Please help me to read this English sentence:

[JamboP26]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Could someone help me out?


“I’d call on her in the morning, and she would look at the calendar.”

I think “I’d” is “I would”. Is that right?
And it means like “When I call on her (in the morning), she looks at the calendar”, right?
If so, why the writer didn’t write “she’d” instead of “she would”?
Is there a rule that you can’t use “ ‘d” two times in a sentence?
If I write “I’d call on her in the morning, and she’d look at the calendar”, is it odd?


Thank you.

Hi Yuri,

I'd say it is acceptable to use 'd multiple times in a sentence, although no way is wrong (either 'I'd', 'She'd' etc. or the full 'I would', She would'... Either is correct). Writing it in full seems for formal, whereas the abbreviated form is more the sort of style you'd use for people of the same standing.......although most young people use it now because it's quicker. lol

Hope this helps you, but if not, reply back & I'll try to explain better

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by JamboP26

Hi Yuri,



Hope this helps you, but if not, reply back & I'll try to explain better

Hi, JamboP26.

Understood. Thank you!

[Columbine]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

If so, why the writer didn’t write “she’d” instead of “she would”?
Is there a rule that you can’t use “ ‘d” two times in a sentence?
If I write “I’d call on her in the morning, and she’d look at the calendar”, is it odd?


Thank you.

Yup, as Jambo said, either 'she'd' or 'she would' is fine. It's just the writer's choice; perhaps just to make the pace more interesting, vary the sentence or emphasis that the girl really would look at the calendar. I doubt the writer even thought about it.

The only time you shouldn't use " 'd/'t " is when you're writing a formal report or essay. Generally would is avoided. Putting the contraction on the end of some pronouns, eg object pronoun 'thing', or pronouns like 'the company' is technically incorrect for written english but you may hear things like,
"If they had the money for it, the thing'd be enormous," or "the company'd pay for it" in casual spoken english. "that'd" and "this'd" are correct, but very noticeably informal compared to 'that would' and 'this would'.

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by Columbine

Yup, as Jambo said, either 'she'd' or 'she would' is fine. It's just the writer's choice; perhaps just to make the pace more interesting, vary the sentence or emphasis that the girl really would look at the calendar. I doubt the writer even thought about it.

The only time you shouldn't use " 'd/'t " is when you're writing a formal report or essay. Generally would is avoided. Putting the contraction on the end of some pronouns, eg object pronoun 'thing', or pronouns like 'the company' is technically incorrect for written english but you may hear things like,
"If they had the money for it, the thing'd be enormous," or "the company'd pay for it" in casual spoken english. "that'd" and "this'd" are correct, but very noticeably informal compared to 'that would' and 'this would'.

Hi, Columbine.
What does “eg” mean? English?

[Koir]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Hi, Columbine.
What does “eg” mean? English?

I believe it's originally Latin (what the words are, I haven't checked), but most of the time in English it means "for example" and is placed before a concept that is meant to add more understanding to the sentence's concept.

[YuriTokoro]

Originally Posted by Koir

I believe it's originally Latin (what the words are, I haven't checked), but most of the time in English it means "for example" and is placed before a concept that is meant to add more understanding to the sentence's concept.

Ohhhh... I didn't know that.
I've been thinking it may be "English"...

Koir, thanks.

[YuriTokoro]

Hi.
Could someone correct my English?


"Gaijin"

Wikipedia says that Gaijin (外人[ɡaidʑiɴ]) is a Japanese word meaning "non-Japanese", or "alien".
I have heard foreign people hate being called “gaijin”. Is that right?
I went on a trip in Japan with an American friend a few years ago. When we took a taxi, I was talking to the driver in Japanese and I said the word “gaijin” in the conversation.
My friend wasn’t able to understand Japanese. She had started studying Japanese, but she didn’t even know what to say “mother” or “father”.
However, she seemed to catch the word “gaijin”, and got upset.
Most Japanese people believe that “gaijin” means “people from foreign countries”. We don’t have any further means. We can say “gaikokujin（外国人）” and “gaikoku kara irasshatta kata（外国からいらっしゃった方”, but the first one sounds too formal and the second one is too long to say.
Since I didn’t know my friend didn’t like to be called “gaijin”, that I was shocked to know she was angry.
I believe the definitions in Wiki are a bit wrong. The Japanese people don’t have any bad shades of meanings with the word.
I’d like to know why and how the word has become known with bad meanings or impressions.
If you know any reasons, let me know, please.
And, what should I say instead of gaijin???

Thank you.

[ColinHowell]

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Ohhhh... I didn't know that.
I've been thinking it may be "English"...

Koir, thanks.

To expand Koir's explanation, "e.g." is of Latin origin, but it has become a standard part of educated English usage. As Koir said, it means "for example", and it is followed by one or more examples of the thing being discussed. By the way, it is properly written as "e.g.", with periods after the letters, though it seems some people omit the periods these days.

It stands for Latin "exempli gratia", but almost no one who uses it knows that. (I certainly didn't--I looked it up.)

Wiktionary entry for "e.g."

Unfortunately, it's fairly common for English speakers to get "e.g." confused with "i.e.", which has a different meaning. "i.e." means "that is" and stands for Latin "id est". (Again, few users remember the original Latin.) "i.e." is usually used before a further clarification or elaboration of what is being discussed, rather than a listing of specific examples.

Wiktionary entry for "i.e."

[ColinHowell]

I don't want to get in the way of the regulars, who are probably working on their proposed corrections as I speak. I just want to make a couple of comments.

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

Wikipedia says that Gaijin (外人[ɡaidʑiɴ]) is a Japanese word meaning "non-Japanese", or "alien".

You should probably remove the "[ɡaidʑiɴ]" bit. That's just the pronunciation as written in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). It's pretty normal for English Wikipedia pages to include IPA pronunciations for foreign words or names, but outside of Wikipedia it will probably look like confusing gibberish to most readers.

Originally Posted by YuriTokoro

I believe the definitions in Wiki are a bit wrong. The Japanese people don’t have any bad shades of meanings with the word.

Well, that question seems to be a political minefield, which is one reason the article is practically drowning in citations. If you look at the article's Discussion page, you'll find the writers apparently had a hell of a time agreeing on what to say--the discussion has nine archive sections! This is the sort of article that can become a real battlefield.

Personally, I think the word may have had some bad connotations among foreigners in the past, but that may be changing; these days a lot of visitors to Japan or foreign residents in Japan seem happy to use it for themselves.

[dogsbody70]

Originally Posted by Koir

I believe it's originally Latin (what the words are, I haven't checked), but most of the time in English it means "for example" and is placed before a concept that is meant to add more understanding to the sentence's concept.

according to our Harraps English Usage---E.G. is the abbreviation of------

exempli gratia (For Example). It should not be confused with i.e.(id est) (that is).

" We May have a choice of transport, e.g. bus, train or taxi."

"The key to the country's progress is the development of an infrastructure,

i.e. A network of good roads and railways."