| Yong 的个人资料English for Chinese日志网络 |  工具  帮助 |
|
|
6月20日 English study > 大家对我进一步学英语有什么好建议！ There's no trick in studying a foreign language. The basic skill in it is almost linearly proportional to how much time you use the language (use = read, write, listen, etc.), except for accurate pronunciation, which some people have innate capability to do better than others. (The advanced skill, literary writing for instance, is like pronunciation; it needs genius, and so does not linearly improve with study time.) 3月28日 "..., won't you"> You'll go to the picnic, won't you! Yes : not to ; No: go > ....., 不是吗？ 是的，我不去； 不，我去。 [/quote] A: "You'll go to the picnic, won't you?" B: "Yes, I will." You can't say "Yes, I won't". That's a common mistake some Chinese make, because the Chinese language allows you to have one positive and one negative part in the answering sentence. 3月26日 推荐几本工具书 > 不会的单词总是用翻译软件查询，虽然快捷，但是学不到用法，不能学到延伸的知识，大家平时用工具 > 书么？书店里英文工具书很多，大家能不能推荐一本或者几本，这里谢过了 Dictionary.com m-w.com There're all kinds of tricks in using Google. Some are not that obvious. 推荐几本工具书 Google Dictionary.com m-w.com There're all kinds of tricks in using Google. Some are not that obvious. 3月19日 Wrong sentence: "How to speak these in English?" > How to speak these in English? That's a gramatically wrong question very commonly asked by the Chinese studying English. Do not say "How to say...?" or "How to speak...?" as a whole sentence. Say "How should I say...?" instead, or "Can anybody tell me how to say...?" 3月18日 为什么单词都会，却无法组成句子？>> 为什么别人说的一句英文中的单词自己明明都知道，可是让我看着中文翻译英文， Grammar is absolutely important. But humans are not machines or computers. To learn a human language, a human student needs more practice than studying grammar. In contrast, for a computer to study a human language, *it* only needs grammar rules. 3月9日 Re: 诚求英语单词速记法 > 小弟在学校过程当中感觉那英语单词实在难记，记前忘后现象很明显，小弟特在此 > 请教各位高手达人教小弟几招好使的方法，一解脱小弟困惑，不胜感谢！ http://yong321.freeshell.org/misc/LearnChinese.html Read the "怎样记字最快？" section. I wrote that about learning Chinese. But the ideas apply to learning any foreign language. 3月8日 Old style English > > > > > > "Often times they consider our way of business practice rather aggressive and we consider their process > > > > > > of decision-making time-consuming." > > > > > > often times是个短语吗?在句中做状语? > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid the authour is guilty of committing a common error in spelling oftentimes as two words. > > > > > > > > > > of·ten·times adv. Frequently; repeatedly > > > > > > > > > > tx > > > > > > > > "often times" has > 4 million hits on Google search. "oftentimes" has < 3 million. In fact, I didn't > > > > even know the one single word "oftentimes" till I saw tx's posting. Well, maybe I saw that before > > > > but I forgot. > > > > > > > > Yong Huang > > > > > > I try my best to stick to dictionary spellings. I am painfully aware that, the the years, I've > > > become more and more a liguistic purist when it comes to my own writing, for one quickly learns that, > > > in an adopted scociety, one has to be better than better just to be good. However, I am definitely > > > not a defender of linguistic purisms, for, as you've so aptly pointed out, a living language is > > > defined by its usages after all. > > > > > > tx > > > > Thanks, tx. You sound like a 19th century British gentleman! > > > > Yong Huang > > Ha ha! Oftentimes I feel older, much older. :) > > tx That was extracted from http://bbs.wwenglish.net/dispbbs.asp?boardID=99&ID=288709&page=1 a forum I often go to. tx is a frequent poster, probably a senior English teacher. Sometimes I find his English interesting because it reminds me of the language you read in last century, actually, last before last century, English books. One of the most salient features of this old style may be the usage of "for" to mean "because" or "since". Nowadays you rarely see that in English, except in poems. People say "because" or "since" now, or "in that" sometimes in writing. 2月23日 "will be leaving school" vs "will leave school"> It's only a few months until he will be leaving school for college.这个句子来自ADVANCED GRAMMAR IN USE (2005 edition), unit 11（练习3）。我有两个疑问： > 1。应该能够用before取代until吧？ > 2. 为什么until时间状语从句中用将来进行时？还有别的时态可用吗？ 2月20日 曾经 is ever, or not? >> 在我去美国之以前，我曾经去过英国 > before I came to USA, I'd ever been to England Many Chinese use the word "ever" to mean "曾经", and most of the time it's very wrong!! "Ever" is about equivalent to "曾经" only if it's used in a question (or sometimes in a negative sentence), as in "Have you ever been there?". In a non-question positive sentence, "ever" simply means "always" or "all the time", and it's not commonly used alone, i.e. not in a compound word like "ever-lasting" or a phrase like "ever since". Here's one example from dictionary.com: "He is ever ready to find fault". It sounds old-fashioned and maybe too literary. The above Chinese sentence can be translated as "Before I went to the U.S., I went to the U.K." 2月18日 "in [with] regard to" ,"regarding","concerning", "about"> Can i use them as a sentences like the followings? > 1) I have set bunch of ideas as regard the problem. > 2) With regard to the problem,i have set bunch of ideas. > 3) I have set bunch of ideas with regard to the problem . > 4) In respect to the problem, i have set bunch of ideas. > Are those sentences correct? There's no difference between these words or phrase ("in regard to" ,"regarding","concerning", "about", and "with regard to"). But it sounds weird when you mix formal words ("with [or in] regard to") with informal words such as "bunch of". And obviously whoever uses formal words should never write "i" when he means "I". Many Chinese and Indians have this horrible yet easily correctable mistake in not using capital letters when they should. I don't think you can say "bunch of" not following "a"; "a bunch of" is correct but "bunch of" is probably not. "As regards" is heard. I'm not sure if anybody says "as regard". 请问possibility和probability有什么区别Here's a good example to show the difference: Person to relocate: How safe is it to live in Houston? I mean, is it possible you could be killed late at night on the street? Relocation agent: Oh, it's always possible for anybody to be killed at any time in a big city. But it's not likely or probable. Come on, man, you don't want to decide not to move here just because a Hispanic guy killed a Chinese a few days ago. 2月14日 Chinese address translation > "辽宁省沈阳市大东区北洮昌街36-1号4-4-2" 编写成 "4-4-2 NO.36-1,beitaochang street,shenyangshi,liaoning"? Either "4-4-2 NO.36-1" or "Room 4-4-2, 36-1" is Chinese convention. It's perfectly fine since the reader of this address will be the post office workers in China. If you prefer the convention in English speaking countries (at least the U.S.), say "36-1 Beitaochang Street #4-4-2, Dadong District..." Your American friend knows 36-1 is the street number and 4-4-2 is the suite number. But then it may cause slight confusion on the Chinese post office side. Translation into English > 在国外，我从来没有真正的感到舒适过，我思念祖国的一切`` In this foreign land, I've never truly had the feeling of comfort [or feeling of being at home]. I miss everything in my own country. > How about "I never felt comfortable abroad,and I miss everything about China."? That's good. "abroad" is better used with a verb. How about "I never felt comfortable living abroad."? Also, that word does not carry the affection as in Chinese. I mean it's a purely technical term. So if the original sentence needs a little human touch, avoid "abroad". 2月5日 "tell me where do I find" vs "tell em where I find"> Why is it not "... tell me where I find" in this song? > Some many people > all over the world > tell me where do i find > someone like you girl... Sometimes a sentence is constructed in a way that the question stands out, perhaps because the writer wants to emphasize it and because the question is long. In this case, the first letter of the question word is often capitalized and the sentence ends with a question mark. For example, "Now the question becomes Why do we need the government to implement such a complicated system with little effect on people's welfare?" Your song lyric may be better written as ... Tell me Where do I find Someone like you girl? But songs are songs. Like poems, they don't always closely follow grammar. "whom" vs "who" > e.g. Whom did they invite? Mr John,to whom i wrote yesterday is a professor. The author whom you criticized in your review has written a reply. 这里whom在从句中作criticized的宾语。 "whom" used at the beginning of a sentence is odd, makes it hard to understand, and sounds old fashioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whom has an example of it, and is a great article discussing its usage. For people learning English in the 21st century, why not remember a simple rule, say "whom" only immediately after a preposition and "who" everywhere else? Use slangs or not? > 我想问在正规考试中运用流行美语(美国年轻人常用的俚语)行吗? My Chinese friends asked me a question like this before. I told them it's always a good idea to try to understand slangs but avoid using them. But in situations that you think are very suitable, and you're absolutely comfortable with a particular slang, use it. In exams, it's almost always a bad idea to use slangs. Writing a novel would be different. 1月31日 "beat the man with something" > 我发现SVO＋介词词组就会有歧义，比如 I beat the man with a stick。 [SVO: subject, verb, object] Fascinating example! But I bet 99% of the people you ask around will say it means "I use a stick to beat the man", not "I beat the man that has a stick in his hand". It just makes more sense when you envision the scenario. If it were "I beat the man with a tattoo", 100% of the people reading it know "with" takes the other meaning, simply because you cannot possibly use a tattoo as a weapon! 1月28日 Pronunciation: "here" as "hier" or "hijer"?The following is a duplicate of http://bbs.wwenglish.net/dispbbs.asp?boardid=99&id=286318&star=1&page=1 I copied it here only because that page is not guaranteed to be available. It's an interesting discussion, but with no conclusion. Use your own judgment. > 请教 here,dear,near在美式发音是接近于 hier/dier/nier（备注e还部是倒写的）还是hijer/dijer/nijer > (备注e还部是倒写的),这两种发音的区别就是多了一个半元音j User 下上小大: Those who have learned a second foreign language and/or phonetics should know this: In English (BrE/AmE/AusE/...), the [i:] sound is actually pronounced as [i:j]. Yong: That's an interesting observation. Can you elaborate a little? I don't get that. If that were the case, "That will be S" would sound like "That will be Yes" when read fast. I don't think that's true. User 下上小大: The English high vowels [i] and [u] are usually pronounced as non-phonemic diphthongs and more accurately transcribed as [iy] and [uw], meaning during pronunciation the vowel is not held steady as a pure vowel but instead with a following off-glide. If you can't hear the difference, you can do your own research on the topic of English vowels and off-glides, but here is one source found on Google: http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~lsp/IPA/SSAE.html Many dialects of English (including standard American and British RP)
have extra diphthongs that aren't phonemic. In these dialects, all
tense vowels are actually diphthongs. Thus, words like beet or peak are
better transcribed with The chart below shows words that contain these non-phonemic diphthongs.
In your example "There will be S", at play is another linguistic process called external sandhi, which keeps the [j] from being carried across the word boundary.Yong: Thanks for the explanation. I want to point out two minor points.
First, the cited article says "many dialects". Please do not miss the
word "dialect", meaning it's not the pronunciation of everybody in an
English-speaking country. Now when I think about it, I think that
article is quite right. I do hear some people, especially those living
in rural areas here in the US, say 38 like thirty yeight with "y"
pronounced very lightly. You do NOT hear that among educated people,
though. I've never learned to say that and never intend to. The application of the sandhi process here is not an exception, but rather a coexisting phonological rule. The [j] is stronger inside than across the word boundary, and few speak like Popeye: "I yam what I yam." 1月22日 Subjunctive (虚拟语气)> Linda was called into the manager's office this morning. She was told > that unless she came to work regularly she would lose her job. > 对于划线的句子我比较困惑,因为我可以有两种理解,或者说是两种分析: > 1.是虚拟语气中对现在的虚拟------条件句中用过去时(came),主句中用过去将来(would lose); > 2. 作为从句服从主句的时态,即过去时(told),所以come变came,will lose变would lose.这样看,变化之前是 > "unless she come to work regularly she will lose her job",虽然也是正确的,但不是虚拟语气. > 这两种理解哪个是对的? It's the second case. If it were subjunctive (虚拟语气), we could assume the following two statements are both true: (1) "If she did not come to work regularly, she would lose her job." (2) "She comes to work regularly." (1) is obvious; it's just a rewrite of the clause in the original sentence. But (2) may come as a surprise to you, if you think there was subjunctive. The original sentence clearly implies Linda actually does NOT come to work regularly (after all, that's the very reason her boss asked her to go to his office), (2) is false. |
||||||||||||||||
; this diphthong is not phonemic since it isn't distinct from 
. That is, no dialect has two words that differ only by those vowels; every dialect has either the diphthong 
or 
or 
|
|
