|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 17 new of 111 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 95 of 111:
| 
Jul 7 20:03 UTC 2003 |
Dont feel bad, gull. I have a grammar point that I have trouble
understanding even though it has been explained to me millions of time.
I just have a mental block about it.
If anyone wants to take another shot at it, feel free. I always
confuse "affect" and "effect" when they are used as verbs. I dont have
trouble with them as nouns.
|
jor
|
|
response 96 of 111:
|
Jul 7 20:09 UTC 2003 |
Owch, I see this more and more: except used for accept.
"The client found the product exceptable" Ow Ow Ow.
I'm not too clear on what Keesan doesn't like in her
examples.
|
keesan
|
|
response 97 of 111:
|
Jul 7 21:28 UTC 2003 |
A bit of bad grammar and lack of any meaning.
|
other
|
|
response 98 of 111:
|
Jul 8 03:27 UTC 2003 |
#95:
"The earthquake affected 200,000 people in the vicinity of Lima."
"The earthquake effected the destruction of $2,000,000 worth of
property."
(If you reversed these, it would be like saying that the earthquake MADE
200,000 people, and that it in some way altered the destruction, but
didn't necessarily cause it.)
"Change is constant. You can effect change, but you cannot affect it."
(This means that you can introduce change into an existing scenario, but
you cannot alter the concept of change itself.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 99 of 111:
|
Jul 8 05:35 UTC 2003 |
effect = cause
affect = act on
|
slynne
|
|
response 100 of 111:
|
Jul 8 15:40 UTC 2003 |
I think the problem is that "to cause" and "to act on" are similar
concepts in my mind for some reason. *shrug*
|
gregb
|
|
response 101 of 111:
|
Jul 8 16:36 UTC 2003 |
I see "to cause" is to initiate something, while "to act on" is to
effect something that's already happened.
|
novomit
|
|
response 102 of 111:
|
Jul 8 16:38 UTC 2003 |
That's still pretty similar to me but then again, I never could do grammar.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 103 of 111:
|
Jul 8 17:14 UTC 2003 |
You mean, "affect something that's already happened". You can, of course
effect that something so you can affect it.
|
slynne
|
|
response 104 of 111:
|
Jul 8 18:00 UTC 2003 |
Um...well...that is a confusing sentence ;)
|
fitz
|
|
response 105 of 111:
|
Jul 9 21:27 UTC 2003 |
This is a grammatical lost cause: 'gender' in contrast to 'sex'. In times
past, gender was strictly a grammatical concept. Words were, for example,
masculine or feminine (or neuter). People, on the other hand, used to have
sex. That is, male or female biological identities.
Usage has changed the rules and confusing gender for sex no longer merits a
correction.
|
other
|
|
response 106 of 111:
|
Jul 9 23:24 UTC 2003 |
Give me an example in which it is useful to give the same concept
different names in different contexts when the context is neither
obscured nor relevant.
|
flem
|
|
response 107 of 111:
|
Jul 10 17:27 UTC 2003 |
I read #106 about five times, but I'm still not at all sure what it says.
Are you asking why we have different words for the same thing? I got the
impression you were complaining about #105, but what you said doesn't seem
to bear any relation to #105.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 108 of 111:
|
Nov 26 06:03 UTC 2003 |
English doesn't really have gender. At least, not any more. French, however,
does: a table is feminine, although sexless.
|
gull
|
|
response 109 of 111:
|
Nov 26 15:12 UTC 2003 |
A friend of mine was complaining about German's genders, once.
Apparently in German a brassiere is masculine, and a child is neuter.
|
other
|
|
response 110 of 111:
|
Nov 26 18:13 UTC 2003 |
Makes sense to me. Men are (generally) more interested in holding
women's breasts than women are, and preadolescent children,
cuturally and societally speaking, are generally much more like both
sexes than they are like one or the other, so there is little value
in distinguishing.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 111 of 111:
|
Nov 28 20:23 UTC 2003 |
are there new technology words in German that are also
nuetral or masculine? (new since the language was 'codified').
Like radio, television, telephone, internet, cyberspace?
|