The Routine On Yesterday
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Shun, I am not studying what you write. I am telling you, quite openly, so that everyone can see what a "nice" guy I am, to F*CK OFF. You don't amuse me (you are not clever), you don't irritate me (none of your "wit" ever hits the mark, because it is so badly formulated and aimed), you just are something that deserves contempt. As expressed through swearwords and insults. And plenty of them.
Last edited by Duncan Powrie on Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
JuanTwoThree wrote:Perhaps the answer would be to look at what it doesn't tell us.
"I played golf yesterday" is just that, I'm afraid. Nothing else can be inferred, to paraphrase Harzer et al. Grammar book writers may be unfortunately clumsy in their explanations and it's understandable, but barely, that an eccentric interpretation of "finished action" might be "an action never to be repeated again". The most cursory study of "I spoke English yesterday" shows that this is so manifestly not meant to mean "never again" that it's, at the very least, obtuse to suppose so.
I guess the explanation of Stephen Jones is plausible: "we use the simple past not because the action is finished but because yesterday is finished". May you share your opinion?
Xui
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Wood on the fire.
Good morning all!
We are, indeed, throwing wood onto Shun's fire in this thread, as we have in others he has begun and continued. We recognize that his writing in English has a long way to go before it is understandable. He does not write so, so badly, but the use he makes of his writing is obviously not to our liking. And he has demonstrated in his last couple of posts that his understanding of our writing is also muddy and confused, especially if he considers words like "muddy" or "confused" filthy language.
He quotes my comment on his writing and goes off on a tirade about filthly language when there is none. "Muddy" and "confused" are adjectives I have used for years with my students of all ages when I see that their writing is not "clear" or "comprehensable". He then goes on to state that the comments are getting personal....getting personal would have been to say "You are muddy and confused" and I clearly made reference to his writing.
On his second presentation of his parable of the naked man and the woman on the chair (which I finally got the second time around....who's the slow thinker here?
) he says: "I will not intentionally study something I know indecent, at least not standing on a chair." which seems to mean, to me at least, that though he would not get on a chair to study the indecent (and just what is indecent, by the way, in a man walking about in the nude in the privacy of his home, I do it all the time....) but if something indecent is presented at eye-level he would consider its study.
The first step in bringing this poster into line would be to use the 3rd person when speaking about him/her. This at least distances the writer from the possible emotional comments that we sometimes feel like making when put off by the writing of the other. It gives us a shield against the writer's barbed words, even helps us to be more lenient with "muddy" or "confused" writing. Go read the paper lolwhites offered a link to in another thread, can't get angry about what that guy says (more or less on the same subject) but can get a bit frustrated by his high-falooting language that only muddies and confuses the subject.
The second step would be to ignore the poster altogether. So many chat programs have an "ignore" button that blocks everything a chosen writer might type into the chat room. Here we have to make an effort to simply ingore, not respond to, those words that we find useless to the development of a discussion. We can stop looking at the thread. We can respond to the responses of those we respect or enjoy reading. We can pretend that the "offensive" writer does not exist. Perhaps, like a screaming child who wants attention, the screaming will get louder in intensity, but once it has been realized that such behavior is not serving the need of receiving attention, the child will look for other manners to get affection.
peace,
revel.
We are, indeed, throwing wood onto Shun's fire in this thread, as we have in others he has begun and continued. We recognize that his writing in English has a long way to go before it is understandable. He does not write so, so badly, but the use he makes of his writing is obviously not to our liking. And he has demonstrated in his last couple of posts that his understanding of our writing is also muddy and confused, especially if he considers words like "muddy" or "confused" filthy language.
He quotes my comment on his writing and goes off on a tirade about filthly language when there is none. "Muddy" and "confused" are adjectives I have used for years with my students of all ages when I see that their writing is not "clear" or "comprehensable". He then goes on to state that the comments are getting personal....getting personal would have been to say "You are muddy and confused" and I clearly made reference to his writing.
On his second presentation of his parable of the naked man and the woman on the chair (which I finally got the second time around....who's the slow thinker here?
) he says: "I will not intentionally study something I know indecent, at least not standing on a chair." which seems to mean, to me at least, that though he would not get on a chair to study the indecent (and just what is indecent, by the way, in a man walking about in the nude in the privacy of his home, I do it all the time....) but if something indecent is presented at eye-level he would consider its study.The first step in bringing this poster into line would be to use the 3rd person when speaking about him/her. This at least distances the writer from the possible emotional comments that we sometimes feel like making when put off by the writing of the other. It gives us a shield against the writer's barbed words, even helps us to be more lenient with "muddy" or "confused" writing. Go read the paper lolwhites offered a link to in another thread, can't get angry about what that guy says (more or less on the same subject) but can get a bit frustrated by his high-falooting language that only muddies and confuses the subject.
The second step would be to ignore the poster altogether. So many chat programs have an "ignore" button that blocks everything a chosen writer might type into the chat room. Here we have to make an effort to simply ingore, not respond to, those words that we find useless to the development of a discussion. We can stop looking at the thread. We can respond to the responses of those we respect or enjoy reading. We can pretend that the "offensive" writer does not exist. Perhaps, like a screaming child who wants attention, the screaming will get louder in intensity, but once it has been realized that such behavior is not serving the need of receiving attention, the child will look for other manners to get affection.
peace,
revel.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Xui, I was answering your odd question "May you share your opinion?" with the answer "No". The fact that you didn't understand proves my point.
You must see that my comments in a forum on mechanics would be inane and pointless, because I don't know enough about mechanics to make sense. It would be unwise to answer me because I wouldn't understand that either.
Look how long it took you to get "had used to". Your English isn't good enough to be understood or to understand, so I won't be drawn into some sterile "debate" which neither of us will follow properly. Really there's nothing else to say.
You must see that my comments in a forum on mechanics would be inane and pointless, because I don't know enough about mechanics to make sense. It would be unwise to answer me because I wouldn't understand that either.
Look how long it took you to get "had used to". Your English isn't good enough to be understood or to understand, so I won't be drawn into some sterile "debate" which neither of us will follow properly. Really there's nothing else to say.
My expression in English is as bad as before. There are as many mistakes as before. But it is at least understandable, so some can manage to discuss with me. I thank you for that. I mainly do discussion in discussion forums. I will do my best not to mistakes in writings. However, I allow myself if I did. I have a right to be wrong.
But this time is different here. For an Asian not to express academically in English can be a reason to be annoyed. The fact that I have bolded the name Xui, can also be annoying. Not just one person has such expressions, but also many ones. This made me ask myself why.
I often do discussions in a few forums at the same time. Last time here, as I record now, I said I would stop watching the thread because a reader said something insulting. I went away to another forum, and actually out of here for a long time, to prepare my new forum, I never thought that people here would misinterpret that I cannot handle merely insulting languages. What a foolish thinking.
This time, if I go away instantly, people will be further reinforced by the wrong idea that I can't accept insults. Sometimes, people can be very ignorant. They don't even know how to use Simple Past to express a finish!!! To cover their ignorance, they heap more insults on my head.
They should have spent some more time in studying the basic English.
Xui
But this time is different here. For an Asian not to express academically in English can be a reason to be annoyed. The fact that I have bolded the name Xui, can also be annoying. Not just one person has such expressions, but also many ones. This made me ask myself why.
I often do discussions in a few forums at the same time. Last time here, as I record now, I said I would stop watching the thread because a reader said something insulting. I went away to another forum, and actually out of here for a long time, to prepare my new forum, I never thought that people here would misinterpret that I cannot handle merely insulting languages. What a foolish thinking.
This time, if I go away instantly, people will be further reinforced by the wrong idea that I can't accept insults. Sometimes, people can be very ignorant. They don't even know how to use Simple Past to express a finish!!! To cover their ignorance, they heap more insults on my head.
They should have spent some more time in studying the basic English.
Xui
Last edited by Xui on Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
revel wrote:I'm afraid I'm going to have to second (and third) the attitudes of others here in saying that Xui's English is muddy and confused and thus does not aid in getting his/her possibly "interesting" points through to us.
==============
Though I don't deliberately read messages from revel anymore, I still find the quote here very interesting.
Aiming to embarrass a non-native English speaker more, he wanted to emphaize the large number of people who are kicking at me, so he added "and third". However, how possibly we say "to third the attitudes of......"?
If a non-native English speaker like me says something "His English is confused", these academic tycoons would jump in and point out, "No, one is confused; thing is confusing."
Ironically, revel wrote this kind of English to accuse my English of being muddy and confusing. Of course he can write a book to prove that we may say:
"to third the attitudes of......"
"His English is confused"
And this is why English tense is unacceptable to most: We deliberately keep the mistakes and defend them against the truth.
But I have seldom pointed out the mistakes in the messages from others, mostly because my English is bad. Especially in a forum I mainly discuss the grammar, and not the elegance of writing. I didn't check much of grammar because I did notice many others have done the same. We just send the main point. We type up an idea and send. We cannot spend too much time in a message. The whole thing is understood.
As I said, my writing is as bad as before, and has as many mistakes as before. But in the past, few people have focused on each other's elegance of writing. We have maintained the longest threads here. We literally discussed. This time, however, even a bold face of name is regarded as annoying. I really had to think what has happened here.
In the past, because Applied Linguists is free and open to any guest, when I talked to Mr A, he would send threat letters anonymously and I still had to keep on talking with Mr A, as I wouldn't know the letter was from him. This time, I have a choice.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Revel may not always be elegant, but he, like other competent English speakers/writers, is here showing his creativity.
Things like "to third an opinion" probably won't ever catch on, but they are perfectly comprehensible and merely serve as "throwaway" items in the context of a fast-moving, give-and-take conversation.
Things like "to third an opinion" probably won't ever catch on, but they are perfectly comprehensible and merely serve as "throwaway" items in the context of a fast-moving, give-and-take conversation.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Although revel has been trying to justify his use of "confused", I don't feel he has any need to. His choice, to a native sensibility at least, nicely blurs the line between the person and the English - that is, your English is a product of your confused mind - not that any of this had to be a conscious decision of revel's.Xui wrote:If a non-native English speaker like me says something "His English is confused", these academic tycoons would jump in and point out, "No, one is confused; thing is confusing."
So, minor "mistakes" can be ignored, analyzed or accepted; we only have to defend and "justify" them when they are in danger of being rejected (by somebody) totally out of hand and blown out of all proportion.
Major mistakes, not so much in language but more in thinking, are however going to attract a lot of criticism and scorn. Unfortunately none of us will be around in hundreds of years to know whether the "heretic" was in fact pronounced a misunderstood genius.
Once again, Shun, it is you who is acting the academic tycoon here and throwing the rulebooks at people. The "-ed" and "-ing" distinction is meant to help rather than hinder.
Xui,
you chose the word "Routine" in the phrase "Routine on yesterday", and this noun - routine - annoys me!
Can you adopt a "routine" on one day, and discontinue it for the rest of your time?
A routine is an ongoing action or habits that continue. There is no routine on one day and not on the rest of the time.
"...swam yesterday" is NO routine action; that person may routinely swim every day, though. It isn't a "routine" because it took place yesterday. It's a routine if it happens every day.
By using past tense, it ceases to be a routine and becomes a on-off occurrence.
you chose the word "Routine" in the phrase "Routine on yesterday", and this noun - routine - annoys me!
Can you adopt a "routine" on one day, and discontinue it for the rest of your time?
A routine is an ongoing action or habits that continue. There is no routine on one day and not on the rest of the time.
"...swam yesterday" is NO routine action; that person may routinely swim every day, though. It isn't a "routine" because it took place yesterday. It's a routine if it happens every day.
By using past tense, it ceases to be a routine and becomes a on-off occurrence.
Personification
Good morning.
In writing what must have seemed a defense of my word choice, or better put, word-form choice, I was being tongue in cheek and demonstrating the versatility of the use of either "confused" or "confusing". Another explanation that I offer, not at all to justify, for as Duncan notes, I don't need too, is that by using "confused" I am personifying Xui's writing and probably indirectly saying that he is himself confused.
I bothered to slip over to his "we're fed up with the lies in ESL grammar books" forum, where he claims to represent a number of teachers (and I wonder why they don't express their own ideas...xui seems to be the only one of them crying out against the rest of us), and I have noted two things. Basically, according to Xui as their representative, these Chinese ESL teachers NEED a book that they can confidently refer to when explaining grammar, since their students will not take the teacher's expertise for granted (and in the case of xui, one can well guess why). Well, let's make a collection of all those old grammar books we all have in our bookcases and mail them out to Xui and let him choose.
The second thing I noticed was Xui addressing the lack of tense in Chinese. He goes to lengths to prove his point and this, naturally, makes me say that all of his confusion comes directly from native-language interference. Since in his L1 he does not recognize tenses, he is unable to recognize them in L2, even when they are used to beat him in the head.
Finally, I simply don't understand his hostility towards me, I've not personally insulted him, nor used what he terms as filthy language, nor become haughty, have simply exercised my nature as an English teacher in commenting that his writing could be improved upon in order to make his ideas more acceptable for debate among us. That is, Xui, lay off!
peace,
revel.
In writing what must have seemed a defense of my word choice, or better put, word-form choice, I was being tongue in cheek and demonstrating the versatility of the use of either "confused" or "confusing". Another explanation that I offer, not at all to justify, for as Duncan notes, I don't need too, is that by using "confused" I am personifying Xui's writing and probably indirectly saying that he is himself confused.
I bothered to slip over to his "we're fed up with the lies in ESL grammar books" forum, where he claims to represent a number of teachers (and I wonder why they don't express their own ideas...xui seems to be the only one of them crying out against the rest of us), and I have noted two things. Basically, according to Xui as their representative, these Chinese ESL teachers NEED a book that they can confidently refer to when explaining grammar, since their students will not take the teacher's expertise for granted (and in the case of xui, one can well guess why). Well, let's make a collection of all those old grammar books we all have in our bookcases and mail them out to Xui and let him choose.
The second thing I noticed was Xui addressing the lack of tense in Chinese. He goes to lengths to prove his point and this, naturally, makes me say that all of his confusion comes directly from native-language interference. Since in his L1 he does not recognize tenses, he is unable to recognize them in L2, even when they are used to beat him in the head.
Finally, I simply don't understand his hostility towards me, I've not personally insulted him, nor used what he terms as filthy language, nor become haughty, have simply exercised my nature as an English teacher in commenting that his writing could be improved upon in order to make his ideas more acceptable for debate among us. That is, Xui, lay off!
peace,
revel.