Grammar check
Hi,
I wrote my problem of language English in an old thread. I ask you to help me in learning this language. I'm studying reading, listening and writing now, but Grammar is problem. Can you check a few exercises and answer a few questions on (simple) grammar?
thanks a lot
PS: be patient and strict.
I wrote my problem of language English in an old thread. I ask you to help me in learning this language. I'm studying reading, listening and writing now, but Grammar is problem. Can you check a few exercises and answer a few questions on (simple) grammar?
thanks a lot
PS: be patient and strict.
Risposte
"gio73":
I agree with Luca. In my book [size=150]too[/size] it is explained how "the" is used, [size=150]too[/size](even though I would have used "also" or "even". (I'm not quite sure [size=150]that[/size] [size=150]if[/size] my precedent sentence is correct...)
$uarr $ $uarr $ $uarr $ $uarr $
I agree with Luca. In my book too it is explained how "the" is used. (I'm not quite sure that my precedent sentence is correct...)
Husbands are boring
The my friends' husbands are boring
Husbands are boring
The my friends' husbands are boring
I'll answer very quickly.
one day: it's equal? Usually not. To express more than one day (off) we use the numbers (two days off, three days off...) but for just one I would prefer the way I've always used. Obviously I think you know what it means (not "a day out"... but "a day home").
I'll pay you a hundred for a week. Wrong. I know in Italian we are used to saying like this, but in English you must compulsorily use that word in that way. An option could be: per week.
Is "time" not a abstract noun? Why insert "the" in this? What does the abstract noun have to do with the use of the? Look at the Italian translation. Do you say dimmi ora or dimmi l'ora?
_ darkness doesn't worry _ cats; _ cats can see in _ dark
Here I confess, I don't understand your book's rule. Maybe it's right, but I would rephrase it with:
when your're speaking about general objects, things, people or animals you needn't put an article. When you are speaking about a precise, punctual object, thing, person or animal you must use the article. So let's re-watch the sentence:
darkness(in general, not a specific one) doesn't worry _ cats (cats in general, not your cat, for example); _ cats (same) can see in (here the same, even if you can see some speakers that put an article and in this case it is not completely wrong) dark.
I'll give you some extra examples.
Why don't you call the postman who came here yesterday? = that one, that precise one.
Postmen use to get around with their motorcycles. = postmen in general, not a precise one.
one day: it's equal? Usually not. To express more than one day (off) we use the numbers (two days off, three days off...) but for just one I would prefer the way I've always used. Obviously I think you know what it means (not "a day out"... but "a day home").
I'll pay you a hundred for a week. Wrong. I know in Italian we are used to saying like this, but in English you must compulsorily use that word in that way. An option could be: per week.
Is "time" not a abstract noun? Why insert "the" in this? What does the abstract noun have to do with the use of the? Look at the Italian translation. Do you say dimmi ora or dimmi l'ora?
_ darkness doesn't worry _ cats; _ cats can see in _ dark
Here I confess, I don't understand your book's rule. Maybe it's right, but I would rephrase it with:
when your're speaking about general objects, things, people or animals you needn't put an article. When you are speaking about a precise, punctual object, thing, person or animal you must use the article. So let's re-watch the sentence:
darkness(in general, not a specific one) doesn't worry _ cats (cats in general, not your cat, for example); _ cats (same) can see in (here the same, even if you can see some speakers that put an article and in this case it is not completely wrong) dark.
I'll give you some extra examples.
Why don't you call the postman who came here yesterday? = that one, that precise one.
Postmen use to get around with their motorcycles. = postmen in general, not a precise one.
These are very interesting answer, tank you for availability.
________________________________
For my question: it's true, it's easy.
Other a little exercises for 'a':
one day: it's equal?
don't miss for or is it implicit?: I'll pay you a hundred for a week.
::::::::::
new questions for the definite article "the":
Is "time" not a abstract noun? Why insert "the" in this?
not insert "the" because:
dark/darkness: abstract nouns
plural nouns and "the":
cats, hotels, parents, childern: no
neighbours: yes
Is it corrected in neighbours because is a particular group of people? why not in cats or parents? They aren't indefinite plurarl nouns, but definite...
I'm confused...
________________________________
For my question: it's true, it's easy.
Other a little exercises for 'a':
It's time you had a holiday. You haven't had a day off for a month.
one day: it's equal?
I'll pay you a hundred a week
don't miss for or is it implicit?: I'll pay you a hundred for a week.
::::::::::
new questions for the definite article "the":
Do you know the time?
Is "time" not a abstract noun? Why insert "the" in this?
_ darkness doesn't worry _ cats; _ cats can see in _ dark
not insert "the" because:
dark/darkness: abstract nouns
Ann's habit of riding a motorcycles up and down the road early in the morning annoyed the neighbours and in the end the took her to _ court
_ family hotels are _ hotels which welcome _ parents and _ children
plural nouns and "the":
cats, hotels, parents, childern: no
neighbours: yes
Is it corrected in neighbours because is a particular group of people? why not in cats or parents? They aren't indefinite plurarl nouns, but definite...
I'm confused...
Ok. I can imagine that idioms are very hard sometimes.
To put something in a nut shell means, as you said before, put something in a very small and closed place, so the idea was: to recap or summarize in very few words a concept, a story, a dialogue... whatever you want.
Make a mountain out of a molehill gives you the idea that someone is exaggerating, inflating, it looks as if a person saw a mountain instead of a simple molehill (which is the little mountain that moles=talpe build). In other words, see things too big.
To put something in a nut shell means, as you said before, put something in a very small and closed place, so the idea was: to recap or summarize in very few words a concept, a story, a dialogue... whatever you want.
Make a mountain out of a molehill gives you the idea that someone is exaggerating, inflating, it looks as if a person saw a mountain instead of a simple molehill (which is the little mountain that moles=talpe build). In other words, see things too big.
I give up, what's the correct translation?
"gio73":
Invece, mi piacciono le espressioni che avete scritto ieri: il mio consiglio è di non fidarvi degli occhi ma di impararle a memoria, così che voi possiate metterle tutte in un guscio di nocciola senza fare montagne di un nonnulla
or
Ad ogni modo, apprezzo lo stile e le espressioni che avete usato ieri: vi consiglio di imparale a memoria, in modo da crearvi di volta in volta una piccola riserva di frasi senza cercare di far tutto insieme.
Ahahah! Oh my goodness, the first translation is obviously litteral, and so not fair.
For the second one:
-I would prefer the first translation you gave for "instead";
- "idiom" is singular, therefore keep it only one. The translation is more or less right;
-"you" is second person, but singular, correct yourself;
- you have created a verb that doesn't exist: my advice is...;
-you haven't translated: rely on your eye which is near to what you wrote up in the previous lines;
- the idioms are not well translated. You'd better look them up in a dictionary.
Anyway, I'll give you a clue: you wrote: metterle tutte in un guscio di nocciola; how can we express this in a more colloquial way?
In general, there are no bad mistakes, you just have to put your two translations together and refine something.
"Luca":
Instead, I like the idiom you wrote yesterday: my advice is not to rely on your eye but learn them by heart, so that you can put all of them in a nut shell without making mountains out of a molehill.
For students (or non-students), try to decode the last sentence I wrote.
Invece, mi piacciono le espressioni che avete scritto ieri: il mio consiglio è di non fidarvi degli occhi ma di impararle a memoria, così che voi possiate metterle tutte in un guscio di nocciola senza fare montagne di un nonnulla
or
Ad ogni modo, apprezzo lo stile e le espressioni che avete usato ieri: vi consiglio di imparale a memoria, in modo da crearvi di volta in volta una piccola riserva di frasi senza cercare di far tutto insieme.
Sorry, I forgot to put the adjective. Basically the form I wanted to use is an imperative expression not used very much by formal individuals. Let's have, for example: "be quite relaxed!" which would be "stai un po' fermo, rilassato" in Italian...
Be careful Gio. Those sentences have the same meaning. If I had wanted to say what you meant, I would have probably used such, such a or so, depending from the case.
This translation is correct.
In almost ten years studying, I have never heard about the use of that word in this kind of way, curious; generally speaking, words have hundreds of nuances regarding meanings, but I don't think this one should be so relevant, considering the poor use it gave me proof it has, don't you think? Have you ever seen it before? Anyway, it's something I would consider for the future...
Instead, I like the idiom you wrote yesterday: my advice is not to rely on your eye but learn them by heart, so that you can put all of them in a nut shell without making mountains out of a molehill.
For students (or non-students), try to decode the last sentence I wrote .
this is quite a good restaurant"
Questo è proprio un buon ristorante
Be careful Gio. Those sentences have the same meaning. If I had wanted to say what you meant, I would have probably used such, such a or so, depending from the case.
"gio73":
Non sono completamente sicuro di quello che vuoi
This translation is correct.
"Pianoth":
"Quite!", instead, does mean something: it means "I agree!", "Exactly!"
In almost ten years studying, I have never heard about the use of that word in this kind of way, curious; generally speaking, words have hundreds of nuances regarding meanings, but I don't think this one should be so relevant, considering the poor use it gave me proof it has, don't you think? Have you ever seen it before? Anyway, it's something I would consider for the future...
Instead, I like the idiom you wrote yesterday: my advice is not to rely on your eye but learn them by heart, so that you can put all of them in a nut shell without making mountains out of a molehill.
For students (or non-students), try to decode the last sentence I wrote
.
"gio73":
I don't understand, why do you use does?
I would write: "it means something: like "I agree!", "Exactly!".
Of course I could have said "Quite!", instead, means something [...], but well, in affermative sentences, do/does is used to emphasize a verb, for example:
"You didn't do your homework." = "Non hai fatto i compiti."
"That's not true! I did do it!" = "Non è vero! Li ho (veramente) fatti!" (this is an example with the past, but it works exactly the same way).
[size=85]Whoops, I wrote basically what marcosocio said... Oh well, too late.[/size]
"gio73":
Can you translate this sentence "E' abbastanza", please?
It depends.
If you mean "È abbastanza [...]", for example "Egli è abbastanza bravo" you can translate "He/she/it's quite [...]" (the example is "He's quite good")
If you mean "Basta, è abbastanza" you can translate in many ways, for example:
"That's enough" or "I've had enough." or "I can't take it anymore!".
These three actually mean:
"È abbastanza (va bene così)", "È abbastanza (ne ho avuto abbastanza).", "È abbastanza (non ne posso più, basta)!".
I'd say "(it's) enough" or similar.
Auxiliaries like "do/does" can be used in order to emphasize an idea, in this case "does" is stressed, as we would say "...invece vuol dire qualcosa.."
Auxiliaries like "do/does" can be used in order to emphasize an idea, in this case "does" is stressed, as we would say "...invece vuol dire qualcosa.."
"Pianoth":
"Quite!", instead, does mean something: it means "I agree!", "Exactly!".
I don't understand, why do you use does?
I would write: "it means something: like "I agree!", "Exactly!".
Thank's Pianoth.
Can you translate this sentence "E' abbastanza", please?
When I sat for exam at end of middle school, the teacher, who teached French, told me "ça suffit" for stopping me.
Can you translate this sentence "E' abbastanza", please?
When I sat for exam at end of middle school, the teacher, who teached French, told me "ça suffit" for stopping me.
"Be quite!" as far as I know doesn't mean anything, you can only translate it word for word like "stai/state abbastanza!" (which of course doesn't mean anything).
"Ne ho avuto abbastanza!" it's often translated like this: "I've had enough (of this)!".
"Quite!", instead, does mean something: it means "I agree!", "Exactly!".
You can see the use of quite and many compound forms here.
"Ne ho avuto abbastanza!" it's often translated like this: "I've had enough (of this)!".
"Quite!", instead, does mean something: it means "I agree!", "Exactly!".
You can see the use of quite and many compound forms here.
I've never heard "be quite", but just " be quiet" 
Hi Luca, can I translate any sentences?
Check my words, please.
Essere abbastanza or ne ho abbastanza!,
"it's quite" (= è abbastanza), the teacher told me on the exam's end.
Questo ristorante è abbastanza buono
Questo è proprio un buon ristorante
Non sono completamente sicuro di quello che vuoi
Se vai in treno potrai senz'altro fare un viaggio confortevole, ma sii certo di prendere un espresso, non un treno che si ferma a tutte le stazioni.
Really? I'm not.
Check my words, please.
"Luca":
"be quite!"
Essere abbastanza or ne ho abbastanza!,
"it's quite" (= è abbastanza), the teacher told me on the exam's end.
"Luca":
"this restaurant is quite good
Questo ristorante è abbastanza buono
"Luca":
this is quite a good restaurant"
Questo è proprio un buon ristorante
"Luca":
"I'm not quite sure of what you want".
Non sono completamente sicuro di quello che vuoi
"Luca":
If you go by train you can have quite a comfortable journey, but make sure yet get an express, not a train that stops at all the station.
Se vai in treno potrai senz'altro fare un viaggio confortevole, ma sii certo di prendere un espresso, non un treno che si ferma a tutte le stazioni.
"Luca":
I(we're)'m here twentyfour hours a day...
Really? I'm not.
I never heard such expression :
" nothing to write home about "
very interesting
" nothing to write home about "
very interesting
Hi hamming_burst, I'm willing to$text()^1$ help you as well, I'll say what I can say. For now I can't say nothing to write home about$text()^2$, so I'll wait till your next doubts.
_______________
$text()^1$: In italian: Be willing to = Essere disposto a / Volere.
$text()^2$: It means something not as good as you expected / not very useful.
_______________
$text()^1$: In italian: Be willing to = Essere disposto a / Volere.
$text()^2$: It means something not as good as you expected / not very useful.
Sorry, I thought you were going to ask us for mathematical issues (it seems strange, but "ask" is followed by "for": ex.: "ask for permission". Sometimes it has an object: ask him for permission).
Well, let's examine the sentence you wrote.
If you go by train you can have quite a comfortable journey, but make sure yet get an express, not a train that stops at all the station.
First of all, you should recognize the green text: that are all the expressions regarding the ways you can move: by train, by car, by bus, on foot.... so it needn't put an article.
I would want to highlight some English constructions. For example, what I stressed in blue is something you must know. The word quite (there are others with the same rule, but now I don't remember) is always put before the adjective (and the noun) when expressing a considerable number of someone or something (quite a bit=a considerable length of time or amount; quite a few=a considerable number of; quite a sight=something impressive to see; quite a lot, ...etcetera). Instead, when it's used in a different way, it has different roles inside the sentence, for example: "be quite!" or "this restaurant is quite good or this is quite a good restaurant" or "I'm not quite sure of what you want".
The last two are the same. I guess you haven't understood the meaning. Read it again, it's easy. He has to get an express, not a train that stops...bla bla bla. Translate it in italian, it's the same.
Please if you have any other question just ask for clarification, I(we're)'m here twentyfour hours a day...
Well, let's examine the sentence you wrote.
If you go by train you can have quite a comfortable journey, but make sure yet get an express, not a train that stops at all the station.
First of all, you should recognize the green text: that are all the expressions regarding the ways you can move: by train, by car, by bus, on foot.... so it needn't put an article.
I would want to highlight some English constructions. For example, what I stressed in blue is something you must know. The word quite (there are others with the same rule, but now I don't remember) is always put before the adjective (and the noun) when expressing a considerable number of someone or something (quite a bit=a considerable length of time or amount; quite a few=a considerable number of; quite a sight=something impressive to see; quite a lot, ...etcetera). Instead, when it's used in a different way, it has different roles inside the sentence, for example: "be quite!" or "this restaurant is quite good or this is quite a good restaurant" or "I'm not quite sure of what you want".
The last two are the same. I guess you haven't understood the meaning. Read it again, it's easy. He has to get an express, not a train that stops...bla bla bla. Translate it in italian, it's the same.
Please if you have any other question just ask for clarification, I(we're)'m here twentyfour hours a day...
"hamming_burst":
Insert a or an if necessary, _ otherwise
If you go by _ train you can have quite a comfortable journey, but make sure yet get an express, not a train that stops at all the station.
It is compile and correct, but I have a question: why is it correct insert 'a' in case not a train and not by a train? What is the difference? uncountable noun?
Hi hamming_burst, if you wish, I'm glad to give you advice about your studies. In this case you don't put the "a" in "by train" because you mean the general means of transport, not a specific train. Also in Italian you say "vado in treno" and not "vado in un treno"
Accedi a tutti gli appunti
Tutor AI: studia meglio e in meno tempo