Thread: Help is needed with text in English

I'll be grateful to anybody, who can read this text:

http://awl-project.narod.ru/AWL-brief.html

and help me to correct mistakes (I'm afraid, there are a lot).

Originally Posted by Scorpio

I'll be grateful to anybody, who can read this text:

http://awl-project.narod.ru/AWL-brief.html

and help me to correct mistakes (I'm afraid, there are a lot).

????

As far as I can tell there are more mistakes in your post above than there are in the article, but I'm not a programmer, so I can't really say if it makes any sense or not. You would need to post it to a forum more dedicated to that purpose (programming).

(Your mistakes above are the two commas--just remove them and you are fine. Russian uses a lot more commas than English.)

Originally Posted by Scorpio

I'll be grateful to anybody, who can read this text:

http://awl-project.narod.ru/AWL-brief.html

and help me to correct mistakes (I'm afraid, there are a lot).

Well, obviously, this is all wrong:

add 3D vectors `
! add(v1 v2) = Vector3D(v1.x+v2.x, v1.y+v2.y, v1.z+v2.z),
` subtract 3D vectors `
! sub(v1 v2) = Vector3D(v1.x-v2.x, v1.y-v2.y, v1.z-v2.z)

The procedure function should be alpha 5 bugs to the right, index-tabbed with curly-marker in the fith row-column that undoes the perl command index index index.

That's how REAL programmer write.

It's almost perfect. The only error I can see, and it's a tiny one, is the occassional omission of articles.

For example, the first sentence:

One of the design goals of AWL programming language was to provide a suitable alternative for common World Wide Web programming.

There should also be an 'a' before consistent, and an 'an' before interpreter.

In the second paragraph, there should be a 'the' before number type.

And so on.

Thanks to everybody, especially to scotcher and paulb!
Just a couple of commas to fix? Looks like my English is better than I thought. (A nice surprise, really. ) Now I can risk showing this document to some native English-speaking folks without fear of embarassment.

P.S. Kalinka, you were kidding, weren't you?

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Thanks to everybody, especially to scotcher and paulb!
Just a couple of commas to fix? Looks like my English is better than I thought. (A nice surprise, really. ) Now I can risk showing this document to some native English-speaking folks without fear of embarassment.

I guess we don't count as native English-speaking folks

Originally Posted by Scorpio

P.S. Kalinka, you were kidding, weren't you?

Reeeeaalllly?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Thanks to everybody, especially to scotcher and paulb!
Just a couple of commas to fix? Looks like my English is better than I thought. (A nice surprise, really. ) Now I can risk showing this document to some native English-speaking folks without fear of embarassment.

I guess we don't count as native English-speaking folks

Wrong guess.
(If I didn't expect a lot of native English speakers here, I wasn't posting this link at this forum, of course.)

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by Scorpio

P.S. Kalinka, you were kidding, weren't you?

Reeeeaalllly?

If you were serious -- I must admit, what I missed most of your argument. Can you explain in different words?

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Thanks to everybody, especially to scotcher and paulb!
Just a couple of commas to fix? Looks like my English is better than I thought. (A nice surprise, really. ) Now I can risk showing this document to some native English-speaking folks without fear of embarassment.

I guess we don't count as native English-speaking folks

Wrong guess.
(If I didn't expect a lot of native English speakers here, I wasn't posting this link at this forum, of course.)

You missed my point. According to what is blue above, if only NOW you can show the document to native speakers without fear of embarassement, then we can't be native speakers... or else you wouldn't have shown it to us in the first place, in fear of embarassement... It was really just a joke...

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by Scorpio

P.S. Kalinka, you were kidding, weren't you?

Reeeeaalllly?

If you were serious -- I must admit, what I missed most of your argument. Can you explain in different words?

I guess my irony isn't coming across the ocean these days It was utter and complete rubbish, it was supposed to be funny...

[quote=kalinka_vinnie]

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":3hy3b2cx

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Thanks to everybody, especially to scotcher and paulb!
Just a couple of commas to fix? Looks like my English is better than I thought. (A nice surprise, really. ) Now I can risk showing this document to some native English-speaking folks without fear of embarassment.

I guess we don't count as native English-speaking folks

Wrong guess.
(If I didn't expect a lot of native English speakers here, I wasn't posting this link at this forum, of course.)

You missed my point. According to what is blue above, if only NOW you can show the document to native speakers without fear of embarassement, then we can't be native speakers... or else you wouldn't have shown it to us in the first place, in fear of embarassement... It was really just a joke...

Originally Posted by Scorpio

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by Scorpio

P.S. Kalinka, you were kidding, weren't you?

Reeeeaalllly?

If you were serious -- I must admit, what I missed most of your argument. Can you explain in different words?

I guess my irony isn't coming across the ocean these days It was utter and complete rubbish, it was supposed to be funny... [/quote:3hy3b2cx]
So Kalinka is having tough times joking. What's the matter, Kalinka, lost your sense of humor, huh?

To lose it, I'd have to have had it.

Did I just use the verb 'have' thrice?

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

To lose it, I'd have to have had it.

Did I just use the verb 'have' thrice?

You can use English as deadly weapon.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

To lose it, I'd have to have had it.

Did I just use the verb 'have' thrice?

Shouldn't it be

"I'd have had to have had it"?

Originally Posted by scotcher

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

To lose it, I'd have to have had it.

Did I just use the verb 'have' thrice?

Shouldn't it be

"I'd have had to have had it"?

"I would have had to have had one."

Two "haves" and two "hads" in one short sentence! Woohoo!

But if we're not talking about some point in the past, if we're considering a general condition, is it possible to say:

1) "I'd have to have one before I could lose it"

2) "I'd have to have one to lose it"

The first version seems fine to me. I have doubts about the second, though.