Thread: My questions about English

Originally Posted by Russian

Lynn, it's easier than you might think. "Неправильно" - is an adverb, which answers the question как? = Do I do it correctly (Я делаю это правильно?). Нет, я делаю это (как?) неправильно.

(Ваша подпись) неправильна - is a short adjective of неправильная. (answers the question какая? - неправильная), just drop out -я. "Your signature is incorrect." ="Ваша подпись неправильна(-я)".

This does help. I think I need to be more sparing with my use of adverbs in general. Thank you!

Originally Posted by Lynn

I used "o" because I decided in that sentence the word was like an adverb. "By the way, your signature [is] not correct." Since the word was on the other side of an imaginary "is" I decided it was modifying the implied verb. Would I use "o" if подпись and неправильно were more obviously separated? Кстати, ваша "подпись" -- это неправельно. (versus "эта подоись -- неправильна.")

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."
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.

Originally Posted by deker

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.

Perfect. Thinking about it this way helps a lot. So what I wrote originally was "Your signature is incorrectly." (Almost sounds metaphysical.) Whoops.

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 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.

Originally Posted by alexB

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.

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!

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.

Originally Posted by oldboy

Please tell me if does 1st sentence equal to 2nd one in a meaning?
I know him to be a good man. and [i]I know he is a good man.

These two mean the same thing.

I want you to be happy. and I want you would be happy.

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...)

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.

Let's first correct the grammar for these sentences:
"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!

Originally Posted by oldboy

... I want you would be happy.

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.

Originally Posted by Lynn

...
I hope that helps!

Lynn, many thanks. You explained that really understandable!
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!

Originally Posted by oldboy

'I saw (that) he wrote 'I was here' with a felt pen on a wall'?

Perfect.

"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...

Originally Posted by oldboy

Please tell me if does 1st sentence equal to 2nd one in a meaning?

This should be either..

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?

Originally Posted by oldboy

bitpicker, and in 'I saw him write the words on the wall' did I see the act of writing completely (from start to finish)?

Indeed.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

Originally Posted by oldboy

bitpicker, and in 'I saw him write the words on the wall' did I see the act of writing completely (from start to finish)?

Indeed.

OK, then I've understood, how I seem )
Thanks!

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Please tell me if [s:1h7muxyk]does[/s:1h7muxyk] the 1st sentence is equal to the 2nd one in [s:1h7muxyk]a[/s:1h7muxyk] meaning.

or

Please tell me [s:1h7muxyk]if[/s:1h7muxyk] does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in [s:1h7muxyk]a[/s:1h7muxyk] meaning?

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)?

Originally Posted by oldboy

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Please tell me if [s:2qthou9y]does[/s:2qthou9y] the 1st sentence is equal to the 2nd one in [s:2qthou9y]a[/s:2qthou9y] meaning.

or

Please tell me [s:2qthou9y]if[/s:2qthou9y] does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in [s:2qthou9y]a[/s:2qthou9y] meaning?

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?"

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?
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:

Ministers say that more research is needed on this and that people should not be alarmed.

Does 'more research is needed on this' mean 'it's necessary to research this (=the problem above)' or anything else?

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'.

affected = influence, touch
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.