Hey Native speakers! Come and help us! Part 3
694 ：名無しさん＠英語勉強中：
How would you native speakers evaluate this English?
(The writer claims himself a real English expert, and one person praises it as "excellent and beautiful English." Is it?)
------------------------------------------------------
What is revealed in this case is that grammar is a double-edged sword; sometimes
It helps you understand English sentences, sometimes it becomes an obstacles.
Speakers don't speak English by following grammatical rules rigidly, but they
select words according to their own intuition to form sentences.
Actually grammar is a description of the tendency of this selection of words.
But it doesn't explain the whole process in which the speaker's intuition is acting.
It is not so much trivial clauses of grammar as wide knowledge, experience, and
sympathy as a human being that enable you to penetrate into the intuitions of other
speakers.
------------------------------------------------------
(The writer claims himself a real English expert, and one person praises it as "excellent and beautiful English." Is it?)
------------------------------------------------------
What is revealed in this case is that grammar is a double-edged sword; sometimes
It helps you understand English sentences, sometimes it becomes an obstacles.
Speakers don't speak English by following grammatical rules rigidly, but they
select words according to their own intuition to form sentences.
Actually grammar is a description of the tendency of this selection of words.
But it doesn't explain the whole process in which the speaker's intuition is acting.
It is not so much trivial clauses of grammar as wide knowledge, experience, and
sympathy as a human being that enable you to penetrate into the intuitions of other
speakers.
------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
695 ：名無しさん＠英語勉強中：2008/04/25(金) 00:31:08
>>694
First, did you copy-paste the text directly or type it in manually?
If it was the first instance, it certainly is not "excellent and beautiful"-
capitalizing "It" for no reason, "becomes an obstacles"; these are all awful,
terrible grammatical errors that add no meaning and distract from the writing.
Ignoring all the above, though, the writing still does not strike me as in any
way good, or even decent. The author plunges broadly but shallowly into
philosophical concepts and argues that grammar is not as important as being able
to grasp, like a psychic, the essence of what the other person is saying.
This strikes me as bad form.
Grammar, and word selection, are important tools in *making* oneself be understood,
and "knowledge, experience and sympathy" are no help when dealing with incoherent babble.
Grammatically, the above writing is just below passing. Clarity-wise, it is somewhat muddled
and vague. It is not, at the very least, "beautiful" in any way, either in grammar or in its thesis.
George Orwell, in "Politics and the English Language", had, I believe, a much clearer and
more articulate perspective on this issue. His English, while somewhat archaic after sixty years,
is still what I would consider elegant and beautiful.
First, did you copy-paste the text directly or type it in manually?
If it was the first instance, it certainly is not "excellent and beautiful"-
capitalizing "It" for no reason, "becomes an obstacles"; these are all awful,
terrible grammatical errors that add no meaning and distract from the writing.
Ignoring all the above, though, the writing still does not strike me as in any
way good, or even decent. The author plunges broadly but shallowly into
philosophical concepts and argues that grammar is not as important as being able
to grasp, like a psychic, the essence of what the other person is saying.
This strikes me as bad form.
Grammar, and word selection, are important tools in *making* oneself be understood,
and "knowledge, experience and sympathy" are no help when dealing with incoherent babble.
Grammatically, the above writing is just below passing. Clarity-wise, it is somewhat muddled
and vague. It is not, at the very least, "beautiful" in any way, either in grammar or in its thesis.
George Orwell, in "Politics and the English Language", had, I believe, a much clearer and
more articulate perspective on this issue. His English, while somewhat archaic after sixty years,
is still what I would consider elegant and beautiful.
696 ：名無しさん＠英語勉強中：2008/04/25(金) 01:59:02
Please do me a favor.
Which sentence sounds more natural?
She got a good coach for helping her win the game.
She got a good coach to help her win the game.
Please tell us if there were better expressions than these.
Which sentence sounds more natural?
She got a good coach for helping her win the game.
She got a good coach to help her win the game.
Please tell us if there were better expressions than these.
697 ：名無しさん＠英語勉強中：2008/04/25(金) 02:15:47
Added to >>696
One guy says this:
Wrong English: She got a good coach for helping her win the game.
Correct English: She got a good coach, who helps her win the game.
Correct English: She got a good coach to help her win the game.
What would you say?
One guy says this:
Wrong English: She got a good coach for helping her win the game.
Correct English: She got a good coach, who helps her win the game.
Correct English: She got a good coach to help her win the game.
What would you say?
698 ：名無しさん＠英語勉強中：2008/04/25(金) 02:25:48
>>694
Heh, I was in the thread that that came from.
>>695 sounds to me like a Japanese guy from that thread who just has a grudge against that プロ guy.
That paragraph is not "just below passing" in terms of grammar, nor is it muddled and vague.
There's a handful of grammatical mistakes ("becomes an obstacles" could have just been a typo)
and places where the phrasing is awkward ("description of the tendency of this selection of words" for example)
or the word choice is strange (penetrate in "penetrate into the intuitions"), but on the whole it's very well-written
for a non-native speaker. It was obviously written by a non-native, but I don't think you should necessarily hold
natives and non-natives to the same standard (unless they ask for such an evaluation).
To answer your question directly, it's not beautiful, but for someone learning English as a second language I would even say it's excellent.
(I'm not going to evaluate what he said, only how he said it.)
>>696
The first one doesn't make sense. "She got a good coach to help her win the game." is fine.
>>697
Just saw your second post. Yeah, the guy's right, although the meanings of those two correct sentences are different.
Heh, I was in the thread that that came from.
>>695 sounds to me like a Japanese guy from that thread who just has a grudge against that プロ guy.
That paragraph is not "just below passing" in terms of grammar, nor is it muddled and vague.
There's a handful of grammatical mistakes ("becomes an obstacles" could have just been a typo)
and places where the phrasing is awkward ("description of the tendency of this selection of words" for example)
or the word choice is strange (penetrate in "penetrate into the intuitions"), but on the whole it's very well-written
for a non-native speaker. It was obviously written by a non-native, but I don't think you should necessarily hold
natives and non-natives to the same standard (unless they ask for such an evaluation).
To answer your question directly, it's not beautiful, but for someone learning English as a second language I would even say it's excellent.
(I'm not going to evaluate what he said, only how he said it.)
>>696
The first one doesn't make sense. "She got a good coach to help her win the game." is fine.
>>697
Just saw your second post. Yeah, the guy's right, although the meanings of those two correct sentences are different.
699 ：名無しさん＠英語勉強中：2008/04/25(金) 04:12:29
(I was asked to do this in another thread.)
First, there's a lot of redundancy. "copy-paste directly", "type it in manually", "awful, terrible grammatical errors".
This in itself doesn't mean a whole lot, but it's just one thing that struck me as odd.
"If it was the first instance" This is incorrect, although it's one of those mistakes I could *possibly* see a native speaker making. Maybe.
>capitalizing "It" for no reason, "becomes an obstacles"; these are all awful, terrible grammatical errors that add no meaning and distract from the writing.
This probably gives it away the most. One word incorrectly capitalized and a stray -s (could even just be a typo, as I said) are far from being awful, terrible grammatical errors.
Native speakers tend to be the most lenient, we want to encourage others to keep studying and not nitpick their writing. The only reason to point out these two minor errors is a grudge against the author.
And then to say that they "add no meaning", that just doesn't make any god-damn sense. They're errors, why the hell would they add meaning. You say something doesn't add meaning when it's superfluous (excessive, unnecessary).
They certainly don't "distract from the writing", I didn't even notice them the first time I read through it.
To go out of your way and say things like this just tells me you have a grudge or a bone to pick.
First, there's a lot of redundancy. "copy-paste directly", "type it in manually", "awful, terrible grammatical errors".
This in itself doesn't mean a whole lot, but it's just one thing that struck me as odd.
"If it was the first instance" This is incorrect, although it's one of those mistakes I could *possibly* see a native speaker making. Maybe.
>capitalizing "It" for no reason, "becomes an obstacles"; these are all awful, terrible grammatical errors that add no meaning and distract from the writing.
This probably gives it away the most. One word incorrectly capitalized and a stray -s (could even just be a typo, as I said) are far from being awful, terrible grammatical errors.
Native speakers tend to be the most lenient, we want to encourage others to keep studying and not nitpick their writing. The only reason to point out these two minor errors is a grudge against the author.
And then to say that they "add no meaning", that just doesn't make any god-damn sense. They're errors, why the hell would they add meaning. You say something doesn't add meaning when it's superfluous (excessive, unnecessary).
They certainly don't "distract from the writing", I didn't even notice them the first time I read through it.
To go out of your way and say things like this just tells me you have a grudge or a bone to pick.
700 ：名無しさん＠英語勉強中：2008/04/25(金) 04:12:50
>>699
"Ignoring all the above" He hasn't written nearly enough to say "all of the above," there's exactly *one* relevant sentence before that line.
>the writing still does not strike me as in any way good, or even decent.
Again, this guy's just got a grudge. That paragraph isn't that bad, that's just a fact. It's not perfect, but to say it's not even decent means you're just an asshole.
Then he starts evaluating *what* he said as opposed to the writing itself, which wasn't what was asked. More proof to me that this guy's just looking for an excuse to tear the original author apart.
>*making* oneself be understood,
Minor thing but it caught my attention, "making oneself understood" comes much more naturally to me.
>"knowledge, experience and sympathy" are no help when dealing with incoherent babble.
Give me a break. The original author just said grammar isn't the whole story, "it doesn't explain the whole process..." He's saying all those other things are important, too.
This guy's going off on a tangent, he sounds just like those Japanese guys who are obsessed with English grammar.
Again I just don't see a native speaker ever writing this, in my opinion we'd be more likely to agree with the original guy. Grammar *isn't* the whole story, it's important but all those other things are just as, or arguably even more, important.
"Ignoring all the above" He hasn't written nearly enough to say "all of the above," there's exactly *one* relevant sentence before that line.
>the writing still does not strike me as in any way good, or even decent.
Again, this guy's just got a grudge. That paragraph isn't that bad, that's just a fact. It's not perfect, but to say it's not even decent means you're just an asshole.
Then he starts evaluating *what* he said as opposed to the writing itself, which wasn't what was asked. More proof to me that this guy's just looking for an excuse to tear the original author apart.
>*making* oneself be understood,
Minor thing but it caught my attention, "making oneself understood" comes much more naturally to me.
>"knowledge, experience and sympathy" are no help when dealing with incoherent babble.
Give me a break. The original author just said grammar isn't the whole story, "it doesn't explain the whole process..." He's saying all those other things are important, too.
This guy's going off on a tangent, he sounds just like those Japanese guys who are obsessed with English grammar.
Again I just don't see a native speaker ever writing this, in my opinion we'd be more likely to agree with the original guy. Grammar *isn't* the whole story, it's important but all those other things are just as, or arguably even more, important.
701 ：名無しさん＠英語勉強中：2008/04/25(金) 04:13:56
>>700
>Grammatically, the above writing is just below passing. Clarity-wise, it is somewhat muddled and vague.
I kind of addressed this in my other post, but yeah he's just wrong. If he finds that paragraph "muddled and vague", he's not very good at English himself.
>either in grammar or in its thesis.
All I can say to this is, who are you trying to impress? It was just one paragraph written by an ESL guy, and given that, it was damn good.
There's no way this guy (>>695) is evaluating it objectively.
Then to bring in George Orwell? To compare to a paragraph written by a Japanese guy on 2ch? Wow. Douchebag alert.
This guy's just trying to make himself look good, and failing miserably at it.
>Grammatically, the above writing is just below passing. Clarity-wise, it is somewhat muddled and vague.
I kind of addressed this in my other post, but yeah he's just wrong. If he finds that paragraph "muddled and vague", he's not very good at English himself.
>either in grammar or in its thesis.
All I can say to this is, who are you trying to impress? It was just one paragraph written by an ESL guy, and given that, it was damn good.
There's no way this guy (>>695) is evaluating it objectively.
Then to bring in George Orwell? To compare to a paragraph written by a Japanese guy on 2ch? Wow. Douchebag alert.
This guy's just trying to make himself look good, and failing miserably at it.