|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-22-2009, 12:20 AM
Quote:
 There are only a few things you should probably change. However, he himself has gotten a cancer, and he doesn’t seem to like letting someone do it, or he doesn’t have energy to arrange to commission. "he himself has gotten a cancer" Watch it with forms of "to get" because that verb is really flexible. This wouldn't be a good place to use it. It would be better if this clause was "However, he himself has cancer," "seem like letting someone do it" Just add "else" after "someone" because it flows better. Just having "seem like letting someone do it" doesn't really sound specific, so adding "else" will make sure to whoever you are talking to that he meant another person entirely. "doesn't have energy" Adding "enough" before "energy" helps the flow of the clause in this case like "else" in the one before. If you say "he doesn't have energy", then you are just telling us that he can't even get out of bad. Saying "he doesn't have enough energy" tells us that he just isn't able to perform the task. If he were fine, he could work with some authors and continue the story. It’s really too bad. "he were" You used the plural form of the past form of "to be", so it would be better to use the singular form "was" instead. "he could work" You are telling us what happens when he is able to work, so it should be "he would work" instead of "he could work." By the looks of it, you aren't telling us of his capability, but the fact that he is able to perform a task. Lastly, don't be afraid to use all of those contractions!  
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-23-2009, 05:52 AM
Quote:
 He doesn't seem to like letting someone else do it. He doesn't have enough evergy to perform the task. If he was fine, he would work.I will remind to follow your advice. Thanks again! If you have questions about my post or Japanese customs, don't hesitate to ask. I  YamaP 
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-23-2009, 07:03 AM
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-27-2009, 08:53 PM
Quote:
I just put that in all caps and bold so you would see it. You created a conditional ("If he were fine"), so you are supposed to use the subjunctive mood of "to be," not the indicative mood. The subjunctive is "were" always, no matter the plurality of the subject. If I were a rich man, I would buy a car. If I were tall, I would play basketball. These two are correct. If I was a rich man <-- sounds weird and wrong to an educated speaker Lately, uneducated people have confused the was/were in English when using the subjunctive mood. It is sort of like how in Japanese young people write like this: 私わ学生だ。
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-27-2009, 09:08 PM
Quote:
I know the response wasn't to anything I wrote, I just wanted to restate the concepts in the way I think of them. Unfortunately for you, she is not here. "Ride for ruin, and the world ended!"
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-28-2009, 01:14 AM
Hi, KyleGoetz, Koir. Thank you.
‘The subjunctive is "were" always, no matter the plurality of the subject.’ Now, I see. I was not sure that because some textbooks said “was”, and some other books said “were”. KyleGoets, the sentence you wrote above is very clear, understandable and helpful. Koir, you voted that you agreed with KyleGoets, so I’m convinced that he is right. Thanks again. If you have questions about my post or Japanese customs, don't hesitate to ask. I YamaP
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-28-2009, 03:23 AM
Quote:
Another mistake native speakers make often is they mix up "that" and "which." My non-native speaker fiancee actually learned the rule in high school when she was studying English as a second language, but I (a native speaker) didn't learn the rule until law school!
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-30-2009, 12:47 PM
Quote:
I see, that was a southern slang. OK! But I don't understand "My grandma actually achieves triple negatives all the time." What that means? Tell me in easy English, please. If you have questions about my post or Japanese customs, don't hesitate to ask. I YamaP
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-30-2009, 02:21 PM
Quote:
"I ain't never did none of that." The main idea of the statement is she (the grandmother) has not performed some action that forms the context of the conversation taking place at that time. Except with three sets of negative (or meaning-reversing) terms, the meaning is completely opposite. Simplified, it means: "I have done that." Her statement, contains three elements that explain her concept incorrectly multiple times. "ain't" -- a slang contraction of "have not" (in this context), which is used by the speaker to indicate the absence of something (action, item, or state of being) "never" -- a word that indicates an action or state of being has not occured at any time in the past "none" -- a numbering word that indicates the absence of items or states of being discussed in the present context In the statement, "ain't" is modifying "never", which is incorrect English. The term used for such incorrect grammar is "double negative", or using two modifying words or phrases that reverse the meaning of a statement to its opposite in such a way that they cancel each other out. In short, it means "have not never", or the action being discussed *has* occurred. The triple negative of the statement is "none", which in this sentence is modified by the phrase "of that". It again refers back to the verb of the sentence "done", modified by the double negative "ain't never". In essence, the person's grandmother has said she has done some action in the past. Her meaning is completely the opposite (that she has *not* done some action in the past), but she is using negative words and contractions to communicate the concept more forcefully. Unfortunately for you, she is not here. "Ride for ruin, and the world ended!"
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
