In this thread, we attempt to learn to read, write, and speak English, a language which would be very useful to know. It is widely spoken throughout the world.
Do you speak English? Are you fluent? What resources did you use to learn? Can you give some examples in this thread? Posts some useful links.
Let's help each other out and learn a new language.
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-19 6:47
Hi there! I've been wondering for quite a while about usage of ordinal numerals with different articles. In schlool, we are taught to use them with the definite one only or without any depending on context. But from time to time, I still come accross the indefinite acrticle being used with ordinal numerals. For ex.:
"And it was at school I heard first of the Door in
the Wall - that I was to hear of A second time only a month before
his death." (The door in the wall by G. Wells)
"Such extensive use of these materials in aircraft construction was A first in the industry." (an article on SR-71)
So what the big difference does it make? Using "A" article here instead of "THE".
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-19 6:56
>>80
Thank you. This is the answer I wanted to get. Because I thought so too and wanted to make sure that I'm right.
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-19 16:37
>>81
Imagine the difference between the sentences "I heard of it the second time" and "I heard of it a second time", and you can begin to see why indefinites are proper here.
Regarding the second of your examples, to say "it was a first in the industry" highlights the nascence of the creation among all others directly or indirectly related. To say "it was the first in the industry" is to show that is was chronologically first, that never before had these materials been so extensively used.
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-20 1:41
>>83
I've got the point on the second example. Speaking of the first though... As a Russian I can't really imagine this kind of differences straight away. So I need some kind of reasoning to help me do just that. The only one I can come up with is that since no set order of "times" had been provided (or implied) beforehand, the one he mentiones is to be considered as an+other. Is that correct?
What is the most annoying mistake when you see the texts non-native speakers wrote?
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-20 11:21
>>88
>What is the most annoying mistake when you see the texts non-native speakers wrote?
>What is the most annoying mistake when you see the texts non-native speakers HAVE WRITTEN?
"(translation of this word...) Would depend highly on context." or "(translation of this word...) Would highly depend on context." ?
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-20 14:53
>>92
Either is acceptable. 200 years ago adverbial placement might have mattered (the adverb going before the verb) but the distinction hs largely been lost.
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-20 18:11
(Out of eight people...)
Which one is a true prophet?
-or-
Which one is the true prophet?
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-20 18:18
>94
"a prophet" doesn't make sense with "which", because "which" implies only one. You could say "Who among these is a true prophet" or "Who among these is the true prophet", but if you use "which", it has to be "the".
>95
Oh sorry, so if it's out of eight prophets, cowboys etc
Which one is a true (cowboy)? -would be correct?
and
Which one is the true cowboy? - also correct?
What's the difference between "a" and "the" in this case then?
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-20 18:44
>>96
Using "which" with "a" sounds strange to me in general, but I might be overthinking it. I'll let someone else provide some input before I say something stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-20 18:49
>>97
I think it'd be fine if it was something like "Which of you is a true prophet" or "Which of you is a true cowboy" but when you have one it implies a singular and so "the" would be more correct.
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-20 21:05
Just different connotations:
"a true prophet" = a prophet that is legitimately a prophet
"the true prophet" = the ONLY legitimate prophet among a host of false prophets, one whose prophecies are true against all others
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-20 21:05
Just different connotations:
"a true prophet" = a prophet that is legitimately a prophet
"the true prophet" = the ONLY legitimate prophet among a host of false prophets, one whose prophecies are true against all others
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-21 4:47
>99
Thank you! I will consider it.
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-22 17:46
>A fiction writer tricking their reader into believing there was a level of sobriety in their process.
This is from a book.
Why "their" is used in this case, since we have a single writer wouldn't "a fiction writer tricking his reader..." be more appropriate?
Name:
Anonymous2013-10-22 18:00
>>102
Traditionally, i.e. prescriptively, yes, correct English necessitates the usage of a singular pronoun (his or her) in conjunction with a singular noun (a writer).
There does exist a singular "they" and here "their" is used as a gender-neutral possessive pronoun, when the gender of the subject is unknown or irrelevant.
This only works when the "too" is there ("it's obvious of who can't tell" sounds very wrong to me, and I imagine most other people as well). "Too obvious a troll" sounds correct as well, but it sounds more formal than the version with "of". I don't know if that helps as to why we do it, but that's how it is.
Name:
Anonymous2013-11-01 12:45
>>110
"sth" (and "sb" for "somebody") is used in The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, which I use to learn English.
"Too obvious a troll" == "It's too obvious that you're a troll"?
Name:
Anonymous2013-11-01 13:32
>>111
>"sth" (and "sb" for "somebody") is used in The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, which I use to learn English.
Right, that's what most sites said, but these are primarily limited to language resources. I've never seen anyone use them directly to other people (and I've spent a lot of time in places where people use a lot of abbreviations). It's up to you, though.
>"Too obvious a troll" == "It's too obvious that you're a troll"?
In terms of meaning, yes, but in terms of grammar, no. It's the same as "too obvious of a troll." I would instead change it into "(this) troll is too obvious."
Name:
Anonymous2013-11-01 14:04
>>112 Right, that's what most sites said, but these are primarily limited to language resources.
But this board is a language resource, isn't it? It's up to you, though.
I'm not going to use these abbreviations outside of language resources.
Would you change "too slow of a car" into "(this) car is too slow"?
>>113
All I mean is that 99% of people are not going to recognize "sth" immediately, and the ones that are are the ones that specialize in teaching English (which is not me, even if I am on a language learning board). Anyway, its' kind of irrelevant.
>Would you change "too slow of a car" into "(this) car is too slow"?
I'd say either that or "a car that is too slow". That definition seems a bit off from what you're talking about. "To be slow of car" or "to be obvious of troll" makes no sense, for example. Maybe the "too" makes it subjective (i.e., a feeling) and that makes it OK? I honestly don't know.
Name:
Anonymous2013-11-01 18:04
>>114
Actually, now that I think about it, that doesn't work either, because you still need the article (a/the). "To be too slow of car" is still wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2013-11-03 5:13
Is it true that "You look hot. ~ Yes, I've been running" equates to "You look hot. ~ Yes, I've just run" (or "You look hot. ~ Yes, I just ran" for American English)?
Name:
Anonymous2013-11-03 13:02
>>116
In terms of meaning, yes, I get the same general impression from both. The version with -ing kind of implies that it lasted for some duration (while the other doesn't necessarily).
For example, if I sprinted across a parking lot into a supermarket, and someone said to me "you look hot", I might say "yeah, I just ran", but I wouldn't say "yeah, I've been running".
Name:
Anonymous2013-11-05 1:25
What does "I make no claim to be a paragon" mean?
"I make no claim because I want to be a paragon" or
"I make no claim, so I'm not a paragon"?
Name:
Anonymous2013-11-05 7:49
His psychiatrist once told him that to get well he would have to do two things: get off dope (which he hadn't done) and to stop trying to help people (he still tried to help people).
Does "to get off dope" mean "to stop taking dope"?