Re: Foreigner(s)
- From: Chuck Riggs <chriggs@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:52:45 +0000
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:58:52 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
"Lewis" <g.kreme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrngrkrf4.2ia4.g.kreme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> And yet your English just screams that you are not a native speaker,
so I
can't imagine how you could be qualified to judge whether you should
be
surprised by what some of the native speakers think and say.
I am not a native speaker - that's true, but this doesn't mean that I
cannot have any meaning of how English grammar is or how the phonetics
works.
"Understanding" would be a better choice than "meaning".
Phonetics is singular, so "...how the phonetics work" is correct.
In fact I might know more about the grammar than you (I said; I
might)
Why did you insert a semicolon?
but you speak the language which is better.
You need a comma after "language".
For my goal it is
better that I stick to the grammar books rather that I accept a language
from the street or any other colloquial expression - at least for the
time being.
I would rewrite that disaster of a sentence if I were editing my own
work.
And I don't care whether it is shown that I am not a native
speaker - I will never be able to hide this anyway, so why bother.
Why are you here if you don't want to improve your English? Learning
the language is difficult, but it is far from impossible.
What you, however, might demand of me is that I am doing my best to
perfectionate my language, and this I surely will do - it doesn't come
overnight and I am too old to acquire more perfection but at little
improvement, I think.
Do you edit or, at least, use a spell checker? Did you find
"perfectionate" in a dictionary?
"the English usage" "dragging my person" "into your frustrations" "is
just being". Come on, really?
Here the message was the issue here - the grammar or the colloquials
were not the centre of my mind here. Sorry.
"Colloquial" is an adjective.
As you see from Lewis' contribution, he dosen't care if a person is
"weak" and therefore he never considers other people: he will do as
he please every time and will not take any responsibility at all for
his way of behave.
Heh he. Not at all what I said. I think perhaps your demonstrated
tenuous grasp of English has failed you in your attempts to parse my
statement.
All right - when you say so. But I must admit, I don't like this
"macho-language" : weak, strong etc. I often have a sympathy for the
weak - so...
We usually say "if you say so", not "when you say so".
It is tempting to respond, "Why should I then, take responsibility
for remarks which are considered rude when you don't seem to care
yourself about the same thing?".
Go ahead and respond. Did I say you couldn't?
Not to my present knowledge. But I don't like to be "rude" or offensive,
nevertheless I did a good lousy job in this field, don't you think?
What is anyone to make of "good lousy job"?
Since it is clear you are not editing your work, why should anyone
here take the time to critique it?
<snip>
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- From: Arne H. Wilstrup
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- References:
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- From: Chuck Riggs
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- From: Pat Durkin
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- From: Chuck Riggs
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- From: Arne H. Wilstrup
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- From: Chuck Riggs
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- From: Arne H. Wilstrup
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- From: Arne H. Wilstrup
- Re: Foreigner(s)
- Prev by Date: Re: Foreigner(s)
- Next by Date: Re: Foreigner(s)
- Previous by thread: Re: Foreigner(s)
- Next by thread: Re: Foreigner(s)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading