Picture descriptions

Supperman · (#1 (**permalink**))

Hi.

I would like to describe a photo each day, for my English exercise.
The pictures are originally for the TOEIC examination, but I don't intend to take it, nor it is not my homework.

I just want to improve my English (vocabulary, idioms, grammar, how to describe etc.) Any suggestion is appreciated. Is it possible to correct the errors or weird parts of my English?

You may completely re-write my contents.
And feel free to write YOUR description instead.
Any discussion will be appreciated.

Thank you.

edit) I would like to write a note about what I was taught in green letter.
/////////////////////////
OK, my first picture is here.
http://www.english-test.net/images/toeic/192.jpg
of
On the lake / TOEIC

edit)
Titles of the photos
No.1 On the lake
No.2 Canoeing
No.3 The park
No.4 Waste disposal
No.5 Fishing in the city
No.6 Packing the meat
No.7 Downhill skiing
No.8 At the lathe
No.9 A small girl with a basket (Easter?)
No.10. A friendly greeting
No.11 A stroll in the street
No.12 At the optician's
No.13 The large vertical snow walls
No.14 Cafe above the clouds
No.15 Okinawa beach
No.16 A lesson on computing
No.17 A computer class
No.18 In the classroom
No.19 An Asian puppet show

Supperman · (#2 (**permalink**))

http://www.english-test.net/images/toeic/192.jpg No.1

This is a picture of a woman on a lake.
At the center of the picture, there is a woman on her yellow top sitting on a wooden platform on a lake. I don't know the real name of the platform in English. It may be a "port" or "seaport" or "lake-port", though I don't know there is such an English word.

The most impressive thing is that there is a bridge between the camera and her.
Probably it might be a bridge. A peculiar bridge. There are five native-logs, laying from the camera toward her. They are very native and raw. Not completely straight, nor I wonder if they are not even attached to the base.
I can't see any ropes or nails to attach them. If it is true, it must be a very dangerous bridge.

She is sitting toward the opposite direction, so I can see only her back. I can't decide what she's doing. Maybe she is fishing, but I'm not sure, because I don't see any fishing rod, or a cooler-box. She's wearing a casual wear, at least not the uniform of sport-fishing clothes.
She may be reading a book, or just meditating, or preparing to commit suicide.
I commented about her suicide, because the impression of this picture is very dark. It is as though taken by Tim Burton, who is the director of "Twin peaks", "Scissor hands", "Badman" etc.
It is dark, yet, it is daytime. There is no doubt about it. The sun is probably shining from the left side of the picture, because the left edge of her head is shining. We can see the reflection of the background mountains on the lake, clearly enough, so it must not be so cloudy, yet, it is not bright enough to get sunny-impression.

There is no wind, and the surface of the lake is calm. It is mossy lake. And I don't think this is a famous/sight-seeing-spot lake.

Thinking about this photo, I've gradually become confused. What is the aim of this picture?
Why she is not looking toward the camera? Who is the photographer?

What do you think?

JohnBraden · (#3 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supperman

http://www.english-test.net/images/toeic/192.jpg

This is a picture of a woman on a lake.
At the center of the picture, there is a woman on her yellow top sitting on a wooden platform on a lake. I don't know the real name of the platform in English. It may be a "port" or "seaport" or "lake-port", though I don't know there is such an English word.

The most impressive thing is that there is a bridge between the camera and her.
Probably it might be a bridge. A peculiar bridge. There are five native-logs, laying from the camera toward her. They are very native and raw. Not completely straight, nor I wonder if they are not even attached to the base.
I can't see any ropes or nails to attach them. If it is true, it must be a very dangerous bridge.

She is sitting toward the opposite direction, so I can see only her back. I can't decide what she's doing. Maybe she is fishing, but I'm not sure, because I don't see any fishing rod, or a cooler-box. She's wearing a casual wear, at least not the uniform of sport-fishing clothes.
She may be reading a book, or just meditating, or preparing to commit suicide.
I commented about her suicide, because the impression of this picture is very dark. It is as though taken by Tim Burton, who is the director of "Twin peaks", "Scissor hands", "Badman" etc.
It is dark, yet, it is daytime. There is no doubt about it. The sun is probably shining from the left side of the picture, because the left edge of her head is shining. We can see the reflection of the background mountains on the lake, clearly enough, so it must not be so cloudy, yet, it is not bright enough to get sunny-impression.

There is no wind, and the surface of the lake is calm. It is mossy lake. And I don't think this is a famous/sight-seeing-spot lake.

Thinking about this photo, I've gradually become confused. What is the aim of this picture?
Why she is not looking toward the camera? Who is the photographer?

What do you think?

I would say that She is sitting, facing the opposite direction.

More to come as I see it....

Quote:

At the center of the picture, there is a woman on her yellow top sitting on a wooden platform on a lake.

At the center of the photo, there is a woman in a yellow top sitting on a wooden pier on the lake.

Quote:

I don't know the real name of the platform in English. It may be a "port" or "seaport" or "lake-port", though I don't know there is such an English word.

She is sitting on a pier.

Supperman, how much would you like us to correct? Do you want us to just correct the grammar or also the content? What I mean to say is, while most of the sentences are correct to some degree, what you want to say can be expressed in fewer but more concise sentences. Heaven knows I'm not an English grammar major, but I can re-write most of your sentences to make them at least sound more fluid. I don't want you to think I'm being mean. It's great you're trying this for your own education. And if I were to know Japanese half as well as you know English, I'd be much happier!

Supperman · (#4 (**permalink**))

Thank you very much, JohnBraden, for your prompt reply and corrections.

I got it.
I understand what were wrong. And I will remember the term "pier".
Thanks again.

a woman on her yellow top (wrong)
a woman in a yellow top (correct)

She is sitting toward the opposite direction. (wrong)
She is sitting, facing the opposite direction. (correct)

The platform is called "a pier", not "a seaport" or "a lake-port".

Supperman · (#5 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBraden

Supperman, how much would you like us to correct? Do you want us to just correct the grammar or also the content? What I mean to say is, while most of the sentences are correct to some degree, what you want to say can be expressed in fewer but more concise sentences. Heaven knows I'm not an English grammar major, but I can re-write most of your sentences to make them at least sound more fluid. I don't want you to think I'm being mean. It's great you're trying this for your own education. And if I were to know Japanese half as well as you know English, I'd be much happier!

Hi.
Thank you for your concern.
How much would I like you to correct?
Thoroughly!
The more you correct, the more I would thank you.

But I know that a proofreading takes a lot of time, and much effort,
and basically, it should be payed with a certain amount of money.

As this is a forum of volunteers and free of charge, please correct me, as far as you like to do it.
Thank you in advance.

dogsbody70 · (#6 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supperman

Thank you very much, JohnBraden, for your prompt reply and corrections.

I got it.
I understand what were wrong. And I will remember the term "pier".
Thanks again.

(I understand what WAS wrong). It looks like a very makeshift contraption-- constructed from logs to enable access to the lake. The woman looks extremely calm. Maybe gazing at her own reflection in the water.

Supperman · (#7 (**permalink**))

Thanks, dogsbody70.

My errors were plural, so I think "I understand what were wrong" is correct, grammatically. But if so, "I got it" is wrong too. It should be "I got them."
Thank you for your correction.

Besides, I've learned a brand-new word; "a makeshift contraption". Thank you.

You feel that the woman looks extremely calm and happy (at least not unhappy), right?
I feel that the woman looks calm and unhappy.
Maybe gazing at her own reflection in the water and thinking about how to commit suicide....

How-you-feel and how-I-feel are different somehow....
Maybe it is the reflection of my mental status.

(It is a joke. I'm an extremely happy man, because of this forum!)

dogsbody70 · (#8 (**permalink**))

you might say: WE were wrong, but I was wrong.

Where were you last night. I was with my friend.

Maybe: I was mistaken.

You think your own thoughts about that picture. Your interpretation seems rather Dark.

We have an expression for things that are made in a rather haphazard manner. Heath Robinson.

Here is an item about Heath Robinson:

W. Heath Robinson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fire balloon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dogsbody70 · (#9 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supperman

Thanks, dogsbody70.

My errors were plural, so I think "I understand what were wrong" is correct, grammatically. But if so, "I got it" is wrong too. It should be "I got them."
Thank you for your correction.

NO. you would never say" I were wrong." Always WAS. He was wrong, she was wrong, we were wrong or mistaken. They were both wrong.

I AM wrong, I am right. by the way: I've got it-- I think you mean rather than I got it. I have got it-- I understand.

Supperman · (#10 (**permalink**))

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

NO. you would never say" I were wrong." Always WAS. He was wrong, she was wrong, we were wrong or mistaken. They were both wrong.

I AM wrong, I am right. by the way: I've got it-- I think you mean rather than I got it. I have got it-- I understand.

OK. Thank you for your correction. Yet, your point is a little different from mine, so I would like to make certain.

Reading the post #3, I know there are (at least) two errors in my English.
One; "She is sitting toward the opposite direction" was a wrong sentence.
"She is sitting, facing the opposite direction" was correct.
"She is sitting toward the opposite direction" was wrong.
Two; "She is sitting on a platform" was wrong.
"She is sitting on a pier" was correct.

So there were two things which were wrong.
I know that.
So I understand what were wrong (in my original sentences).

Maybe it is syntax error.
I wanted to say that the two sentences were wrong, instead of "I was wrong".
Should the subject of "XXX is wrong" be a human like "I, you, he, she"?

///////////
"I was wrong" I know this is a correct sentence.
"I were wrong" I know this is a wrong sentence.
"If I were wrong, I would do harakiri/seppuku." I know this is a correct sentence, because it is subjunctive.

I got it. (wrong)
I've got it. (right)
I've got it now, thanks. (Much better)
Got it! is the abbreviation of I've got it.