From: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) on 18 Jul 2006 12:00
> Six months ago we asked to have some rotten wood replaced on a window
> frame, we are still waiting for the company to do the work.
Sounds like the company that (allegedly) "maintains" the
apartment building I live in!
From: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) on 18 Jul 2006 12:09
Dave Frightens Me wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:04:00 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
>>>The choice of words? The descriptive imagery?
>>>Being unable to translate something into another language
>>>does NOT mean one cannot comprehend - and appreciate -
>>Actually it does. Anything you can understand, you can explain in
>>English (that is, you can translate it).
>>This reminds me of the old claim that one hears so often in language
>>circles: "Oh, I can understand it, I just can't speak it." In
>>reality, that never happens: if you can understand it, you can speak
>>it. If you can't speak it, you can't understand it. You cannot have
>>one without the other. People who say they understand it but cannot
>>speak it actually understand almost nothing; they get the vague gist
>>of what is being said, but nothing more, and their imagination fills
>>in the rest. It can be hard to convince such people that they really
>>haven't understood anything, but asking detailed questions easily
>>elicits the proof. The fewer languages they actually speak, the more
>>likely they are to experience this illusion.
> What bullshit this is! If the words don't come to you, you can't speak
> it, but you may well still be able to understand it.
Particularly in written form, where you can see the
similarities to words in your native tongue, and have time
to think about meaning! (Because it "stays put" on the
printed page, whereas in conversation, you must grasp
meaning as the words are spoken.)
From: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) on 18 Jul 2006 12:11
Stanislas de Kertanguy wrote:
> Le 18/07/2006, Martin a suppos? :
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:54:10 +0200, Stanislas de Kertanguy
>> <stanislas.dekertanguy(a)lesptt.net> wrote:
>>> jeremyrh.geo(a)yahoo.com a formul? la demande :
>>>> A person who cannot write grammatically flawless French can still
>>>> understand French.
>>> And that's a good thing, because were that not true, many of my
>>> pupils would be in a dark hole ...
>> ... with Mixi? Say it's not true. :-)
> No, for as far as I know, Mxsmanix does not teach French :-)
I suspect he does not teach English very effectively,
From: EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) on 18 Jul 2006 12:17
> barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>>For example, formulations such as "me and Antony" are now not only
>>universally understood but also don't grate on very many people as being
>>'wrong' - I'd say they have effectively /become/ grammatically acceptable.
> "Me and Antony" was never incorrect.
Where did YOU learn English? It certainly was when I went
to school! (And still "grates" on my ears, especially when
used by educated people.)
From: Keith W on 18 Jul 2006 12:53
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>>>For example, formulations such as "me and Antony" are now not only
>>>universally understood but also don't grate on very many people as being
>>>'wrong' - I'd say they have effectively /become/ grammatically
>> "Me and Antony" was never incorrect.
> Where did YOU learn English? It certainly was when I went to school!
> (And still "grates" on my ears, especially when used by educated people.)
"Anthony and I went to the park" is the correct form , the
time to use 'me' is when some 3rd party actor is mentioned first
as in. "Tom took Anthony and me went to the park"
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----