| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » bad English
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Martin J. Keane |
 Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Victor,
You fail to recognize excellent English when you read it!
Try reading more widely.
"Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:bufp3e$mdn$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
Quote: Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
"I really fail to see the point. Are the examples of 'phoque English' you
post really so egregious? One meets with solecistic usage of English, from
native and non-native speakers alike, at every turn. Were we all to post
the
examples of poor English we came across, as you seem to be so fond of
doing,
this newsgroup would be so overwhelmed by them that there would be room
for
little else."
I think it is very bad English, so I want to ameliorate it. Can anyone
help
me?
E.g., "fail" should be followed by a noun, like "fail an exam", so "fail
the
point"? Should the third sentence be "One meeting with solecistic
usage...?"
And "solecistic" is not a word. I can't find it in my dictionary. Also the
last sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't it be "We
were
all..."? And "them that would be room for little else" is not a good
relative clause at all, which should be "they that would be room", right?
(What does "for little else" mean?)
Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should not
correct other people's English, I think.
Victor
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| António Pedro Marques |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Gary Vellenzer wrote:
Quote: It's worth pointing out that most of the usages that tripped up the OP
are slightly literary and wouldn't be used in newspaper English or
technical writing.
How so? Of all the things he complains about only 'solecistic' is
'literary' (as in Letters). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Fred Mailhot |
| Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 1/18/04 10:22 PM, "Commander Venus+" <commandervenusspam@rogers.com>
wrote:
Quote:
"Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bufp3e$mdn$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
If this post isn't a joke, than I'm a struggling actor.
I'm with you on this one...it's too much to be serious...
F. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Sebastian Hew |
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Victor Lee wrote:
Quote: I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the
paragraph under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
"I really fail to see the point. Are the examples of 'phoque English'
you post really so egregious? One meets with solecistic usage of
English, from native and non-native speakers alike, at every turn.
Were we all to post the examples of poor English we came across, as
you seem to be so fond of doing, this newsgroup would be so
overwhelmed by them that there would be room for little else."
Hmm... it seems I should defend myself here, but as others have done
such a good job, I leave it in their capable hands.
Sebastian. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| fiziwig |
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ron Hardin" <rhhardin@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:400BDF1D.4619@mindspring.com...
Quote: Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
By the way, "solecistical" is also a word.
Now that's just plain silly. Did some poetaster need an extra syllable?
That's nonsensic.
Hmmm. I think this has been nonsensicalismisticalized just a bit too far.
--gary
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:39 pm
|
|