Re: Foreigner(s)

Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
<jens@xxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelelsen news:5003a66d-9c6b-42bb-8535-c6081671e422@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 7 Mar., 01:31, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:

You can be an *** yourself

The English idiom would be "it takes one to know one".

*Am I obliged to use an idiom to give an answer accordingly? Hardly.

You would more credible if you used idiom to reply *in kind* (better English than accordingly). But you don't want to learn from non-NES people, so ...

You seem to
have translated the Danish idiom "du kan selv være et røvhul"
literally. The Danish expression is common among children but unusual
among adults. The English expression is also quite childish.

*Is it understandable? And what is the most childish expression from a socalled 'adult': "You are an ***" or "you are an *** yourself"? The person who starts the pejorative, I think.

I think it's more childish to reply as you did.

because you have
interestings point of views

interesting points of view

*Not at all - compound nouns usually form the plural in the same way as

Jens is right. Read what he wrote. You put the "plural" s on the adjective! The plural of "point of view" is "points of view", whatever you find in your grammar books.

in single nouns i.e. they add -s to the final element of the compound: grilfriends, bathrooms, bystanders. Occasionally, however, the plural ending is addded to the first element of the compound. This is usually -but not always - seen in compounds with noun + preposition + noun (e.g. mothers-in-law, sisters-in-las, commanders-in-chief, but note /my in-laws/.
disagree in the most issues,

You can, however, also look at http://infolab.stanford.edu/~burback/watersluice/node148.html

or http://www.doitwithdrupal.com/blog/earl-miles-point-views

You must lose the "the" here. Also, I would prefer "on" to "in" here,
but that is more a personal preference, as we have seen recently.

In Danish, of course, you would need "de fleste", cognate to "the
most". Your error may simply be an unwitting Danishism.

you really contribute to the fact that I shall not think I am
perfect in English at all,

You probably meant "should" or "must".

*No I didn't.

*Shall is used with the following meanings:

*Neutral future with a first-person subject (I or we): We shall inform you as soon as possible. I shall not be able to defend this position any longer. We shall notify you if there is any change in the programme.

Shall is misplaced. Must is better, but I would not talk about "the fact" here. The sentence is awkward.

*suggestion/offer (with a first-person subject): shall we go and have a little lunch?

*Promise (rather formal; with secon-or third-person subject): You shall receive all the money owing to you immediately. The children shall have their icecream.

*Obligation: in the third person in formal, particularly legal English (e.g. in contracts): Members shall enter the names of their guests in the book provided. Any notice shall be irrevocable and shall specify the date on which the payment is to be made. All payments shall be made in US dollars.

the same notion in Danish would be
expressed with "skal". Normally "shall" would imply the future tense
here, and it is just possible to parse your sentence meaningfully.

*you mean "it is just impossible to... "

I think Jens meant what he wrote. "Just possible" means that it is possible, but only just; you have to think a little extra to see what you meant.

*Should is formally the past tense of shall, but it only has the past tense reference in
reported speech, weak obligation (with a perfect infinitive) or adverbial clauses of purpose introduced by /in order that, so that etc.


I suspect that your choice
of"shall" is another Danishism;
*you mean Danicism?

*Nope - it is not another Danicism, but I agree that the word "shall" is rarely used in English and the Danish "skal" is to be translated into several words in English depending on the meaning of the word.

It probably is a Danicism. You just don't see it. You are using "shall" like a "false friend".

> I wouldn't miss you for the money in the world:

The idiom requires "for all the money".

*I missed the adverb - *** happens.

It's an indication about your feel for English. It shouldn't have felt right.

"I wouldn't miss you" is probably not what you wanted to say. "Miss"
parses as "long for you when you are gone" (Danish: "savne") or "not
hit you" (Danish "ramme ved siden af"). It does not really parse as
"want to do without" (Danish "undvære"), which it looks as if you
intended, judging by the use of "all the money in the world".

*As I said: so I happened to omit the adverb - *** happens.

You did not address the issue (your use of "miss"). Try to be more careful.

I can only be better

Better: "get better" or "improve".

*In this notion I quite agree - /I can only get better/ or /improve/ is better.
On this notion, or better: Lose "In this notion" completely.

even
if I don't like to be corrected, I'd rather want you to correct me than
a Dane or a Swede.

This time, unfortunately, you have to make do with second-best.

*second-best? How come you think you are second-best? Isn't it a pretentious and an unreasonable request that you should be as high as a second-best?

Ridiculous response. The way you presented the alternatives, native English speakers are best, and Danes and Swedes are second-best. There are only two alternatives.

You obviously don't like me, so if the happy day really occurs that you

This is complicated. Days can definitely occur, but "occur" is not
normally used with "one happy day". It would be better to write "...
if one happy day you really ...".

Reference?

Incidentally, your general attitude seems to be as follows: "I know that
I make errors such as confusing 'is' and 'are'. I also know all the
rules. I just can't be bothered to apply these rules and write
carefully enough to assure that mistakes like these only rarely slip
through to my readers -- at least not here in alt.usage.english." You
probably don't realize that this arrogant attitude is perceived as
much stronger that you intend.

*Well, so be it. I have been told that I will not have a chance to change the persons' attitudes here, so I must live with the fact that my postings meet harsh respondings. It was professor Spira who told me so.

harsh responses

So instead of making any fuss about it, I shall just shrug my shoulders and accept that it is the very person's opinion and then move on. What

Your attitude is impeccable, then, and you don't try to change it?

is perceived arrogant and rude is a subjective matter and I cannot satisfy all people here. I must therefore confine myself with the fact

confine myself to

that I sometimes am considered rude or offensive. I must likewise accept the fact that some persons here take the liberty of degrading me because they have been told that I am just as offensive in Danish newsgroups and am not able to write Danish in an acceptable manner. I wonder who has

I don't think they criticized your Danish, just your attitude.

told them so? The native speakers of English who willingly believe this notion without asking any question about the validity of the subject

these allegations

matter, seem to be the same persons who are just as willingly to treat me disrespectful themselves, so see what I care about it.

willing ... respectfully

Persons who treat me with respect are treated the same way from my side, and persons who treat me disrespectfully, mock me etc., are being treated the same way accordingly.

A praise from you is better than a praise from a person

"Praise" does not take an indefinite article. It is an uncountable
noun.

It is uncountable, yes, but some of the words may under certain circumstances be considered as countable as well or when used in poectic references, cf. http://www.poetry-archive.com/h/a_praise_of_his_lady.html

Not applicable here.


not worth licking your
shoes,

not worthy of licking'

*nope - lick sby's boots = It is not worth licking your shoes - you have the same expression in "not worth hearing your words" -

Jens is right about the idiom.

not entitled to bind your shoe laces,

Shoelaces are tied, not bound.


*probably, but I didn't mean tie here. I meant to bind, like in "shorts guaranteed not to bind" or as in "tighten" (stramme, forbinde, holde sammen på)

Then you meant wrong. You are not making sense.

"Who live in glass houses should not throw stones"

I think you need "Those who", but I don't think you are in a position to make that admonition stick.
.