This does help. I think I need to be more sparing with my use of adverbs in general. Thank you! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Printable View
This does help. I think I need to be more sparing with my use of adverbs in general. Thank you! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
Even if you will use the analog linking verb "is" - "являться" it still will be correspond with the feminane noun "подпись": "Ваша подпись является неправильной."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
For that out there to be adverb "неправильно" it should correspond with an action verb:
"Ваша подпись написана неправильно."
It similar to English rules:
The dog smells bad. - От собаки нехорошо пахнет - "smells" is a linking verb.
The dog smells badly. - Собака плохо чует носом. - "smells" is an action verb.
---------
The rule Вы/вы don't works for possesive ваше, вашу etc.
I always write вы - it not considered as a mistake when I studied in my shcool.
Perfect. Thinking about it this way helps a lot. So what I wrote originally was "Your signature is incorrectly." (Almost sounds metaphysical.) Whoops.Quote:
Originally Posted by deker
Thanks!
Another one, just in case.
Неправильна is a short form of the adjective неправильная.
Ваша подпись неправильна (неправильная).
Ваш ответ неправилен.
Ваше объяснение неправильно.
It might be easier if you switched to the past tense where the imaginary “есть” would turn into a quite real and gender dependable была, был, было, which would have to agree, as well as the following adjective in its short form with the subject of the sentence.
Ваша подпись была неправильна.
Ваш ответ был неправилен.
Ваше объяснение было неправильно.
So, what we have here is an adjective which modifies a noun.
Adverb modifies action, so to use our adverb we could have used :wink: some action first.
Подписываться так, как делаете это вы (action) - неправильно, глупо, нелепо, смешно и безумно. :)
As for the Вы versus вы, me thinks it's polite enough already to abstain from using ты in favor of вы.
This is a great idea. I think that's what I'll be doing (imagining it in the past tense before writing in the present) from now on, until I finally internalize it. You folks are all so helpful, I appreciate it! :good:Quote:
Originally Posted by alexB
Please tell me if does 1st sentence equal to 2nd one in a meaning?
I know him to be a good man. and I know he is a good man.
I want you to be happy. and I want you would be happy.
I saw him to write 'I was here' with felt pen on a wall. and I saw he had written (or was writting) 'I was here' with felt pen on a wall.
These two mean the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
The first is grammatically correct. The second is not. You could say "I would like you to be happy." Then the two sentences mean the same thing. (Я хочу... Я хотел бы...)Quote:
I want you to be happy. and I want you would be happy.
Let's first correct the grammar for these sentences:Quote:
I saw him to write 'I was here' with felt pen on a wall. and I saw he had written (or was writting) 'I was here' with felt pen on a wall.
"I saw him _ write 'I was here' with (a) felt tip pen on a wall."
"I saw (that) he had written 'I was here' with a felt tip pen on a wall."
"I saw (that) he was writing 'I was here' with a felt tip pen on a wall."
I'm not good at explaining tense differences, but I will try (and hopefully someone else can make it more clear). The first two are only slightly different, and the third is very different.
The first one (I saw him write): The action was completed, and you saw him do it. You saw him write on the wall and finish writing on the wall.
The second one (I saw that he had written): The action was finished when you saw the wall, but you might not have seen him do the action. You saw the message on the wall, but it is possible you only saw it after he had finished and gone away.
The third one (I saw that he was writing): you saw him in the process of doing it. The action was not finished when you saw him.
I hope that helps!
It is possible to say 'I hoped you would be happy'. (or 'I hoped that you would be happy.' ) There is something about the 'want' and 'would' that doesn't fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
Lynn, many thanks. You explained that really understandable!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
Then can I say 'I saw him to write 'I was here' with a felt pen on a wall' like this: 'I saw (that) he wrote 'I was here' with a felt pen on a wall'?
In this case, these two sentences will have the same meaning. Yes?
P.S.: Seraph, OK, thanks, I'll take into account!
Perfect. :good:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
"I saw that he wrote..." and "I saw that he had written..." are very similar in meaning. If I'm not mistaken:
"I saw that he wrote" = Simple Past
"I saw that he had written" = Past Perfect
Maybe this will help: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/verbtenseintro.html, or someone else can explain the difference better than I can?
Past perfect is used when you are talking about a certain time in the past and you mention something which took place even further past in relation to that point in time. Here's a graphic:
X --------o--------N
Time flows from left to right. "N" is now, the moment you are telling a story to someone. The events of your story take place at "o". "X" is any time before o.
If you say "I saw him write the words on the wall" or "I saw him writing the words on the wall" then the act of writing takes place at the time of "o". The former expression regards the activity as a complete whole, the latter as a process which may or may not have been observed in its entirety. But in both cases "he" performed the act of writing at "o".
If you say "I saw that he had written the words on the wall" the the act of writing took place at "X", while the act of noticing the writing took place at "o". The speaker came into the room, noticed the words on the wall and concluded that the other person must have written them prior to that moment. In this case the activity of writing is fully finished.
It is possible to say "I saw that he had been writing the words on the wall when I came in". In this case the speaker interrupts the act of writing by coming in, the writer stops the activity, which puts the actual writing at "X" further in the past, but the activity is not completed, the words not finished. The writer had been writing prior to the speaker coming in. This is in contrast to "was writing" which would mean that the writer continued his writing when the speaker came in. So in this case the grammatical form of the verb alone may transport the information whether the writer stopped writing or continued.
bitpicker, and in 'I saw him write the words on the wall' did I see the act of writing completely (from start to finish)?
Oldboy... just one thing that I saw no one had picked up on... the wording of your question...
This should be either..Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
Please tell me if [s:1wd916wn]does[/s:1wd916wn] the 1st sentence is equal to the 2nd one in [s:1wd916wn]a[/s:1wd916wn] meaning.
or
Please tell me [s:1wd916wn]if[/s:1wd916wn] does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in [s:1wd916wn]a[/s:1wd916wn] meaning?
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
OK, then I've understood, how I seem )Quote:
Originally Posted by bitpicker
Thanks!
rockzmom,Quote:
Originally Posted by rockzmom
and mustn't the 2nd way look like this: Please tell me "Does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in meaning?" (I mean with direct speech)?
oldboy... I am not understanding your thought process behind having the main part of your sentence or your request in quotes "Does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in meaning?"Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
You are not quoting someone who actually said this and then referencing their quote. i.e. Please tell me "Does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in meaning?," Jane inquired.
It would still just be one sentence... maybe add a comma after Please tell me,
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp
rockzmom,
sorry! I've been foolish :fool"
It's obviously that it's not necessary to use quotes here.
Why didn't I understand it immediately? :unknown:
Thanks, rockzmom, for your explanations and corrections.
I was a little confused by
>In the way
а потом понял, что это из-за проблемы различиния «путь» и «post»! =:^)
This is out of BBC new Bangladesh water may still be unsafe:
Does 'more research is needed on this' mean 'it's necessary to research this (=the problem above)' or anything else?Quote:
Ministers say that more research is needed on this and that people should not be alarmed.
affected = influence, touchQuote:
The water that these wells tapped was contaminated with arsenic, and millions were affected in what the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history'.
in = by
That is '...millions were affected in what...' = 'millions were influenced/touched by what'?
I can't understand sense of that part of the sentences.
Yes. It means it's necessary to research this (more).Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
The "what" (noun) you are looking for is "poisoning." The basic idea is:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
...millions were affected by the poisoning.
(You are correct about the meaning. It means millions were influenced/touched by the poisoning. Even simpler: millions were poisoned.)
The rest of the sentence describes the poisoning. You can think about it like a который clause:
...millions were affected in the poisoning, which the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history'.
(This means: The poisoning was so bad that the World Health Organization termed it (called it) "the greatest mass poisoning in history.")
So the original part ...in what the World Health Organisation termed... is just a way to tell us more about the "what" (noun = poisoning).
Does that help?
And how! Thank you, Lynn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
And is "in what" used only in passive constructions or it's possible to use it in active too?
For example, In letter I often use in what everybody calls 'smilies'.
Both passive and active are okay, but it's good that you asked. It made me realize that there's something I should have explained better. The construction is not "in what," it's just "what." The "in" was used because it is connected to the passive construction using "poisoning." ("in the poisoning")Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
So your active example should be:
In letters I often use what everybody calls 'smilies.'
So sometimes you don't need a preposition: She wrote what eventually became a famous novel. (She wrote a novel = no preposition.)
And sometimes you do need a preposition. I was bitten by what turned out to be a poisonous spider. (I was bitten by a spider = preposition.)
Again this reminds me of который. Sometimes you don't need a preposition and sometimes you do, depending on the sentence:
Мы говорили о студентах, которым мы помогали прошлым летом.
Мы говорили о его сестре, с которой мы познакомились в среду.
I'll start one after another...
Lynn,
As far as I understood in the sentence '...and millions were affected in what the World...' the preposition in connects with millions. Am I right?
Hm, I might not entirely understand your question, but in my mind there is no connection between "millions" and "in." (Remember, "in" = "by" here.) The "in" ("by") is attached to the explanation of what affected the millions (of people). To demonstrate this, imagine the sentence were shorter:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
...and millions were affected. (But we don't know what affected the million.)
You would NOT say ...and millions were affected in. You would be left wondering "in what?"
There is no need for "in" until you introduce what was affecting the millions:
...and millions were affected in the poisoning.
I hope this makes sense. I wish I could think of a better explanation. Maybe someone else can add to this. :sorry:
Lynn, ))) OK, then
...and millions were affected in the poisoning = ...and millions were affected by the poisoning?
Yup! Personally I would say "by," but the meaning of the sentence is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
And then it's possible to say 'and millions were affected by what the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history'. Yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
Correct!Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
hurray!!! :yahoo: :yahoo: :yahoo: I see, at last!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
Many thanks, Lynn.
The preposition in was confused me, because in our textbooks passive structure is only considered together the preposition by or with' that is come by agent.
For instance,
I wrote the letter - active structure
The letter was written by me - passive one
And there agent (what the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history) was introduced by the preposition in. It turn out that agent can be introduced by the preposition in.
I completely understand your confusion. It is strange now that I think about it. You can only substitute "in" for "by" in certain situations like this one (particularly events: Ten were killed in the terrorist attack). But for now, I think it's just important that you can recognize and understand this use of "in," but not necessary for you to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
And now for one last correction. :wink:
I'm not sure what you meant by "that is come by agent," but I think you might mean "that is decided by the agent." Or "that is connected with the agent." Maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
The letter was written by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
The letter was written with a pen.
The letter - is a patient; me and a pen - are agents
Under '...together with the preposition by or with that is come by the agent.' I meant that the agent (me or a pen) follows the preposition 'by' or 'with'.
i.e. '...together with the preposition by or with that is come by the agent.' had to look like '...together with the preposition by or with that is followed by the agent (me or a pen).'
It's probably I used the incorrect verb come... it was necessary follow.
Makes sense now!Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
Lynn,
and can the only the preposition in be used in the meaning (instead of) the one by?
(is it possible only the preposition in to use instead of the one by?)
I think you are asking: are there any other prepositions that can be used to mean "by" in this situation? Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
The simple answer: no.
The more complicated answer: I can think of one preposition that is similar to "by" but not 100% the same in meaning: during. Millions were affected during the storm. However, there is a small difference in meaning. By the storm implies that the people might still be affected after the storm (for example, their houses fell down). During the storm only means that they were affected while the storm was happening (for example, the electricity temporarily stopped working).
But from the more common prepositions, no, I can't think of any other that could replace "by" in that situation.
...It was so far that I thought that the preposition 'by' in '...and millions were affected in what the World...' designated the agent! :wacko:
So is the preposition 'in' in '...and millions were affected in what the World...' the preposition of the time? That is 'in' = во время/в течении?!
Have no fear! Your understanding was correct. By = In = designating the agent. During = во время.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldboy
Sorry, I shouldn't have made it more complicated. I only meant that "during" is the only other preposition that can be used there and still mean approximately the same thing.
Unless someone else wants to offer an opinion or better explanation? Explaining repositions is hard! :shock:
Well, thanks God! because I was going round the twist...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
But you are good at this!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynn
Will who be appeared in the film: Jack or Mary?Quote:
Jack paid Mary a million dollars to appear in the film.