- Egyre közelebb a Poco F6 startja
- Apple iPhone 13 mini - miért nem veszik elegen?
- Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra - vákuumcsomagolás
- Google Pixel 6/7/8 topik
- Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra - ha működik, ne változtass!
- Milyen okostelefont vegyek?
- Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra - non plus ultra
- Motorola Edge 40 - jó bőr
- Android szakmai topik
- Yettel topik
Hirdetés
-
Két újabb előzetesen a MultiVersus
gp A fejlesztők az egyik új pálya mellett Jasonhöz is készítettek egy trailert.
-
Beszáll a kézikonzolok világába a PC-s házairól elhíresült az Antec
ph Csak éppen nem saját fejlesztésű dizájnnal, hanem korábbi koncepció átnevezésével.
-
Sikeres volt a teszt, elpusztítja internetes műholdjait az Amazon
it Az Amazon szerint minden sikerrel zárult, ezért letéríti az internetes műholdprototípusokat a pályájukról a cég.
Új hozzászólás Aktív témák
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz dipeti #10459 üzenetére
1. The girl that I am in love with.
2. The girl who I am in love with.If the antecedent of the relative pronoun is an animate object, both "who" and "that" work, the latter being more informal and less frequent. That is what I meant.
[ Szerkesztve ]
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz dipeti #10462 üzenetére
Az ún nevezett "zero relative pronoun" a következő esetekben helyes:
1. Ha az alárendelő tagmondatban a tárgy szerepét tölti be,
2. Ha a prepozíció tárgyaként szerepel.Példák:
1. I know the girl you met. -- You met the girl; the girl = that = object of "met"
2. I know the girl you met with -- with that; with the girl
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz dave93 #10405 üzenetére
Where experimenting or suggestion is involved in the speech act, use the -ing form.
Have you tried reading a book to help you sleep?
This sentence presupposes a situation in which the hearer can't sleep and so invites SUGGESTIONS to solve his indisposition to sleep.
To recapitulate: the -ing form is more appropriate in this context.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
"Learn knowledge" is not a collocation. Use gain or acquire knowledge.
Do you know this one:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/knack?q=knack
?
Nem okoz gondot egy új ismeretlen szoftver megismerése
I have a knack for learning new software rapidly.-------------
Gyorsan és szívesen tanulok meg új ismereteket.
I learn quickly and with ambition. -- short and sweet"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz zuzu000 #10386 üzenetére
Nem tervezzük, hogy új kocsit veszünk jövőre.
(#10386) zuzu000):
1; We're not planning to buy a new car, next year.A mondatban egyetlen hiba van: a vessző.
(#10386) zuzu000) "az angoltanárom szerint az hülyeség"
Ha tényleg nem értettek félre egymást, akkor keress más tanárt!
If you want to go around the problem of choosing the right verb form, say this:
Buying a new car next year is not on our agenda.
or
A new car for next year is out of sight for us.(#10386) zuzu000): 2; We're going to travel to England, in June.
Your options are:
We are traveling to England in June.
We will travel to Eng...
We are going to travel to Eng...Yours is unnecessarily wordy.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10250 üzenetére
Hasaggymeg,
Ezt te fordítottad angolról magyarra:
"I'd rather listen to and believe stupid rather than opening your mouth appreciation to dispel all doubt."
?
Remélem nem haragszol meg, ha azt mondom, hogy ez borzalmas.
When I hold the mouse over your signature, a little box pops up saying "original version" and:
"Inkább hallgass és higgyenek hülyének,mintsem kinyitva szád eloszlass minden eziránti kételyt."
My objections to your translation are as follows:
"would rather" is a modal idiom which expresses the speaker's preference; therefore, it is usually followed by a comparative construction.
In your translation, after "rather" comes a conjoined infinitive verb phrase, whose covert subject, in keeping with the normal attachment rule, has the same referent as that of the superordinate clause: I. The "hallgass" verb's implied subject is you, however.
Second, "higgyenek hülyének" is a passive construction, although in your translation the verb appears in active form.
Third, in the comparative structure, you fail to maintain parallelism (= conjoined elements are in same verb form). Listen and open are parallel forms - no gerund is tolerated in careful writing.
Fourth, if I may, my tentative attempt at rectifying your mistakes is:
I would rather [you [remained silent (subjunctive past form) and let people think you are a fool][ than [(you) opened your mouth to remove all doubt].Try this version:
It is better [to remain silent and let people think you are a fool] than [to open your mouth and dispel all doubt].Please note my use of square brackets to highlight the coordinated elements.
Finally, I hope you take my advice in the spirit in which it was meant.Best wishes: Afit
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
BM wrote:
A going to szerkezet biztosabb, konkrétabb, a will pedig inkább csak terv.Afit: The distinction you are trying to draw here does not exist in the English language.
BM wrote: Iam going to abroad = már megvettem a vonatjegyet. I will go to cinema = még nincs jegyem
Afit: With all due respect, what you state here is absurd. Please state clearly in your posts that your comments reflect mere subjective speculations rather than any deep academic conviction. Thanks!
Quirk et al (1985):
Be going to+ infinitive
4.43 Another construction frequently used to express futurity, especially in
informal speech, is be going to followed by the infinitive. Its general meaning
is 'future fulfilment of the present'. Looked at more carefully, the construction
has two more:specific meanings, of which one, FUTURE FULFILMENT OF
PRESENT INTENTION is chiefly associated with personal subjects and agentive
verbs:
The building is going to be renovated next year.
(The semi-modal be going to collocates with temporal adjuncts denoting relatively distant future.)The other medning, FUTURE RESULT OF PRESENT CAUSE, is found with both
personal and nonpersonal subjects:It's going to rain.
4.42 WILL
Although shall and, particularly, will are the closest approximations to a
colourless, neutral future, they do cover a range of meanings with modal
colouring, from prediction to volition.4.57.
Under the heading of PREDICTION, three related uses of will/would are to be
distinguished:1. The common FUTURE predictive sense of will:
You will feel better after this medicine.
2. The PRESENT predictive sense of will, which is comparatively rare, is
similar in meaning to must in the 'logical necessity' sense:She will have had her dinner by now.
3. The HABITUAL predictive meaning often occurs in conditional sentences:
If litmus paper is dipped in acid, it will turn red.
or in time!ess statements of 'predictability':
Oil dill float on water.
VOLITION with will
Again, three different subsenses may be distinguished. The volitional range
of will extends from the 'weak volition' of WILLINGNESS to the 'strong volition'
of INSISTENCE. Between these two, there is the more usual volitional sense of
INTENTION, which often combines with a sense of prediction.INTENTION
The building will be renovated.WILLINGNESS
Will/ Would you help me to address these letters?INSISTENCE
If you will go out without your overcoat, what can you expect?"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10526 üzenetére
Hasaggymeg: Rossz a teszted.
Afit: Agreed.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
The school is going to be renovated.
The school is going to be renovated next year.A két mondat között a differencia a második mondat temporális adverbiálja (next year), amely kifogástalan idiomatikus párt alkot (perfectly collocate with) a 'be going to' szemi-modális igével.
Both sentences are grammatical.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
Kidus: En magyarul sem ertem, mit akarsz ezzel mondani.
Afit: Meglepő, amennyiben a magyar az anyanyelved.
Kidus: peldaul almodozik, ra lehet szolni, hogy snap out of it
Afit: Soha nem hallottam ilyen kontextusban (nem véletlen, szerintem). Honnan szedtétek ezt a pv-t (snap out of it)? Sztaki? Használhatatlan, sztem.
Ezt használják "álmodozásnál": "Penny for your thoughts." Vagy ezt: "Hello! Where have you been?"-------------------
Kivágja magát a főzésből.
=
He usually shirks his cooking duties.
or
He usually dodges cooking.
or
He has a way of ridding himself of cooking duties.
or
He usually washes his hands of cooking.
etc."There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz turbobusa #10579 üzenetére
turbobusa: Akkor félreértelmeztem a snap out of it -et, egyébként, ha roll/ slip out- ot alkalmaznék úgy helyes lenne?
Afit: Igen, félre. Miért ragaszkodsz a phrasal verbekhez?
See my previous post.
Best wishes: Afit
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz szökeciklon #10563 üzenetére
possible collocations are:
bear/stand/handle/endure monotonity
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10604 üzenetére
Hasaggymeg: Which part is you do not understand.
Afit: This sentence is ill-formed.
Try these:
Which part do you not understand? = SVO
Which part is it that you do not understand. = SVC (pleonastic 'it')"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10610 üzenetére
Hasaggymeg: (#10608) attrax ...vigyázni kell a magas labdákkal.
Afit: Ez mit jelent?
Visszatérve a mondatodra, így lett volna helyes:
Which part is it that you do not understand?
Afit: Ennek a mondatnak 2 structure level-je van:
1. D-structure
2. S-structureA mondat D-struktúrája egy cleft-proper sentence:
It is which part that you do not understand.
Innen két "constituent movement" operál, míg eljutunk az S-structure-ig.
A két movement:1. Wh-movement ('which part' gets the setnence-initial position)
2. aux-movement ( 'is' is raised out of its original position and lands between 'which part' and 'it')The resultant deep-structure of the sentence:
Which part is it that you do not understand?
A te mondatod (Which part is you do not understand?) S-struktúrája:
You do not understand is which part. -- It makes no sense whatsoever.
Hasaggymeg, I hope you take my comments in the spirit in which they are meant.
Üdv: Afit
[ Szerkesztve ]
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
-
Afit
csendes tag
Try these:
Application for admission to the group is accepted on an ongoing basis.
Enrolment for club membership is open on an ongoing basis.
Registration is open on an ongoing basis.Hope these help.
Üdv: Afit
[ Szerkesztve ]
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10610 üzenetére
Hasaggymeg, miért cserélted ki az "escalate" szóra a "climb" igét?
Possible collocations are:
conquer/summit/climb/get on top of/etc. Mount everest
Az 'escalate' szó jelentését néhány antonímájával tudnám érzékeltetni:
to get worse/amplify/intensify. Főleg (nem kívánt) szituációk leírására használjuk: difficulties/problems can escalate (to get to a higher level), people can't - at least not outside technical or literary/archaic style."There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Stalker-2572 #10615 üzenetére
Struktúrálisan mindkét mondatod okay. Az első mondat nem túl idiomatikus, ezért jobb ez a verzió: "How did you manage...?"
A második mondatod tökéletes, Hasaggymeg kommentjeivel nem értek egyet."There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10633 üzenetére
Watch your backs? To see whether I am there (on your back)?
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/be-on-sb-s-back#be-on-sb-s-back__1
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10638 üzenetére
Hasaggymeg: focal...considerations?
Afit: Allow me to elaborate on that.
By focal considerations I meant the careful thinking process related to designing a compact sentence which the most effectively conveys to the impatient reader an important information. (Was that a mouthful? )Compare:
1. Registration is continuous.
2. Application for admission to the group is accepted on an ongoing basis.When you pick up a flier, you usually take a quick shufty at it, and that is where your fleeting relationship with it comes to an end, right? The time people devote to information processing is infinitesimally short - we live in the fast lane. The shorter (i.e. concise) the sentence, the higher the chances the flier achieves its goal: the reader takes in the content (rather than his focus get (get = bare infinitive) distracted by a long-winded sentence). That is why I favour sentence #1 over #2, and the way to my developing favour of #1 is what I designated by the expression "focal considerations". Hope this helps. If not, whistle!
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10635 üzenetére
Harm in what way?
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz attrax #10676 üzenetére
Just as we normally do not say 66 per cents, but 66 per cent, so too we do not say 3 millions, but 3 million: 3 million people.
Second, when it comes to negating the modal "can", "cannot" is by far more frequent. Besides, many natives think only the "cannot" version is acceptable.
However, the "can" plus "not" sequence has its virtues in other contexts.
Compare:You cannot come. (= your coming is not allowed)
You can [not come]. (= you can stay if you like)Third, never start a sentence with an arabic numeral. Either spell it out, or try a different arrangement of sentence constituents.
Fourth, when you use a pronoun, make sure it has a clear reference (antecedent). "This is almost a half of it." "it = ?" Pragmatic factors alone are not enough to govern pronoun usage.
Try this: "This is almost a half of the world's population."Hope you will embrace my advice in a positive spirit.
Best wishes: Afit
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10654 üzenetére
Ezt a verziót még senki nem említette, pedig gyakori:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz attrax #10682 üzenetére
Sok náció használja az angolt, nem anyanyelviek is, és ennek az a következménye, hogy sok rossz angollal találkozhatunk a neten (sajnos).
A "cannot" kapcsán még azt hadd tegyem hozzá, hogy a szó kétféle prozódiai mintát is képes kövenit, ha megnézed itt:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Cannot?r=66
!
Ken 'nat és 'kenat. Miért van ez így? Az előbbi verzióban a tagadás nagyobb nyomatékot kap, tehát nem igaz, hogy a can not akkor használatos, ha a tagadást megerősíteni akarjuk. A nyomaték független a morfológiai alaktól.
Kösz, hogy nem kiabáltál le, amiért hívatlanul beleszóltam a leveledbe. Nem azért csinálom, hogy én legyek a Jani, hanem azért, mert szeretem az angolt és mert szeretek segíteni.
Üdv: Afit
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
Ez azt jelenti, hogy nem félek a haláltól, és ha háborút akartok, akkor megkaphatjátok, apuci!
Várj csak! Ja nem! Csak vicceltem!A mondat nyelvtanilag egy disaster area. It is a no-go sentence. Aki alkotta, nyilvánvalóan nem egy profi szintakta, hogy nagyon diplomatikusan fogalmazzak.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Stalker-2572 #10685 üzenetére
"az angol mondat nyelvtana sántít"
Szerintem pedig járásképtelen. Ha egy diákom ilyennel állna elő, fegyvert rántanék, pedig alapvetően higgadt típus vagyok.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Stalker-2572 #10685 üzenetére
You [changed my life] and so [mean a lot to me]. Anything stated to the contrary is an out-and-out lie.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Stalker-2572 #10693 üzenetére
There is some music tunes.
Kinek van kifogása a fenti mondat ellen, és miért?
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz finest #10696 üzenetére
On reflection, I am inclined to agree that music plus tunes is redundant, tautologous.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tautologous
Tautologous why? Tune already implies something that is connected to music.
Compare:- music tunes
- tunesAny difference in meaning? Anything that "music" contributes to the meaning? None whatsoever that I am aware of, that I can put my clumsy fingers on.
Good point, Finest!
Regarding the question of number assignment to the verb "be", the first step is to identify the subject (S). Hol van az alany?
Why do we have to identify the subject when it comes to determining the number of the verb? The answer is prosaic: It is the subject with which the verb agrees in number.
How can we identify the subject in a sentence? We have to lay down the definition first? What is a subject?
There are lots of definitions that grammarians have come up with in the annals of linguistic sophistry. Why? It is partly so because "subject" is an elusive term - it is like a slippery fish sometimes-, as we will see from our present example.Definitions that we can find in grammar books:
The subject in a sentence is the part that the sentence is about. How can we apply this definition? The thing is, let us face it, we just can't.
Another definiton:
a syntactic unit that functions as one of the two main constituents of a simple sentence, the other being the predicate, and that consists of a noun, noun phrase, or noun substitute which often refers to the one performing the action or being in the state expressed by the predicate,If I had to give you a definition off hand, I would become hot under the collar also/too. I have yet to find a more reliable method than relying on my subjective intuitions.
What it the problem with "there" in
There is some tunes.
?The problem is that "there" does not carry any meaning, so the sentence cannot be about "there" A sentence cannot be about nothing. What does "there" do in the sentence then? Why do we use it? It is a filler. Filler? Sentences in English usually have the following canonical form. First comes the subject, then comes the predicate (sentence minus subject).
What is our sentence about? The "tunes", that is what. It must be the subject then. But are we not supposed to start a sentence with the subject. Not always do we so. Why? Because sentence consitiuents tend to get different emphasis when they occupy different positions. Both sentences are fine:Tunes are.
There are tunes.Why do English speakers embrace the second version? Because the first is abrupt, in my opinion.
In what way are the two structures different?The second is a derivation from the first. How? We shove "tunes" to sentence final position:
- are tunes.
Is it a sentence? No. Why? Because sentences normally start with a nominal phrase, egy főnévi frázissal. What do English do to get around the problem? They insert a pleonastic word (there) into the extraction site of "tunes". Thus we have this:
There are tunes.
A rightful question at this stage in my argumentation is: Where is my line of thinking taking us? To my final conclusion, at which we have - amid yawning and painful boredom . finally we have arrived.
The sentence has two subjects:
1. an original subject, or deep subject: tunes
2. a surface subject "there", which should not be mistaken for the locative adverbial proform "there" (there is a car there; the two there's are different)If we take "there" the word which assigns number to the verb (plural/singular), since it has no number features, it follows, that, by default, it will leave the verb in singular: "is".
If we take the deep subject responsible for number assignment, the plural "tunes" will - as you have already, with some justifications, have predicted intuitively - make the verb "be" plural: are.Quod erat demonstrandum
[ Szerkesztve ]
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Stalker-2572 #10697 üzenetére
A zenei dallamokon kívül még milyen dallamok léteznek? Nekem a "zenei dallamok" kicsit olyan, mint a "vallásos pap". Hamár egyszer pap, akkor vallásos is, nem? Hamár egyszer dallam, akkor zenei is, nem? Tautológia.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Hasaggymeg #10701 üzenetére
Spot on. Yes. tunes are the different perceptions of the different states of the medium that carries the tunes.
A melódia nem más, mint az érzékszerveink által kiváltott élmény, mely a fülünket körülvevő hanghordozó közegből (levegőből), a fülünk segítségével képezünk le. Az élményt nem interpretáljuk, hanem átérezzük (experience).
A lyrics pedig az a szöveg, amit az énekes mond. Ezt interpretáljuk már, viszont.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz Stalker-2572 #10699 üzenetére
Elvtárs? Ki az? Could you be more specific?
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz finest #10698 üzenetére
Az ütvefúrós verzió nekem is eszembe jutott, de arra nem használjuk a tune-t, pláne nem a "music tune"-t.
Music, musical - they can both be used adjectivally. But! "Musical tune" means (to me) the tune is pleasant, resembling music, musical. In "music tunes", on the other hand, "music" means "related to music".
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
Megmondom őszintén, ha a második mondatot olvasnám először, a legkevésbé sem számítanék egy ilyen első mondatra. Nem koherens logikailag a két mondat számomra.
Amiért a második mondatban hibás:
1. Ha a "find out" frazális ige találkozik egy névmással, akkor a "find" és az "out" mindig szétválik (separable obligatory pv).
2. Gondolom, hogy a "find out"-tal a szerző a megismerni igét akarta helyettesíteni. Emberre nem használjuk a "find out"-ot, viszont a "get to know better"-t igen.Definition for find out:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/find-sb-out?q=find+out#find-sb-out__2
Angol szövegeget a következő esetekben lehet nehezen értelmezni:
1. az olvasó nem jó angolos,
2. a szerző nem jó angolos,
3. egyikük sem jó angolos.A 3-as eset a legkegyetlenebb. Hogy jelen esetben mi a tényállás ... a 2-es eset mindenképp.
[ Szerkesztve ]
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
válasz finest #10716 üzenetére
Fúró, mint zenei hang, ha megkérdezel 100 embert az utcán, 99 szerint egy abszurd gondolat. A kérdés kivisz minket a grammatika területéről (és az észből is) és olyan területre terel, ahol különböznek az emberek értelmezései az őket körülvevő reális világról. Pragmatika.
"Szerintem a "music tune" nem helyes."
Ahogy már korábban említettem, szerintem sem.
Nézd ezt a meccset a music-musical témában:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/music-box
[ Szerkesztve ]
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
-
Afit
csendes tag
Örülök, hogy egyetértünk.
A második mondatod annyira érthetetlen számomra, hogy találgatni sem szeretnék, hogy a "would" például mit jelenthet a mondatban. Hogy milyen jellegű modalitást hordoz.If you have any further questions, feel free to ask here.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Nietzsche
Új hozzászólás Aktív témák
- Gaming notebook topik
- Azonnali informatikai kérdések órája
- Kerékpárosok, bringások ide!
- Konzolokról KULTURÁLT módon
- Bambu Lab X1/X1C, P1P-P1S és A1 mini tulajok
- Intel Core i5-7640X / i7-7740X "Kaby Lake-X" és i9-7xxx "Skylake-X" (LGA2066)
- Szabadon fejlesztheti az OLED tévébe szánt paneljeit a Loewe
- Kínai, és egyéb olcsó órák topikja
- Vezetékes FÜLhallgatók
- Telekom otthoni szolgáltatások (TV, internet, telefon)
- További aktív témák...
Állásajánlatok
Cég: Ozeki Kft.
Város: Debrecen
Cég: Ozeki Kft.
Város: Debrecen