 |
|
Subject: втречаться Это слово встречается в тексте 10 раз.
|
| In the text we come across this word 10 times. |
| the word is used throughout the text ten times |
| Или, отталкиваясь от вариатна narc the word comes (is used)all through the text ten mimes |
| comes through will not cut it here. i m not putting down anybody, just setting the record straight. so, no offense, ok? |
| А почему нет? come как глагол здесь возможен. All through имеется в виду на протяжении текста, по ходу текста. Сам не раз встречал именно в текстах написанными англичанами. |
| maybe those queer brits say it that way, i dunno. can u give me a link to where it says so? because from the AE point of view, it sounds fishy. |
| when i studied in the university i read some papers where some fiction books were discussed. I came across these words here. |
| aristarch, no offense, but i can take an answer like that from kath, or irisha. u just don't have -yet- that kind of track record for me to take ur word for it. again, it is not personal, just the phrase sounds highly suspect to me. |
| Narc, take it or leave it. Each person has his or her own opinion. If i do not have that kind of track record for you, you trust the professionals who trained me. They used this phrase too. But it's you who does not have that kind of track record for me. No offense. |
| sorry, not you trust but i trust. By the way, Irisha and kath are not only specialists in the world. No pesonal offence. |
| ok, artistarch, use it, and every other awkward phrase known to man, it is ur funeral. i could care less. bye now |
| Нужно только четкое распределение обязанностей - грамматику доверить лингвистам или носителям языка, экономику - экономистам, легализ - юрперам, технику - технарям... Обособление труда - один из краеугольных принципов успешного развития капитализма :-) |
| Браво, Слава :) А еще добавить принцип - доверяй, но проверяй (regardless of any track record ) |
|
То Лена: :-) P.S. Я хотел написать "разделение труда" :-) |
| Да, Slava, Вы правы. |
|
well, it would be highly unusual to speak of a track record in connection to someone who writes: "it's you who does not have that kind of track record..." and fully believes in his own right, while any first grader knows that it should be, "it's u who DON'T have that kind of track record." |
|
link 20.06.2005 9:48 |
| 2 narc - nah, pal, you ARE hopeless, for Chrissake! Your style gives you away no matter what alias you use 80) |
| 2 narc. I understand you want to show your English skills off. But see Google. "it is you who does not" is used 1110 times but "it's u who DON'T" is used 649 times. You should have learn English better! |
| mushy, that's because i m not trying to hide under new handles. if i did, i would adopt a new writing style, start capitlizing my i's, and so on and so forth. i don't, because i have no reason to post incognito. and to preempt new questions, i slough off handles regularly because i get tired of them. after all, using one handle constantly is, at least for me, akin to wearing one shirt every day. it gets kinda smelly after a while. :-))) |
| and google is always right, eh? lol go and ask those "professionals" who taught u. i m sure they will tell u what's right. do u remember how the verb to do is conjugated? is it "u does," or "u do?" u do, right. the subject in "u who don't have" is u, NOT who, who is playing a supporting role here, so why u r using "does" here? u r out of ur depth with me, my friend. run while u still can. :-)) |
| is it ,they who don't have, or they who doesn't have, aristarch? lol |
| Do not teach me English, my friend. It is not your track of record. I read much ENGLISH and AMERICAN literature and i can say that this construction is used in both ways. |
|
link 20.06.2005 10:19 |
| 2 narc - you know, i get this feeling of yours, and sometimes i'm full of desire to change da handle and all, but the train of fame follows me and i just can't afford to arbitrarily kick myself out of da pedestal lol |
| oh my dear god, some people r just incorrigible. aristarch, why not look at this as an opportunity to learn something new? can u imagine saying, it is they who doesn't know? i sure hope u can't. because "they" is not third person singular. by the same token, "u who" cannot take the third person singular form of the verb to be. it is u who don't know, that's the only correct way. the fact that the misguided use of "it is u who doesn't know" is widspread does not negate its incorrectness. |
| narc, but why do the English and American people often use it in some governmental newspapers? Why??? Do explain me. Because it is incorrect??? I have taken it from the literature, not from the earth. |
|
links, please. then we will see. and u know, just because something googles doesn't make it write, true, or correct. use common sense, it's the most powerful tool any of us really have. for example, neither of us has or neither of us have, which is correct? the answer is, the former, but both google. native speakers make mistakes, sometimes egregious ones. so, a search engine is not a good gauge of good grammar. can we agree on that? |
| Do you have a better command of English than native speakers? Tell it to someone else. Even if you have it at your finger-tips but well-educated Englishmen or Americans know it better. |
|
whatever u need to believe, buddy. it is useless to argue with someone who refuses to see the light |
| Tal, "neither of us have" and "neither of us has" are both correct, each in its own way - I mean, the "wrong" one is not considered a mistake any more. I guess it's more of a "British vs. American usage" problem. I'll take my Michael Swan book with me tomorrow to see which of you guys is right :-) |
| Yes, Slava, see it and tell us the results please! |
|
link 20.06.2005 21:36 |
|
There is no consensus on this issue among grammarians: "The traditional rule also holds that neither is grammatically singular: Neither candidate is having an easy time with the press. However, it is often used with a plural verb, especially when followed by of and a plural: Neither of the candidates are really expressing their own views." http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/038.html The indefinite pronouns none and neither are considered singular when used alone. Three rooms are available: none has a private bath. Neither is able to attend. When these pronouns are followed by prepositional phrases with a plural meaning, however, usage varies. Some experts insist on treating the pronouns as singular, but many writers disagree. It is safer to treat them as singular. None of these trades re- quires a college education. Neither of these pejoratives fits Professor Brady. |
|
No, no, and no! Neither of us HAS. The wrong one is still considered wrong by people who care about grammar. You may use the argument that language is a living thing (best put forward by Chukovski in Zhivoi kak zhizn'), however, it refers to slightly different popular usage. Using Google as the end all is incorrect, at best, but mainly it is irresponsible. Just because a person is a native speaker doesn't make him an authority on language. There are specialists for that. Isn't it the same with Russian? How many native Russians say "odna bol'shaya raznitsa", "ya izvinayus"? How many don't know the difference between "nadet'" i "odet'"? And that includes writers and journalists! Arguably, the best and most popular book on grammar (a tiny little thing) is called The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White. No self-respecting writer or journalist, in the US at least, lives without it. So, to quote it: 9. The number of the subject determines the number of the verb. ex. Everbody thinks he HAS a unique sense of humor. Although both clocks strike cheerefully, neither KEEPS good time. As far as the original question posed at the top - this variant: the word comes (is used)all through the text ten mimes is incorrect and i will try to explain why. 'comes all through the text' says that 'it is used all the time/a lot'. this is because you use the word ALL to quantify. adding another quantifier (ten times) is redundant and contradictory to the "ALL". i hope it is clear what i am trying to say. i am sure a linguist could explain this better. what you want to say is: the word is used THROUGHOUT the text. if you need to quantify, you say: the word is used ten times throughout the text. And Aristarch - I am the last person to consider myself a specialist. I am bilingual, but have spent most of my life in the US. I have many friends who are writers (native) and we often have questions and arguments and we tend to consult reference books when in doubt. Sometimes I'm right and then some times I'm wrong. It's only natural. And narc - my shirt my be in need of a burial, given how long I haven't changed my moniker :)) |
|
Аристарх, Вы не в первый раз ссылаетесь на Ваших преподавателей, доказывая свою точку зрения. Не ставя под сомнения высокую квалификацию людей, которые Вас учили хочу обратить Ваше внимание на то, что почему-то считается, что хороший преподаватель может ответить на все вопросы студентов. Более того, он не имеет права чего-то не знать. Но мы-то все люди, и даже носители не всегда в состоянии однозначно ответить на какие-то вопросы. В итоге часто так случается, что для поддержания своего реноме преподаватель отвечает на вопросы, но далеко не всегда абсолютно верно. А студенты склонны смотреть в рот такому преподавателю и зачастую совершенно напрасно верят каждому слову, произнесенному им. Вы не представляете, как много из того, что в меня пытались вложить не самые плохие преподаватели оказалос, мягко говоря, не совсем верным. Люди ошибаются, мое мнение, что профессиональное знание языка приходит не от преподавателей, хотя я сама преподаю, я понимаю насколько ограничены мои возможности действительно научить. Все, чему я реально могу научить, это правильному подходу. И главное, чему я учу студентов, здесь уже прозвучало - доверяй, но проверяй (с). По моему в случае с Куниным мы уже в этом убедились. Извините, за нравоучения, но Вы так смешно упорствуюте в собственных заблуждениях :-)) |
|
One more thing, as regards - it is you who DON'T/DOESN'T know ... both are right, but depend on 2 things: 1- whether YOU is singular or plural in this case, i believe YOU to be singular and subject is WHO, which would make the correct form "you WHO DOESN'T know" |
|
link 21.06.2005 1:07 |
|
To kath: I, too, was taught that neither was always singular. However, things change whether we like it or not. :-))) The usage is constantly in flux. What used to be marginal becomes mainstream. And I am not saying you should start using neither with plural verbs; what I am trying to say is that, before we decide to lynch somebody for abuse of grammar, we should at least know that the issue in hand is somewhat controversial. :-))) |
| well, again, just because something googles doesn't make it write. if 60 people out of 100 thought 2 plus 2 equalled 5, the plurality of the opinion would not make that statement any less false. when i was in college (which was about 10 years ago), writing "neither of us have" would knock points off ur grade in acedmic writing courses. and that was in america. i guess in britain they'd flay u for that :-))) |
| academic. sorry, haven't waken up yet. i guess i will go and get myself a steaming cup of jo. |