Bah, formal teaching sucks, it's much better to learn in a natural way.
How did you learn English?
"do you only use words you know off the top of your head?" yes, but I admit that sometimes I use dictionary.
"but it's still pretty good" thanks anyway!
You say you're a native speaker of English, so can you tell me where are you from exactly?
"but it's still pretty good" thanks anyway!
You say you're a native speaker of English, so can you tell me where are you from exactly?
I live in California near Los Angeles.
By the way, here are some corrections, if you want them...
"yes, but _I'll_ admit that sometimes I use _a_ dictionary."
"so can you tell me where _you are_ from exactly?"
I marked the corrections with underscores.
By the way, here are some corrections, if you want them...
"yes, but _I'll_ admit that sometimes I use _a_ dictionary."
"so can you tell me where _you are_ from exactly?"
I marked the corrections with underscores.
I'd also like to add that "thanks anyway" isn't an appropriate response to a compliment. It's for when someone offers you help that you don't need, but you still want to be polite. So, you would tell them that you don't need their help, and then "but thanks anyway".
I did learn english and english GRAMMER from Mohamed while he fucked my ass !
To Mitch,
<< Stan,
Why 19th century literature? Wouldn't modern literature, with more up-to-date language be better, especially if there is a lot of dialog? >>
Well, I get a lot of questions like that. The first thing I learnt (about learning languages) was that the best way to learn the aspects, attributes, and the peculiarities of languages (with a few exceptions) is to have a significant knowledge of its history - it gives room for creativity and hence, brings life to the language. I am an anti-modern literature individual due to the fact that our modern society (its literate quantum) tends to squeeze out the substance of history in its numerous courses and overtures. The very same substance which gives meaning and purpose to the existence of a language.
In other words, if you consider the amount of time and energy you could use to study modern literature (English literature); diverting the same energy towards the study of 19th century literature - will give you twice the value.
19th century English and Scottish literature (I'm not a fan of American literature) has always been the short cut to the study of the English language (for our modern society). It could take a whole day to explain why, so I will end it with that conclusion.
If anyone insists on knowing why, I'll be pleased to indulge in the expatiation.
<< Stan,
Why 19th century literature? Wouldn't modern literature, with more up-to-date language be better, especially if there is a lot of dialog? >>
Well, I get a lot of questions like that. The first thing I learnt (about learning languages) was that the best way to learn the aspects, attributes, and the peculiarities of languages (with a few exceptions) is to have a significant knowledge of its history - it gives room for creativity and hence, brings life to the language. I am an anti-modern literature individual due to the fact that our modern society (its literate quantum) tends to squeeze out the substance of history in its numerous courses and overtures. The very same substance which gives meaning and purpose to the existence of a language.
In other words, if you consider the amount of time and energy you could use to study modern literature (English literature); diverting the same energy towards the study of 19th century literature - will give you twice the value.
19th century English and Scottish literature (I'm not a fan of American literature) has always been the short cut to the study of the English language (for our modern society). It could take a whole day to explain why, so I will end it with that conclusion.
If anyone insists on knowing why, I'll be pleased to indulge in the expatiation.
I think you're making a mistake, Satan. You have no idea what you're talking about.
<<I think you're making a mistake, Satan. You have no idea what you're talking about. >>
I want to believe it was a typo, as it came to my attention that the alignment of the computer keyboard alphabet keys could have caused you to mis-type my name as Satan. I was begining to wonder why you would believe that only someone whose name was synonymous with that of the master of darkness could have made such a post. I just have one question for you:
In all purpose of reasoning, and by rules of elementary deduction, why would I write about something I have no idea of?
I'll be glad to give you further explanations if you insist, but I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time with explanations that weren't demanded.
I want to believe it was a typo, as it came to my attention that the alignment of the computer keyboard alphabet keys could have caused you to mis-type my name as Satan. I was begining to wonder why you would believe that only someone whose name was synonymous with that of the master of darkness could have made such a post. I just have one question for you:
In all purpose of reasoning, and by rules of elementary deduction, why would I write about something I have no idea of?
I'll be glad to give you further explanations if you insist, but I wouldn't want to waste anyone's time with explanations that weren't demanded.
But for a learner, that would be stupid to read ancient literature because there are big words and which are not used anymore! Why not learn modern language so you can speak and not sound like a dweeb.
I'm a non-native speaker.
I learned the basics from school. I expanded my English through books, magazines, TV, movies, & the internet.
I learned the basics from school. I expanded my English through books, magazines, TV, movies, & the internet.
<< But for a learner, that would be stupid to read ancient literature because there are big words and which are not used anymore! Why not learn modern language so you can speak and not sound like a dweeb. >>
Trust me, it always seems stupid at first but the benefits are phenomenal. By no means will I call Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books ancient history, even the likes of R.L Stevenson (from Jeckyll & Hyde fame) - that great Scottish writer.
I began to read Charles Dicken's "The Great Expectation" when I was nine years old (thank God there was no internet then), though it hardly made sense even when I looked up words in the dictionary. I became distinct in class in the aspect of essay writing, and when I turned seventeen, I picked up the dusty old book again and this time around, I had the pleasure of not just reading the book, but payed attention and consumed the very detailed and outstanding style of writing - I knew the writer had to be someone great, this was the period I was introduced to the writings of Charles Dickens.
I know everyone seems to be confused so I am going to give a little example in plain and clear text. Can you imagine if an individual come across your writing a hundred years from now, and the fellow doesn't seem to understand a single thing you have written, to him it is "ancient history." Has it really gotten to the point that books of a hundred years ago are no longer understood because it is ancient history.
A group of university students came across a line in "the Castle of Indolence" - James Thomson (1700-1748) it reads:
--Is a sad sentence of an ancient date-- (Canto 1 : line 4)
and none of them could come up with a definite meaning. These were students of English literature, the same people that will be teaching learners of the language in the near future. It was painful for me to pick up a modern dictionary and reallize that there is no part of the definition of a "sentence" that pointed out that "sentence" could refer to a MAXIM (a succinct formulation of a fundamental principle, general truth, or rule of conduct).
I finally came across a dictionary that specifies that aspect of the definition of "sentence," and it was categorized archaic (that which is no longer current or applicable).
Most people no longer study the English language, they just want to be able to speak it like the movie stars they watch on t.v, and write it the way it is written in the magazines. That is why the following words are about (if not already) plunging into the archives of the archaic:
http://phrontistery.info/archaic.html
The list on the page above does not include tons of good and brilliant words that are fading away (eg. "hebetude"), what a shame.
If great words and styles of writing are going to fade away, then they will, as much as I hate to think of that it is a reallity that is more than likely to happen, but everyone should understand that there is a great number of arts (creativity) that are going to die as well. Maybe the day will come when there will be only 300 words in the English lexicon - those which every human on earth will understand - because it is all they would need.
Thank you.
Trust me, it always seems stupid at first but the benefits are phenomenal. By no means will I call Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books ancient history, even the likes of R.L Stevenson (from Jeckyll & Hyde fame) - that great Scottish writer.
I began to read Charles Dicken's "The Great Expectation" when I was nine years old (thank God there was no internet then), though it hardly made sense even when I looked up words in the dictionary. I became distinct in class in the aspect of essay writing, and when I turned seventeen, I picked up the dusty old book again and this time around, I had the pleasure of not just reading the book, but payed attention and consumed the very detailed and outstanding style of writing - I knew the writer had to be someone great, this was the period I was introduced to the writings of Charles Dickens.
I know everyone seems to be confused so I am going to give a little example in plain and clear text. Can you imagine if an individual come across your writing a hundred years from now, and the fellow doesn't seem to understand a single thing you have written, to him it is "ancient history." Has it really gotten to the point that books of a hundred years ago are no longer understood because it is ancient history.
A group of university students came across a line in "the Castle of Indolence" - James Thomson (1700-1748) it reads:
--Is a sad sentence of an ancient date-- (Canto 1 : line 4)
and none of them could come up with a definite meaning. These were students of English literature, the same people that will be teaching learners of the language in the near future. It was painful for me to pick up a modern dictionary and reallize that there is no part of the definition of a "sentence" that pointed out that "sentence" could refer to a MAXIM (a succinct formulation of a fundamental principle, general truth, or rule of conduct).
I finally came across a dictionary that specifies that aspect of the definition of "sentence," and it was categorized archaic (that which is no longer current or applicable).
Most people no longer study the English language, they just want to be able to speak it like the movie stars they watch on t.v, and write it the way it is written in the magazines. That is why the following words are about (if not already) plunging into the archives of the archaic:
http://phrontistery.info/archaic.html
The list on the page above does not include tons of good and brilliant words that are fading away (eg. "hebetude"), what a shame.
If great words and styles of writing are going to fade away, then they will, as much as I hate to think of that it is a reallity that is more than likely to happen, but everyone should understand that there is a great number of arts (creativity) that are going to die as well. Maybe the day will come when there will be only 300 words in the English lexicon - those which every human on earth will understand - because it is all they would need.
Thank you.
You're an idiot. There's no point in learning archaic words/meanings unless you plan to get a job reading old books! No one will think you're sophisticated because of your outdated language. They will just be annoyed that you can't speak like a normal person.
Guest Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:07 pm GMT
I'd also like to add that "thanks anyway" isn't an appropriate response to a compliment. It's for when someone offers you help that you don't need, but you still want to be polite. So, you would tell them that you don't need their help, and then "but thanks anyway". What should I say in this case?
I'd also like to add that "thanks anyway" isn't an appropriate response to a compliment. It's for when someone offers you help that you don't need, but you still want to be polite. So, you would tell them that you don't need their help, and then "but thanks anyway". What should I say in this case?
<< You're an idiot. There's no point in learning archaic words/meanings unless you plan to get a job reading old books! No one will think you're sophisticated because of your outdated language. They will just be annoyed that you can't speak like a normal person. >>
I guess I will forever remain bewildered that fools will always be fools no matter how much convincing or how simple you try to make things, your careless words merely manifests the character of someone with an under developed brain.
The worst thing about fools is that whenever you argue with them, a fool will always bring you down to his level and beat you, so I'm not even going to try (won't want to come down to that level).
And to clear up an issue; for goodness sake, I'm not saying you should go about talking like Charles Dickens, use your intellect.
I guess I will forever remain bewildered that fools will always be fools no matter how much convincing or how simple you try to make things, your careless words merely manifests the character of someone with an under developed brain.
The worst thing about fools is that whenever you argue with them, a fool will always bring you down to his level and beat you, so I'm not even going to try (won't want to come down to that level).
And to clear up an issue; for goodness sake, I'm not saying you should go about talking like Charles Dickens, use your intellect.
Stan, I'm with you all the way. One thing is you must understand is that not everyone on this forum understand some of the words you use, rather than admit that, they choose to go on the attack without having a clue of what they are saying.
There are learners over here, tone down a bit, this is not a university lecture room. I doubt if that many people have read the books you mentioned. I for one have never read any book earlier than 1961.
There are learners over here, tone down a bit, this is not a university lecture room. I doubt if that many people have read the books you mentioned. I for one have never read any book earlier than 1961.