Thread: It's on the(a) table.

The question to native English speakers.
Which article would you use in this case?

- Where is my book?
- It's on the(a) small table in the room.

If both speakers know that there are more then one small table in the room.

Originally Posted by Selexin

The question to native English speakers.
Which article would you use in this case?

- Where is my book?
- It's on the(a) small table in the room.

If both speakers know that there are more then one small table in the room.

It's on a small table in the room.

Using "a" is referencing that the person realizes one must look on ALL the small tables in the room to find the book.
Using "the" denotes that it would be only one small table in the room.

emeraldeyez, does the following phrase sound natural for you (a native english speaker)?

It doesn't listen logical to me.

Is listen a normal word in this context?

Originally Posted by Selexin

emeraldeyez, does the following phrase sound natural for you (a native english speaker)?

It doesn't sound logical to me.

Is listen the normal word in this context? No

sperk, one person claimes he ran into such an expression on the internet.
That's why I asked.

And yes, articles have never been my strong side. Thanks for the correction.

Originally Posted by Selexin

sperk, one person claims he ran into such an expression on the internet.
That's why I asked.

And yes, articles have never been my strong side. Thanks for the correction.

Originally Posted by Selexin

sperk, one person claimes he ran into such an expression on the internet.
That's why I asked.

And yes, articles have never been my strong side. Thanks for the correction.

What type of expression?

it listens well. That expression.

No, it does not sit well with me either and I would never say "it listens well". A book "reads well" but neither a play nor a line of thought "listens well."

Originally Posted by chaika

it listens well. That expression.

No, it does not sit well with me either and I would never say "it listens well". A book "reads well" but neither a play nor a line of thought "listens well."

Actually I can beg to differ here. While that phrase is not common ... I have heard it expressed that way.

For instance ... when referring to listening to a piece of music or a reading done out loud. One MAY (though not often) state "IT listens well" the IT in this case being the passage being read or the music being played, thereby actually lending itself to an easy listen to a person or group of people. Because there is a case that "something does not listen well" too. Like a bad piece of music or a passage that the wording makes no sense. So "it" does not listen well on the ears.

Does this make sense?

It is an antiquated way of phrasing something. (very outdated, but not entirely unheard of.)

Originally Posted by emeraldeyez

Originally Posted by chaika

No, it does not sit well with me either and I would never say "it listens well".

Actually I can beg to differ here. While that phrase is not common ... I have heard it expressed that way.

I have to agree with Chaika here. “It listens well” is an error if the person is wanting to express the idea of “It sounds good” or “It sounds correct.” “It listens well” is not a sample sentence I would ever give to a beginning student of English because the context in which it can be used is very limited. I have taught at three large American universities, and I have never once in my life heard it.

Originally Posted by doninphxaz

“It listens well” is not a sample sentence I would ever give to a beginning student of English because the context in which it can be used is very limited.

I agree with this statement.


Let me state, I respect that you have taught a 3 large American Universities.

Thing is ... I HAVE heard this statement used, actually I have heard it used by a professor at John's Hopkins University durning a lecture. (But I am sure we know how long winded some of them get ....LOL )

But let me reiterate ... I believe the statement is antiquated and outdated. I have heard such a statment used perhaps twice ever. While it is not something I would ever use in my vocabulary or even teach it to someone. As I too find it just does not sound right. But the statement has been known to be used. LOL

Yes, I've heard it too, and here are some examples:

I've enjoyed the CD because it listens well, there is enough variety to keep my interest, and the song content covers a lot of ground.

http://cdbaby.com/cd/junedreammakers

It listens well looped and low, but give it at least one loud, full attention go, for the sake of the dynamics and structure.

http://www.thirdfactory.net/lipstick.html

"It listens well, Aunt Biny. It sounds perfectly enticing. If I read it in a book I'd lap it up. . ."

Aldrich, Bess Streeter, The Rim of the Prairie (U of Nebraska Press 1966) http://tinyurl.com/d8qgv8

The saying comes from Germans:

Nor could all the ardor of the professional patriots obliterate that German influence which has fastened upon the American yes something of the quality of ja, or prevent the constant appearance of such German loan-forms as “it listens well” and “I want out.” Many American loan-words are of startlingly outlandish origin.

Mencken, Henry Louis, The American Language 200 (1921) http://tinyurl.com/cn94k2 http://www.bartleby.com/185/28.html

Such expressions as gabfest, plunderbund, it listens well, bum, dumb (in the senses of stupid), come from the Germans. . .

The Federal Writers' Project, New York City: Vol 1, New York City Guide 112 (1939) http://tinyurl.com/dkydym

Originally Posted by doninphxaz

“It listens well” is an error if the person is wanting to express the idea of “It sounds good” or “It sounds correct.”

"It sounds correct"? No, definitely not. But it sort of makes sense if someone is speaking about a new album of a pop group, in the same way as when people say "this book reads well". While it may be not correct from the strict grammatical standpoint, people do use such expressions now and then.

So too do demands for forms of "proof" which the theory of evolution predicts will never be observed,...

Everything seems to be ok with this phrase, exept for has been bothering me... Shouldn't there be that in it's place?

Originally Posted by Selexin

So too do demands for forms of "proof" which the theory of evolution predicts will never be observed,...

Everything seems to be ok with this phrase, exept for has been bothering me... Shouldn't there be that in it's place?

Not if demand is a noun. In which case, 'a demand for [something]' is correct. You can demand (verb) something, but your action is a demand for something. Does that make sense?

Not if demand is a noun. In which case, 'a demand for [something]' is correct. You can demand (verb) something, but your action is a demand for something. Does that make sense?

I fully agree with you in that. The construction 'a demand for [something]' is absolutely correct. But what makes me wince is that the [something] here is a subordinate clause with predication!

If simplified the sentence would be like this:

So too do demands for forms of "proof" will never be observed.

Does it sound normal? I doubt it.

The "simplified" version is definitely not okay, and its meaning is not the same. It could be re-written as follows:
Demands for forms of "proof" will never be observed either.
Your original sentence stated a different thing.
But, anyway, "demands for" sounds just fine.
Для примера, по-русски полная версия звучала бы примерно вот так: "То же самое верно в отношении требований предоставить определённые виды доказательств, которые, как предсказывает теория эволюции, никогда не будут наблюдаться".
Нормальная - с точки зрения формальной грамматики - конструкция.
Теперь ты взял и "упростил" её, выкинув серединку:
"То же самое верно в отношении требований предоставить определённые виды доказательств никогда не будут наблюдаться".
Что получилось? Конец предложения ("никогда не будут наблюдаться") никак не связан грамматически с началом. Вот то же самое имеет место в твоей упрощённой версии. Но проблема связана вовсе не с "demands for" - тут как раз всё нормально.

translationsnmru, спасибо, теперь ясно.
So too do demands for forms of "proof" which [as the theory of evolution predicts] will never be observed,...

С точки зрения грамматики понятно.
Но теперь не понятен смысл высказывания....
Ну да ладно, это другая тема.

Originally Posted by Selexin

emeraldeyez, does the following phrase sound natural for you (a native english speaker)?

It doesn't listen logical to me.

Is listen a normal word in this context?

The normal word is "sound". While some people may have heard "listen" used in this way, it is definitely not the normal word in this context.

Originally Posted by Selexin

So too do demands for forms of "proof" will never be observed.

Does it sound normal? I doubt it.

It does not make sense at all. You did not provide the context

The second way to think you've disproved the theory of evolution is to fail to grasp its consequences, or to ascribe to it consequences it does not have. Arguments of the form "I can't see how X evolved", usually fall into this class. So too do demands for forms of "proof" which the theory of evolution predicts will never be observed, e.g. "a cat turning into a dog", and such similar fatuities

according to which in your initial sentence do stands for usually fall into this class, so in its full form the sentence should be So demands for forms of "proof" which the theory of evolution predicts will never be observed, e.g. "a cat turning into a dog", and such similar fatuities usually fall into this class too.

Originally Posted by Selexin

translationsnmru, спасибо, теперь ясно.
So too do demands for forms of "proof" which [as the theory of evolution predicts] will never be observed,...
С точки зрения грамматики понятно.
Но теперь не понятен смысл высказывания....
Ну да ладно, это другая тема.

Без предыдущего предложения смысла нет, а с ним – другое дело.
Аргументы типа «Я не понимаю, как эволюционировал Х» обычно вписываются в эту категорию. Так же как и требования предоставить определённые виды доказательств, которых, как предсказывает теория эволюции, не может быть в принципе, например: «кошку превращающуюся в собаку» и тому подобную чушь.