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.
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Selexin
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selexin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selexin
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaika
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 (very outdated, but not entirely unheard of.)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by emeraldeyez
I agree with this statement. :good:Quote:
Originally Posted by doninphxaz
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 :roll: )
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 :)
:friends:
Yes, I've heard it too, and here are some examples:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/junedreammakersQuote:
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://www.thirdfactory.net/lipstick.htmlQuote:
It listens well looped and low, but give it at least one loud, full attention go, for the sake of the dynamics and structure.
Aldrich, Bess Streeter, The Rim of the Prairie (U of Nebraska Press 1966) http://tinyurl.com/d8qgv8Quote:
"It listens well, Aunt Biny. It sounds perfectly enticing. If I read it in a book I'd lap it up. . ."
The saying comes from Germans:
Mencken, Henry Louis, The American Language 200 (1921) http://tinyurl.com/cn94k2 http://www.bartleby.com/185/28.htmlQuote:
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.
The Federal Writers' Project, New York City: Vol 1, New York City Guide 112 (1939) http://tinyurl.com/dkydymQuote:
Such expressions as gabfest, plunderbund, it listens well, bum, dumb (in the senses of stupid), come from the Germans. . .
"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by doninphxaz
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Selexin
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!Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selexin
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.
It does not make sense at all. You did not provide the contextQuote:
Originally Posted by Selexin
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.Quote:
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
Без предыдущего предложения смысла нет, а с ним – другое дело.Quote:
Originally Posted by Selexin
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.
People are all the time using intransitive verbs transitively. Because we know what the intransitive verb means, we can (more or less) understand what it means used transitively. One of the most common ones these days is "shop", an intransitive verb. But a local chain of food stores here in the South has over its doors "Thanks for Shopping Food Lion!" Should be "shopping at." And then there's the other verb, to Photoshop smth. Food for thought.
What is the plural for the word "sinuosity" ?
SinuositiesQuote:
Originally Posted by Selexin
Which article should be used?
- Where is my shirt?
- It's on a(the) hanger in the wardrobe.
Either article is grammatically correct. Which one is used depends on the situation. If there is only one hanger in the closet, then "the" would be used. If there are multiple hangers, then "a" should be used.
In case of multiple hangers, would the use of a imply generic reference?
Yes, it would. Informally, it doesn't really matter which article is used though. You could say "It's on a hanger in the closet" even if there is only one hanger, and conversely, you could also say "It's on the hanger in the closet" even if there are multiple hangers.
Then in the example with a book and two tables (in the beginning of the thread) , can I also answer:
It's on the table
to the question:
- Where is my book?
Well, you could say it, but I'm not sure it would be correct. I think by using the, you are implying that there is only one hanger. That's how I would understand it if you told me that.Quote:
Originally Posted by brandonp
Yeah, I completely agree. I just wanted to emphasize the fact that the use of one article over the other wouldn't confuse the recipient in everyday conversation. But yes, "the" would certainly emphasize the "one and only", so to say, hanger in the closet, while "a" would indicate that there are many hangers and a search for the right one would be needed.
The best article choice would be "a" in this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Selexin
It is probably not technically correct to do so, but you will definitely find many people using "the", even when there is a number of identical objects involved. This is particularly likely if it can already be assumed that the person to whom you are speaking has some knowledge of the likely location, or if the location can be easily determined due to some other factor (being in plain sight, for example).
As an example, some might say "your wallet is on the table", knowing full well that there might be several (possibly identical) tables, because either it is in plain sight or because the owner of the wallet already knows which table they were near to and therefore where they left it.
This can (and often does) lead to confusion and prolonged searching, but it is something you will encounter regardless.
Is it admissible to put indefinite article in the phrase:
"Such a good weather!" ?
No, it should just be "such good weather".
'Weather' is uncountable.
She goes out jogging in all weathers.
How does this sound?
"Out in all weather".
Weather is not plural. Weather systems or weather conditions can be plural but I cannot think if a circumstance where "weather" itself is.
I regret to state a fact that there is a example in Lingvo: :(
They go out in all weathers. — Они выходят в любую погоду.
Well, it's possible, and still used in some places as an idiom, but using "in all weather" is more common, and "in all kinds/sorts/types of weather" even more so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Оля
Here are some questions I've run across on answers.yahoo.com/
Doesn't it seem odd to use existential there in questions with where?Quote:
Where are there any pay fishing lakes in Indiana ?
Where are there any Raves in Atlanta or around ?
Where are there any pig farms in colchester?
What do you think of it?