What's new

The human-like robot named Keiko was introduced in this hospital last year.

hirashin

Sempai
Donor
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
38
Dear native English speakers,
would you correct my sentences if needed?
① The human-like robot named Keiko was introduced in this hospital last year.

② The Beatles was very popular in the 1960s.

③ Every public puilding should be designed for anyone to use easily. (anyone = 誰でも)

④ If you read one of his books, you can see he has a unique way of thinking.

⑤ I'm going to go to bed earlier than usual so that I can get up at five tomorrow.

⑥ In this building, you can go from one floor to another without using the stairs.

⑦ In addition, the aisles are wide so that anyone can move easily.

⑧ Here you can find many kinds of products made by the idea of universal design.

⑨ This sign means that you can't smoke here.

⑩ In this city, people in wheelchairs can move anywhere with the least physical effort.

Thanks in advance.

Hirashin
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
476
① The human-like robot named Keiko was introduced in this hospital last year.
I would say "A human-like robot..."

⑧ Here you can find many kinds of products made by the idea of universal design.
This is ok but "made by the idea" sounds awkward. I might say "Here you can find many kinds of products made in accordance with universal design (ideas/tenets)."

⑩ In this city, people in wheelchairs can move anywhere with the least physical effort.
OK but somewhat unnatural because "least physical effort" takes three words to mean "easily."
In this city, people in wheelchairs can move anywhere easily.
 

hirashin

Sempai
Donor
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
38
Thanks for the help, mdchachi.
I would say "A human-like robot..."
OK, I'll change it.
This is ok but "made by the idea" sounds awkward. I might say "Here you can find many kinds of products made in accordance with universal design (ideas/tenets)."
Hmm... "in accordance with" is a little difficult for my students, I think. Is there another way to use "universal design"?

OK but somewhat unnatural because "least physical effort" takes three words to mean "easily."
In this city, people in wheelchairs can move anywhere easily.
OK.

I'd like to use "least". How about this?
I am the least experienced member of our basketball team.
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
476
Hmm... "in accordance with" is a little difficult for my students, I think. Is there another way to use "universal design"?
How about
Here you can find many kinds of products made with universal design techniques.
Here you can find many kinds of products made using universal design techniques.


I am the least experienced member of our basketball team.
Perfect.
 

joadbres

八方凡人
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
678
Reaction score
229
② should be "The Beatles were ..."
"was" sounds unnatural to me.
I believe that this is true in British English as well, although there are some differences between British English and American English regarding treating group names as singular or plural.

③ There is a typo: puilding -> building

For ⑧, @mdchachi 's most recent suggestions are fine. An even simpler version which, to me, is suitable for ESL is:

Here you can find many kinds of products made using universal design.
 

hirashin

Sempai
Donor
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
38
Thanks for the help, joadbres.
I had corrected the typo before you pointed it out.

I have two questions.
1. Are group names with plural -s usually treated as plural nouns?
2. About ①, "The human-like robot named Keiko was introduced in this hospital last year," can you replace "in" with "to" or "into"?
 
Last edited:

hirashin

Sempai
Donor
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
38
Is it that the original sentence with "in" is the most natural?  
 

WonkoTheSane

先輩
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,335
Reaction score
300
Is it that the original sentence with "in" is the most natural?  
I would never say I introduced a non-living thing to anything. For example, I wouldn't say I introduced a rock to a pond.

I'm vacillating on 'into' sometimes when I say it aloud it sounds better, sometimes worse. I suspect it's contextual as to when it would work.
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
476
I would never say I introduced a non-living thing to anything. For example, I wouldn't say I introduced a rock to a pond.
There are many, many examples of using introduce with non-living things. How about:
Today the teacher introduced the topic of differential equations.
I was first introduced to opera music at the age of 10.
Scientists introduced jellyfish genes into the genome of corn.
Contaminants were introduced into the water supply.
 

WonkoTheSane

先輩
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,335
Reaction score
300
There are many, many examples of using introduce with non-living things. How about:
Today the teacher introduced the topic of differential equations.
I was first introduced to opera music at the age of 10.
Scientists introduced jellyfish genes into the genome of corn.
Contaminants were introduced into the water supply.
I didn't say I wouldn't use the word introduce with non-living things, I specified between using the word introduce with 'to' 'into' and 'in', because that was the specific grammar point hirashin was asking me about. I did use the term 'anything' as part of that statement, though, which was lazy and wrong. I really meant non-living, physical objects, since that was what the question was about (a robot and a hospital).

Of your examples:
The first one is a non-physical thing, so it wasn't really what I meant, and presumably to a class (so living beings).
The second one is you being introduced (hopefully a living thing :emoji_wink:), and to a non-physical thing.
The third is quasi-living and not introducing to, but introducing into.
The fourth is introducing something into, not introducing something to.

All of your examples using 'to' at involve at least one living being. I certainly need to modify my original statement to say at least one living being (or group of living beings) has to be involved when 'introducing to', and the other thing can, at least, be a conceptual thing. I still can't imagine introducing my fried Bob to a rock or to another inanimate object, though.

Perhaps I'm wrong, can you give me some examples of talking about introducing non-living physical objects to other non-living physical objects?

e.g. I introduced the rock to the bed.
 

joadbres

八方凡人
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
678
Reaction score
229
Perhaps I'm wrong, can you give me some examples of talking about introducing non-living physical objects to other non-living physical objects?
The first industrial robots were introduced to the assembly line in 1962.

Velcro was first introduced to the mass market in the 1950s.

That year, a minimum wage of $2.80 was introduced to the garment industry.
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
476
I still can't imagine introducing my fried Bob to a rock or to another inanimate object, though.
Clearly you've never had a pet rock.
Perhaps I'm wrong, can you give me some examples of talking about introducing non-living physical objects to other non-living physical objects?
That's what I tried to do with the fourth one. It still works with "to."
Contaminants were introduced to the water supply.
Here's another (thanks to Google):
Alkylation is a petrochemical process in which an alkyl radical is introduced to another molecule.
 

WonkoTheSane

先輩
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,335
Reaction score
300
The first industrial robots were introduced to the assembly line in 1962.

Velcro was first introduced to the mass market in the 1950s.

That year, a minimum wage of $2.80 was introduced to the garment industry.
An assembly line, the mass market and the garment industry aren't non-living physical objects. They all have human components.

Clearly you've never had a pet rock.
I did, it ran away... :(

That's what I tried to do with the fourth one. It still works with "to."
Contaminants were introduced to the water supply.
Here's another (thanks to Google):
Alkylation is a petrochemical process in which an alkyl radical is introduced to another molecule.
The last one is the one that forces me to think differently. The last one is quite clearly two non-living physical objects being introduced to each other. Fair enough, in some contexts it works and I was wrong.
 

joadbres

八方凡人
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
678
Reaction score
229
An assembly line, the mass market and the garment industry aren't non-living physical objects. They all have human components.
Yeah, and so does a hospital, which is what kicked off your tortuous grammatical theorizing, you may recall.
 

WonkoTheSane

先輩
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,335
Reaction score
300
Yeah, and so does a hospital, which is what kicked off your tortuous grammatical theorizing, you may recall.
So my mistake excuses yours? You'll note that I already admitted I was wrong.

I'm not sure it's fair to call it tortuous when I was specifically replying in a thread where the OP asked about the exact grammar I was discussing from a native speaker's perspective about what sounded natural to them.
 

joadbres

八方凡人
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
678
Reaction score
229
So my mistake excuses yours?
What mistake?

I was simply following your guidelines:
I really meant non-living, physical objects, since that was what the question was about (a robot and a hospital).
can you give me some examples of talking about introducing non-living physical objects to other non-living physical objects?
when I suggested three sentences, all of which included objects roughly on par with "hospital".

But then you decided that these were not non-living, physical objects after all.

It's a little hard to satisfy your criteria when you continually change your definitions.
 

WonkoTheSane

先輩
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,335
Reaction score
300
What mistake?

I was simply following your guidelines:



when I suggested three sentences, all of which included objects roughly on par with "hospital".

But then you decided that these were not non-living, physical objects after all.

It's a little hard to satisfy your criteria when you continually change your definitions.
I didn't decide they were non-living physical objects, they aren't. You specifically ignored the criterion that you specifically quoted and attempted to respond to. I classify that as an error, perhaps you don't?

Or are you now trying to claim that the 'mass market' is a non-living physical object?
 
Last edited:

joadbres

八方凡人
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
678
Reaction score
229
Fine, 'mass market' is not a physical object. Nor is 'garment industry'. However, that was not the reason you initially put forth for dismissing them. You dismissed them because they 'have human components'. It was that dismissal that I was addressing in my subsequent comments, by comparing them to 'hospital', which, to me, is more or less equivalent in terms of its human aspect. That was the point I was making.

You can distract and deflect the issue by changing course and attacking the 'physical object' aspect of some of the words I used in my sentences, but that only gets you so far, as that approach doesn't work for 'assembly line', which clearly IS a physical object.
 

hirashin

Sempai
Donor
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,437
Reaction score
38
I'm afraid that I can't follow your discussion. I'd like to clarify this. Which preposition would sound natural in the blank in "The human-like robot named Keiko was introduced ___ this hospital last year"?
 

Michael2

後輩
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
199
Reaction score
17
I think the problem with your example, Hirashin, is that it is too specific, it is one particular robot, which is why it sounds unnatural.
The discussion above is about whether you can "introduce" something that is not living. Of course, you usually introduce yourself, a person, to another person. However there are lots of examples of things that are not living being introduced, like the examples above, and
  • The Russian leader wants to introduce further changes.
  • We need to introduce more stringent security measures such as identity cards.
  • New measures have been introduced to try and ease traffic congestion in the city.
  • The government introduced a law prohibiting tobacco advertisements on TV.
  • They've introduced a fast-track system for brighter pupils which will allow thousands to take their GCSE exams two years early.

    But, as per the definition, "bring (something, especially a product, measure, or concept) into use or operation for the first time.", these are generalised concepts, ideas or components, not specific, singular cases. "Robots were introduced onto the assembly line in 1971" sounds fine, but "The robot was introduced to the hospital" sounds very strange. It makes you imagine the robot shaking hands with the hospital, bowing and saying hajimemashite. That is why it is so hard to say which preposition sounds best.

    You could say instead "was first used in this hospital last year" or "has been used since last year".
 

mdchachi

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2003
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
476
2. About ①, "The human-like robot named Keiko was introduced in this hospital last year," can you replace "in" with "to" or "into"?
I'm afraid that I can't follow your discussion. I'd like to clarify this. Which preposition would sound natural in the blank in "The human-like robot named Keiko was introduced ___ this hospital last year"?
"in" is ok. "into" is ok. "to" is disputed. Michael2 thinks it doesn't work.
I think it's fine. If you google "introduced to this hospital" you'll see sentences where the subject are things like "QEL" (a door lock), "Pasteurization" (a process), "pneumoniae" (a bacteria). But it's less common phrasing.

"in" is the best choice.
 

Michael2

後輩
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
199
Reaction score
17
I wasn't referring to the individual prepositions, I was comparing the singular to the plural, and the consequent semantic change from a certain robot to a system.
When I googled it, something being introduced at a hospital was easily most common. That might be because I'm in the UK, and I agree that in would be most commensurate with that, but I still think the problem is that it is a specific, singular noun, as as it says in the definition it is usually products, systems or concepts that are introduced, in the sense of bringing something into use for the first time.
 
Last edited:

WonkoTheSane

先輩
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,335
Reaction score
300
Fine, 'mass market' is not a physical object. Nor is 'garment industry'. However, that was not the reason you initially put forth for dismissing them. You dismissed them because they 'have human components'. It was that dismissal that I was addressing in my subsequent comments, by comparing them to 'hospital', which, to me, is more or less equivalent in terms of its human aspect. That was the point I was making.

You can distract and deflect the issue by changing course and attacking the 'physical object' aspect of some of the words I used in my sentences, but that only gets you so far, as that approach doesn't work for 'assembly line', which clearly IS a physical object.
It's not attacking or deflecting when one asks for specific examples and the other person answers it by avoiding the criterion required. In fact, that sounds a lot more duplicitous.

But back to your claims, since you're dead set on defending your error.

So you're saying no assembly lines have human components?

How does an assembly line compare with the example I gave of a non-living physical object, a rock? Is it comparable or not? If not, how does it satisfy answering the question I asked without being pedantic to the point of absurdity?
 

joadbres

八方凡人
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
678
Reaction score
229
So you're saying no assembly lines have human components?

How does an assembly line compare with the example I gave of a non-living physical object, a rock?
There obviously is a major disconnect here.

I have never expressed any opinion about whether or not an assembly line has a human component. As I have already explained, I only came up with that example AFTER you defined 'hospital' as a non-living, physical object.

Here are your exact words:
I really meant non-living, physical objects, since that was what the question was about (a robot and a hospital).
And then, in that very same post, you presented the challenge:

can you give me some examples of talking about introducing non-living physical objects to other non-living physical objects?
But, then, when I came up with several examples, including one using 'assembly line', you challenged that on the grounds that it has a human component. Which was completely surprising to me, as I already explained, because I felt that 'hospital' roughly is on par with 'assembly line' in terms of having a human component.

Yes, you also offered a 'rock' and a 'bed' as examples in another sentence in that post, but that doesn't somehow negate the fact that you also cited 'robot' and 'hospital' as examples of non-living, physical objects.

So your claim that
one asks for specific examples and the other person answers it by avoiding the criterion required
is completely bogus, as I met your criterion, as you, yourself defined it, in the very same post in which you asked for examples.

I can't understand your line of reasoning over your last few posts, but if you are now suggesting that your inclusion of 'hospital' in your enumerated list of non-living, physical objects was a mistake on your part, then, it seems to me, this whole discussion has been rendered pointless (if it wasn't already).
 

WonkoTheSane

先輩
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,335
Reaction score
300
I can't understand your line of reasoning over your last few posts, but if you are now suggesting that your inclusion of 'hospital' in your enumerated list of non-living, physical objects was a mistake on your part, then, it seems to me, this whole discussion has been rendered pointless (if it wasn't already).
I pointed out that I made an error quite a bit ago, was that one of the several things I said that you seem to have misunderstood?

In fact, I said that in the exact same post where I said that your examples were not non-living physical objects. Then you doubled down on this ridiculous notion that an assembly line is analogous to a rock while oddly ignoring my entire train of discussion leading from my initial claim to my admission of error concerning it.

At this point all I can imagine is that you're so hung up on not wanting to admit your error that you're willing to maintain this claim that an assembly line has no living aspect and is analogous to a rock. Feel free to continue doing that.
 
Top