Learning English Sub-Forum

[TuskCracker]

-
This sub-Forum, seems to have little activity.

Is because everyone is getting ready for Christmas.

I tried to start something, however flawed; "American English Idioms/Slang/Colloquial_..... "

_.

 

[K-Young]

These two questions are from different grammer books for English learners.

1 Although jogging is a good way to lose weight and improve on
e's physical condition, most doctors recommend that the potential jogger begin in a correct manner by getting a complete checkup.

Which is wrong?
A:jogging
B:most
C:in a correct manner
D:getting

The answer is C. Why so and how should it be?

2. Tom thought that he ( ) succeed.

Which is right?
A. would surely
B. was sure to
C. was surely
D. would surely have

I don't know the anwer. I think A is right but B seems to be right. Give me the answer and why.

Would someone help me?

 

[TuskCracker]

-
This topic "Learning English", seems dead in the Jref forum.

Facebook and Myspace have "Groups" dedicated for people learning English.

_.

 

[Anatoli]

-
This topic "Learning English", seems dead in the Jref forum.
...

There's probably not enough advertising on Japanese sites to attract enough native Japanese speakers, not just in this part of the forum, I am afraid.

Besides, how would a Japanese person (wishing to learn the basics) navigate on this English language web site, if he or she doesn't know any English? Having bilingual topic titles is not enough, IMHO.

 

[Mars Man]

The work I had been doing for this section is way, WAY...over due. It will be here fairly soon, however, and perhaps will help boost this section a little. Historically, however, this section has always been a little weak--except for a period rather recently of a burst of what I would deem illicit usage. Please wait just a little longer. My apologies. MM

 

[TuskCracker]

Besides, how would a Japanese person (wishing to learn the basics) navigate on this English language web site, if he or she doesn't know any English? Having bilingual topic titles is not enough, IMHO.

Yeah your correct.

I am the language portal; www.Lang-8.com

This is dedicated to help someone learn a languge. Most, but not all, are Japanese or Koreans learning English.

I just help with English.
_.

 

[Anatoli]

TuskCracker,

Your site is not easy to use, I had problem registering, getting a new password, resetting the password, failed to login (the password, which was sent to me didn't work)... finally I gave up. Sorry

 

[Anatoli]

My apologies. MM

No worries, MM.

Good luck with your work.

 

[Kinsao]

These two questions are from different grammer books for English learners.

1 Although jogging is a good way to lose weight and improve on
e's physical condition, most doctors recommend that the potential jogger begin in a correct manner by getting a complete checkup.

Which is wrong?
A:jogging
B:most
C:in a correct manner
D:getting

The answer is C. Why so and how should it be?

2. Tom thought that he ( ) succeed.

Which is right?
A. would surely
B. was sure to
C. was surely
D. would surely have

I don't know the anwer. I think A is right but B seems to be right. Give me the answer and why.

Would someone help me?

I might be able to help here.

In question one, the correct answer is C - the phrase "in a correct manner" is wrong here. It should read, "in the correct manner".

I think that's the case because "the" correct manner means one specific correct manner (the "only" correct manner), whereas in "a" correct manner could mean there was more than one choice out of various correct ways of doing it. (Does that make sense?)

Question 2 is more difficult. B is certainly right, but as a native English speaker I might even use A - I think B is just the more formal correct way of saying it.

 

[K-Young]

Kinsao san

Thank you very much.

 

[Anatoli]

The Quick Language Chooser in this forum has 5 European languages available but no Japanese (a drop-down box at the bottom).

My favourite Chinese forum has changed it recently to add simplified Chinese:

http://www.chinese-forums.com/forums.php

 

[magevampjoe]

Question 2 is more difficult. B is certainly right, but as a native English speaker I might even use A - I think B is just the more formal correct way of saying it.

I would say that both are acceptable, A and B.

'was sure to' is correct, but so is 'would surely'.

However, tense is subtle here. I believe that 'was sure to' could be talking in past, eg
'Tom thought he was sure to succeed. However, he failed.'

and 'would surely' could be
'Tom thought he would surely succeed at the race tomorrow'.

By and large, I think the two are interchangeable, as it wouldn't sound incorrect to say 'Tom thought he would surely succeed. However, he failed'.

Regardless, I would say A is more likely to be correct, simply for the fact it sounds a little more formal.

Hope I helped.

 

[Mapleleafteacher]

I would say that both are acceptable, A and B.
'was sure to' is correct, but so is 'would surely'.
However, tense is subtle here. I believe that 'was sure to' could be talking in past, eg
'Tom thought he was sure to succeed. However, he failed.'
and 'would surely' could be
'Tom thought he would surely succeed at the race tomorrow'.
By and large, I think the two are interchangeable, as it wouldn't sound incorrect to say 'Tom thought he would surely succeed. However, he failed'.
Regardless, I would say A is more likely to be correct, simply for the fact it sounds a little more formal.
Hope I helped.

I think we are splitting hairs here (trying to differentiate two things that are actually the same). Both are in the past tense and both have the same meaning. Even the nuances contained within both phrases are pretty much the same. When it comes down to it, you can use either and the meaning is the same so therefore both are the same. Why make it any more difficult than that?

 

[TuskCracker]

The work I had been doing for this section is way, WAY...over due. It will be here fairly soon, however, and perhaps will help boost this section a little. Historically, however, this section has always been a little weak--except for a period rather recently of a burst of what I would deem illicit usage. Please wait just a little longer. My apologies. MM

What exactly are the goals ?

What type of work in this section. ?

How will this be approached ?

If "we hold are breath", will we die first before this happens ?


_.

 

[skj91]

Hmmm, I don't believe any of the above answers are right. I'd have to say that "was sure to" would not be correct.
Why? Well let's look at what is definately a grammatically correct usage of that sting of words:

"Tom was sure to succeed."​

It is a factual statement.
However, because the word "thought" is in the sentance, there is no way that what follows it could be factual, and thus the 'possibility' of 'what might be' (or 'what would be' as opposed to 'what was') must be used accordingly. Therefore the correct answer can only be:

"Tom thought that he would surely succeed."​

 

[skj91]

It's called the historical present tense or the historical future tense - basically you're speaking of past events but from the perspective of the speaker and what their state of mind was, prior to the event occuring. So you're jumping back in time into the head of the speaker and looking at what they perceived the future to be, at that time. This is why the indefinate future tense is used ("would is future tense of "is"). If it is the future, it is, as of yet, uncertain. The past tense of "is" is "was" and is a definate existance. Whether Tom actually was or was not successful is irrelevant. The speaker is imparting what they thought Tom would be, at some point in time, prior to "right now".

 

[Chidoriashi]

Skj91, I would say you are right. So on a test, which this probably is from, I suppose it matters. But realistically, I think less than 5% of native speakers would notice anything wrong with answer B in a spoken context, or even written for that matter. The fact is both sound perfectly fine to my ears, and that is what matters. As time passes native speakers are the ones who define, change and dictate the language, not stagnant grammar text books.

 

[Putrefaction]

This is bad when you are a native English speaker and you get it wrong...

 

[grapefruit]

It's the same in any languages. In spoken communication, it's hard to notice small mistakes. For instance, it's hard to detect particle errors in conversation with non-native speakers of Japanese, but the same mistake would instantly be detected in writing. Even in conversation with native speakers, errors in honorific language use, causative/causative passive conjugation, etc. are frequent and not noticed.

 

[skj91]

This is bad when you are a native English speaker and you get it wrong...

English is one of (if not the) most complex languages there is (greatly due to it's irradic and unstructered nature which comes from being a sort-of compilation of several other languages and some new stuff of its own on top of it.) There are many aspects of the details of grammar which the mass majority of English speaking people aren't cognitive of on a regular basis. Idiosynchracies and rationalization of aspects of such a vast pool originating sources is something only Linguists care to learn thoroughly. But like Chidoriashi pointed out it is something that only matters on a test, for all intents and purposes and in everday real life speech, there's no need to analyze it so deeply and so no one does. People know what you mean when you say something even remotely close to what you mean to say and it's normal, in English, to take someone's words, translate them in your head to what the person is probably intending to say, and disregard any grammatical specifics they may have gotten wrong. There really aren't many cases where incorrect grammer can actually change the meaning of the entire sentance to the point where it is unintelligible. Incorrect vocabulary can do this but incorrect grammer is nothing more than merely awkward sounding. That is because of our inherent tendancy to "fix" the sentance in our head and move on with it. Not worrying about the little details. The intended meaning can still be conveyed to a level that is "close enough" for people to understand you.
Anyway, the that fact native speakers don't recognize immediately such a minute specific difference in grammer and the technical significance of the difference between them is not at all surprising, and really not indicative of a lack of knowledge or anything of that nature. I'd have to say the majority, Like Chidoriashi also said, don't take the two sentances of that example as having any difference in meaning.
The only reason I could answer with a detailed explanation is because my mother has her bacheleor's in English and teaches grammar. She has, for all of my life, been pounding proper use of grammar into my head.

 

[grapefruit]

The only reason I could answer with a detailed explanation is because my mother has her bacheleor's in English and teaches grammar. She has, for all of my life, been pounding proper use of grammar into my head.

Yes, language education is all about politics.

 

[Mycernius]

The only reason I could answer with a detailed explanation is because my mother has her bacheleor's in English and teaches grammar. She has, for all of my life, been pounding proper use of grammar into my head.

Then I wouldn't show her your post. I count at least four mistakes just looking through it, and I am not being picky. They are just ones that stood out to me.

 

[Glenn]

English is one of (if not the) most complex languages there is...

I think you'd have a hard time finding a linguist who would agree.

 

[grapefruit]

I think you'd have a hard time finding a linguist who would agree.

I agree. It sounded like if a native speaker cannot explain the grammar of the language, then the language qualifies as a complex language. Native speakers normally lack explicit knowledge on the grammar of his language.

 

[Glenn]

I believe the official view of linguists is "all languages are equally complex."

By the definition you gave all languages are complex. Only people who have studied language and their own language have explicit knowledge of the grammar.