. I hope to see you all there.
Robin, you just had a typo with the "." for the p.m., she had the first "." and was missing the second one.Quote:
Originally Posted by bitpicker
I also just did not like the wording "of the proceeds for the festival" I probably would have written "of the proceeds from the festival will go to"
I should post some of the script from her movie... talk about errors!!! It makes my English look amazingly perfect!
So, our dear Master Admin posted "There were a man and a woman sitting on the bench."
That just did not "sit" right with me. I was thinking, should it be "There was a man..." ? I really didn't know why it just did not feel right so I sent it to my mom and here is what she wrote back:
Now, would this be okay with the way it was translated from Russian?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockzmom's Mom
На скамейке сидели мужчина и женщина.
There's a reason there are sentences which begin with 'there' or would you rather have this as "A reason is, sentences are, which begin with 'there'"?
Robin
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitpicker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockzmom's Mom
Next one... "near miss" I heard this one on the radio again this morning and even though from my research about the phrase it seems to actually be "acceptable" to use this expression... I still cringe when I hear it.
So, I guess with this one, it is a case of letting non-Natives know this is the "correct" thing to say?? Because if you actually said "near collision" people would look at you really oddly! :shock: :wacko:
Here are some notes about "near miss" and "near collision"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Cowing, editor of NASA Watch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbia Journalism Review
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Brians, Professor of English, Washington State University
Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbia Guide to Standard American English
Sure you can always rearrange the sentence, just like you can always use another language entirely, the question is, why? What use is it? This aversion against sentences with 'there' is right up there with the aversion against ending sentences with prepositions. The latter was a rule in Latin, and humanist grammarians, when they began to look at English, decided that Latin was the most perfect of languages, so anything that deviated in their language from Latin was a sign of inferiority. Silliness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockzmom's Mom
It is a lot easier to teach someone the first example sentence than the second; the first uses 'to be' and simple present, the second uses 'locate' and passive. It is more complicated, but doesn't say anything new.
Robin
I don't like when people appear (I think) to mix up "chance" and "risk" when they speak.
For example, someone might (wrongly IMHO) say:
There is a chance that I die in a car accident if I drive on the Autobahn.
There is a chance that their marriage does not work out and they have to get divorced.
There is a chance that my house has been burgled when I get home, because I forgot to lock the door.
I think that in these sentences the word "risk" should be used, not "chance".
Chance implies that there is almost a positive thing if this happens. Obviously car accidents, divorces and burglaries are negative things.
However, you might say:
"There is a chance that I win the lottery and never have to work again..."
"There is a good chance that I meet "Mr Right" if I go to the ball.."
"If I start a mine on this spot, there is a good chance that I might find gold."
Obviously these would be a good things, and therefore it's a chance.
Do you agree?
Well, at least you certainly wouldn't insert 'risk' here. ;) I think people tend to see 'chance' as a synonym for 'probability' and feel that the positive connotation is absent. Is there a 50:50 chance or a 50:50 risk? Then there are phrases such as 'chances are that...' but no 'risks are that...'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna
I still think 'risk' is the better choice in your first set of examples, as it definitely does have a negative connotation.
Cannot, can not & can not only - when to use each:
I noticed that a number of people are using "can (space) not" when they should be using cannot (or can't). I had a thread about this back in December and figured as it was very short, I would just swing it over here and we could talk about it.
Here is the passage from the Writer's Guide to Style and Usage, p.43) regarding cannot, can not and can not only:
"Cannot, can not, can not only. Cannot is the preferred form except for the rare instance when a writer wishes to emphasize the not, for example, in juxtaposition to can statements: 'You can run and you can hide, but you can not escape me.' When can not only is used, the trick is to remember that not is working with only as a conjunction; can is an auxiliary that must be parallel with the rest of the statement: 'The restaurant can not only serve a delectable lasagna, but also [can] bake [not bakes] a sinful chocolate cake.' "
Or
The differences between cannot and can not. "You would use can not when the 'not' forms part of another construction such as 'not only.'
Is there a difference between "I cannot dig" and "I can not dig"?Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
It would be very convenient if there was the same difference there as between "I am not able to dig" and "I am able not to dig" but I suspect there isn't, is there?
e-Learner! You are sooo good at this game!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by E-learner
ROBIN... I trust you will save me if I am wrong here!!! :angel:
YES! HOWEVER, you would need to have more to the sentence for there to be a clear understanding to the person you are speaking/writing to.
1. I cannot dig to China.
2. I can not dig because my hand is broken.
The first one is stating that the "cannot" leaves no possibility of being able to do something.
The second one stressing NOT over the can and the reason for the "can not" and there is an exception and a possiblity.
PART 2 here.
"I am able not to dig" this does not flow correctly. Maybe it would be, "I am able but cannot dig" ??? OR "I am able but am not digging?"
I have a small question about "can not".Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
What will you say about the "May not"?
Is it close to "can not" via meaning or not?
I may not write = я могу не писать (It depends on my mood. If I want I will write. If I don't want I will not write)
I can not write = я могу не писать. (I can write, but I can read as well. If you insist I will read only ????????????????)
I wish I new what the game is but thank you anyway. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
I thought that "I can dig" can be used if I want to say that I have necessary skills or strength for digging, and "I cannot dig" - if I don't have them. I was wrong?Quote:
you would need to have more to the sentence for there to be a clear understanding to the person you are speaking/writing to.
1. I cannot dig to China.
This is the first time I have ever heard of such a distinction. According to what I learned in school a long time ago, 'cannot' is the common orthographic form while 'can not' is not. Prescriptive dictionaries agree:Quote:
1. I cannot dig to China.
2. I can not dig because my hand is broken.
The first one is stating that the "cannot" leaves no possibility of being able to do something.
The second one stressing NOT over the can and the reason for the "can not" and there is an exception and a possiblity.
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/
However, here's a good point regarding a possible distinction:
http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2 ... -be-split/
So while there is no defined distinction as far as prescriptive dictionaries and "official" grammar, if such a thing exists, are concerned, it is possible to define a distinction.
But both your examples are 'cannot' or 'can't' to me.
[/quote]Quote:
"I am able not to dig" this does not flow correctly. Maybe it would be, "I am able but cannot dig" ??? OR "I am able but am not digging?"
I am unable to dig. I am able to keep from digging.
"I am able not to dig" probably just sounds silly. But something like "I am perfectly able not to do anything silly, thank you very much" is a sentence which follows the same pattern and may actually appear in a conversation.
Robin
All instances of 'I cannot write' mean 'I am unable to write' - я не могу писать. 'I may not write' means that I am as yet undecided whether I will write or not. There's no question of capability, it's just that I may or may not be in the mood for writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ekaterinak
Robin
No, that's entirely correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-learner
Robin
[/quote:1jsbymr3]Quote:
Originally Posted by bitpicker
"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground."
I see absolutely no reason to have 'can not' here instead of 'cannot' - not even based on the distinction discussed in the article linked to in my previous message. If it were the negation of the predicate rather than the modal, the quote would mean 'we can fail to dedicate, fail to consecrate, fail to hallow this ground'. I suppose that is not what it originally meant, or is it?
Robin
If you look at the second article you linked...Quote:
Originally Posted by bitpicker
I believe that when I use can not and when President Lincoln used it, we are/were, both using it as "some people argue that can not must be used when you want to emphasize the not, and I’ll drink to that."Quote:
See, the negation in can not could either negate the modal can (i.e., I am unable to do something) or the predicate (i.e, I am able to not do something), whereas the negation in cannot can only negate the modal. So I personally try to use cannot when I want to negate the modal and can not when I want to negate the predicate. This distinction is relevant to me because I actually do intend to negate the predicates of such sentences sometimes. Most reasonable people do not. If you are one of the people who don’t do this, then there is no reason for the choice of cannot/can not to matter to you. That’s not entirely true; some people argue that can not must be used when you want to emphasize the not, and I’ll drink to that.
Because as you know my dear Robin... I was never taught about modals and such... :wacko:
So, the speech would be spoken as..
"But, in a larger sense, we can NOT dedicate...we can NOT consecrate...we can NOT hallow this ground."
Oh, the I post something and you find the perfect challenge to it!!! http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/sign/sign0020.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by E-learner
In other words, you both do/did not agree with the interpretation of "can not" given in that article, do/did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
I can not ask President Lincoln, but what, if anything, does this sentence from the article mean to you?
"I can not eat the cake if you want to save it for later."
My version of what it might mean:
"It is a horrible thing for me to do, to eat the cake, and I'm not going to do it, if you want to save it for later." :?:
"I can not eat the cake if you want to save it for later."
In a speech situation one could say that, stressing the 'not', and mean "If you want to save the cake for later, then I won't eat it now." But it is a highly unlikely utterance, I suppose native speakers would rather phrase it like I did here.
"I cannot eat the cake if you want to save it for later" puts stress on the fist syllable of 'cannot'. Then it clearly means "I am not able to eat the cake, as you prohibit it". Not sure whether anyone would say it like that either.
In writing, if you want to make sure it's one meaning and not the other, rephrase the whole sentence. The distinction of 'cannot' vs. 'can not' is simply too weak to be clear.
Robin
It seems to me that I almost guessed. Thank you Robin very much!Quote:
Originally Posted by bitpicker
I had not heard this one in YEARS!!! The newscaster on the radio today said it and I was like "No way!!!" I believe it is pronounced this way in the New York area which may be why I have not heard it lately.
The word is "idea" yet people pronounce it "idear."
In fact that is a linguistic phenomenon in English called 'intrusive r'.
I got another common mistake: writing 'loose' where 'lose' is intended.
Robin
yup, yup, yup... add to that list... choose and chose, shoot and shot! I have to think every time about these!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by bitpicker
Interesting wiki about the intrusive R. I never knew it had a technical name! draw[ɹ]ing or withdraw[ɹ]al... now that I think about those two.. I do recall hearing people pronounce those two that way as well.
Is there also one about dropping your Ts? I had a boss who once did that. He is Italian (Vito) he dropped them so much so that when he would say 'bottle' it just came out 'ba-ul'.
At least those are different forms of the same word, not two different words altogether.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
In many dialects you get a glottal stop instead of a fully pronounced 't' (or 'd', for instance in "be'room"). A glottal stop is a kind of click sound you make with your glottis, breaking the air flow; it's not so much a sound as a short pause.Quote:
Is there also one about dropping your Ts? I had a boss who once did that. He is Italian (Vito) he dropped them so much so that when he would say 'bottle' it just came out 'ba-ul'.
Robin
So, I do a number of dumb phonetic mistakes..... but this is won I don't do and I thought it was funny... a friend of mine posted it on FaceBook...
"for those of you who don't know Cheri and Rick XXXX and who are looking for a great place to vacation in Arkansas--they just one inn of the year for 2010 for the US!"
She followed that up with ...."wow I need more coffee--I meant won! not one..."
I figured I would swing this over to this thread....
Yes! IMHO, most people use "out loud" because they don't know any better but according to the article, it just might be the location I am in!Quote:
Originally Posted by translationsnmru
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outloud
Main Entry: out loud
Function: adverb
Date: 1821
: loudly enough to be heard : aloud
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aloud
Main Entry: aloud
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈlau̇d\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from 1a- + loud
Date: 13th century
1 archaic : in a loud manner : loudly
2 : with the speaking voice <read aloud>
Here is an article I found about the two words...
Quote:
Out loud vs Aloud
You often hear the words aloud and out loud being said almost anywhere. Many are thinking that they are two synonymous words that can be used interchangeably. In fact, they are. Both aloud and out loud can be considered as adverbs. They modify words, preferably verbs, rather than nouns. However, some language experts say that they can be different. Read on to know what they are.
By definition, aloud is an adverb that can mean three things. When used in a sentence, it could often mean that you say something with a louder voice than normal like in the sentence, “They cried aloud in sorrow.” Another meaning could be that you actually say something rather than mentally thinking about it. For example, “She read the novel aloud.” Lastly, it could mean that you must say something using normal speaking voice rather than doing it in a whispered manner such as in the case of, “The students cannot talk aloud within the premises of the library.” Moreover, the use of aloud is regarded as archaic or old fashioned. Even with such regard, the use of this adverb is preferable in formal talk or formal writing.
The term ‘out loud’ is still used in a similar way but is more appropriately used in selected occasions only. Some grammar experts claim that out loud is the idiom equivalent of the adverb aloud. An idiom by the way is a word that is stylistically or figuratively used by native speakers of the language. Similarly, others say that it is the term used in the colloquial sense. It is colloquial because the term is used in ordinary day to day conversation rather than in formal talk, writing or speech. That’s why out loud is both chatty and informal in nature.
A good example of using the term is in the sentence, “Don’t cry out loud!” or “I always said these words out loud.”
To avoid further confusion and as a standard rule, it is best to use aloud for almost all occasions except in casual or ordinary conversations. Overall, aloud and out loud have the same meanings but they can be different because:
1. Out loud is used colloquially or during more informal talks as opposed to the use of aloud.
2. Aloud is the more archaic adverb that means to say something in a louder intensity as opposed to the term out loud.
Read more: Difference Between Out loud and Aloud | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/lan...#ixzz0nGjng42d
where were wear ware we're weir , and possibly a few others lurking near... (Apologies if these are already above) Yes, some are rare. I believe 'ware is in poetry, as clipped form of beware.
You should talk to someone with a heavy Boston accent. One of the biggest features is the addition and subtraction of the letter "R" is unusual places. Many "R"s turn into "H"s (pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd being the famous example) which is the most well-known aspect of the accent, but there's also some "R" addition. "Idear" is one of the greatest offenders.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
I also have a few additions to this thread's theme:
Disinterested does NOT mean uninterested. This is common in sports commentary. "Player X really looks disinterested out there." Well, I'd hope the referee is disinterested, but I'm sure the player isn't.
This is exclusively a written error, but it drives me crazy: "would/could/should of" instead of "would've/should've/could've". It's just sloppy, but I see it all the time on the internet.
Another common mistake is the overuse of "so-and-so and I" when referencing the object.
Ted and I received an award from the president.
The president gave an award to Ted and I me.
I think people have been drilled enough that "Ted and me" sounds uneducated when used as the subject of the sentence that "Ted and me" has come to be viewed as uneducated in all senses; even when it's grammatically correct.
Also, at least half of the population of the United States has no idea what irony is.
"Hey, we have the same t-shirt! That's so ironic!".
No, it's not ironic. It's a coincidence.
I love being pedantic :-) . It could be ironic depending on situation!Quote:
Originally Posted by почемучка
I suppose if the people wearing the t-shirts were hipsters! Usually the misuse of irony is pretty clear-cut though.Quote:
Originally Posted by quartztwo
Speaking of pedantry, I got the following email from a friend recently. It's one thing to deal with pedantry on a language message board, but this guy received a lecture from his thesaurus(!)
Quote:
POMPOUS TWIT or SOMEONE SO INSECURE THAT HE'LL USE POINTLESSLY BIG WORDS IN AN ATTEMPT TO LOOK SMART
what is this?
i'm writing a paper (hence the odd nightly hour) and i was using the built in thesaurus on my mac. and i input utilize. which gives me a few synonyms. along with the scolding.
there's this "Word Note" section below the synonyms where DFW just told me off.
DFW, show yourself!
(full word note entry below)
--------
WORD NOTE
utilize
This is a puff-word. Since it does nothing that good old use doesn't do, its extra letters and syllables don't make a writer seem smarter. Rather, using utilize makes you seem like either a pompous twit or someone so insecure that he'll use pointlessly big words in an attempt to look smart. The same is true for the noun utilization, for vehicle as used for car, for residence as used for home, for indicate as used for say, for presently, at present, at this time, and at the present time as used for now, and so on. What's worth remembering about puff-words is something that good writing teachers spend a lot of time drumming into undergrads: "Formal writing" does not mean gratuitously fancy writing; it means clean, clear, maximally considerate writing.
— DFW
haha priceless
I'll have to remember when I mark student essays to write "makes you look like a pompous twit" on margins
and bonus points for a jab at hipsters! :wink:
quartztwo! Welcome to MasterRussian!!Quote:
Originally Posted by quartztwo
My daughter's English teacher uses the song Ironic by Alanis Morissette when she teaches her class about irony...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9yUVgrmPY