English Language Learners - 2014-09-13 (page 1 of 2)

« first day (597 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (302 days later) »

6:32 AM

When I was in Mexico with some people at a club doing shots, one guy goes "CABRON!!!" when I did a couple in a row.

And I said "I don't know the word."

He and his friends spoke a little English, and tried to explain (in a mixture of Spanish and English, but I'll just speak English for convenience)

"It's... er... well it can be used as an insult. But it can also mean you are really tough. I guess the closest words in English, what would they be? Like... a**hole, or motherf***er. Y'know, so if you do something tough then you're a cabron... but if it's said another way it could be an insult. Get it?"

"Don't use it in general conversation."

Context counts.

I spent a month there. People would speak to me in broken English at first, and then I'd respond in Spanish, and then they'd just assume I could understand them and I'd have to say "Talk to me like I was 8 years old"

user image

It's a poor cell phone picture

But that is me with Mexican Madonna

Which is to say that, when dubbing American celebrities, they like to keep the voices consistent.

So in the 80s, when Madonna was on TV a lot, they had a go-to person who would do the voice of Madonna in Spanish...and they kept it consistent.

That was the mother of my friend's girlfriend, who happened to have that voice job. :-)

icic

She makes a mean mole enchilada.

She used to do lots of voice work and also acted some, in soap commercials and things of that nature.

I found that in Spain and Mexico I could get by reasonably well with my baby spanish

But Portugal no one could understand a word I said

I gotta run pal, talk to you later :-)

6:43 AM

l8r alg8r

2 hours later…

8:38 AM

0

A: a rare unsealing - is this even a noun?

The word was created to describe the situation. It comes from the verb unseal, which means: to reveal or free (something concealed or closed as if sealed). In this case, the thing being revealed is the information in the documents. These types of nouns are either called, or are a type of,...

The answer mentioned en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deverbal_noun, which is interesting.

> - Catching fish is fun.
(Here catching is a gerund; it takes an object (fish), like the verb catch.)
- Shouting loudly is enjoyable.
(Here shouting is a gerund; it is modified by the adverb loudly, like the verb shout.)
- Loud shouting makes me angry.
(Here shouting is a deverbal noun; it is modified by an adjective loud (like a noun such as music).)

I think in another grammar, shouting loudly would be a participle, and loud shouting would be a gerund. :-)

I don't know which one (between the one in Wikipedia and the other one I was thinking about) is more like those mainstream ones.

Anonymous

9:06 AM

@DamkerngT. Catching fish is fun. Here, catching takes verb-like complementation. It is a verb form. The catching of the fish was fun. Here, catching takes noun-like complementation. It is deverbal.

Anonymous

We talked about this distinction in some more detail a few months back

Anonymous

Complementation is only one aspect.

Anonymous

Of course the latter is determined like a nominal (with the), but the former won't accept determiners

@snailboat I remember that we had that! I don't know how to use those terms though, and de-verbal is new to me.

(Deverbal as a word, I mean.)

Anonymous

In Japanese, the basic deverbal form is the same thing as the polite ます form, but without ます

9:09 AM

But how popular this concept is in English?

Anonymous

So はなす "speak" has the polite form はなします "speak (polite)", and the derived noun form はなし "story"

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Um, I don't know. I use it. :-)

Ah! I see. :)

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I think worried in that example is deverbal, no longer a verb but an adjective. I don't think I'd count it as a passive. — snailplane Jan 27 at 10:51

Anonymous

See, I put in an explanation of what I meant by deverbal after a comma :-)

9:11 AM

Hmm... So, all gerunds are deverbals?

Anonymous

No

Anonymous

> Catching fish is fun.

Anonymous

Here, Catching is a verb form.

That's a participle, a verb, to me. Technically, not a gerund, imo.

Anonymous

We can tell because it can't be determined like a noun, doesn't take noun-like inflection, doesn't take noun-like complementation, takes verbal complementation, takes adverbs as modifiers, doesn't take adjectives as modifiers

Anonymous

9:12 AM

But we would traditionally call it a gerund because the phrase Catching fish functions like a noun phrase

Anonymous

It doesn't predicate on anything.

Anonymous

It's a subject.

Anonymous

Although functionally the phrase as a whole is like a noun phrase, within that phrase catching is like a verb and not a noun

Oh!? Umm... I think I prefer calling it a participle when I think of it as a verb+ing, and calling it a gerund when I think of it as a [verb-ing] working as a noun.

Anonymous

It should be distinguished from a derived noun.

Anonymous

9:14 AM

@DamkerngT. It is what other people call a gerund.

Anonymous

→ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Examples_of_use

I'm not sure who that includes. (I think Swan is not one of them.)

Anonymous

I would be quite surprised.

Anonymous

The Wikipedia article you linked to, too, calls it a gerund.

It mentions deverbal too.

Anonymous

9:18 AM

Yes, it does.

Anonymous

That would be like my other example.

Anonymous

The catching of the fish was fun

Anonymous

There it's no longer a verb form.

Hmm... I think I understand them now.

Anonymous

Wikipedia's example of a deverbal noun is Loud shouting makes me angry.

Anonymous

9:19 AM

And of a gerund, Catching fish is fun.

Anonymous

They call a gerund "verbal"

I think this one works better,

> Her playing of the Bach fugues was inspiring. (playing takes a prepositional phrase rather than an object; not a gerund)

Anonymous

(They use the term "verbal noun" which I would like to avoid)

Anonymous

It works precisely as well

Anonymous

Look at the modification, complementation, and inflection to figure out if it's a verb form or not.

9:21 AM

This makes me think... Any gerunds could be read as a deverbal.

Anonymous

Does it take determiners, attributive modifiers, and the same complements as the verb normally would? Or does it take adverb modifiers, noun-like complements, and inflect like a noun?

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Nope!

Anonymous

But there are ambiguous cases.

Anonymous

May 3 at 23:06, by snailboat

> He was expelled for wantonly/*wanton killing the birds.

Oh, I remember that one.

Wait, what is this killing?

(I thought of it as a participle.)

Anonymous

9:23 AM

It can't be interpreted as deverbal because the birds follows directly. If we want to interpret it that way, we need to rewrite it as: He was expelled for the wanton killing of the birds.

Anonymous

As you can see, a noun phrase fits in the slot following for

Anonymous

Just like how Catching fish is fun must have a gerund and not a participle because it's in subject position, where we typically expect a noun phrase

Anonymous

(If we make the gerund-participle contrast, which most people do, but CGEL does not)

Anonymous

And it can't be deverbal because fish follows directly and it's undetermined

Anonymous

And because it would accept adverbial modification and not adjectival

9:26 AM

> Wantonly killing the birds was the reason.

Is that acceptable?

Anonymous

Sure.

Anonymous

Given the right context.

I think many of what I thought of as participles are actually deverbals.

Anonymous

Oh, give me an example!

Or gerund.

Okay, let me see.

I don't know much about terminologies, but my general idea was, when it's a noun, it's a gerund. And that's about it.

> Catching fish is fun.

> *The catching fish was fun.

> The fish catching that day was fun.

Anonymous

9:31 AM

CGEL suggests drawing a distinction between a gerund, which is a verb form, from a "gerundial noun", their term for a noun derived from a gerund

Anonymous

I'm not totally happy with that choice of terminology

Anonymous

(Although I like a lot of CGEL, they make some rather clumsy choices when it comes to terminology)

So, even though I can't explain why, my intuition says "The catching fish was fun" sounds wrong.

And I somehow thought of "Catching fish" is fun, because I didn't really see it as a noun, though it's rather ambiguous in this case.

Anonymous

If you just look at the phrase "catching fish", you can't tell if it's a gerund or a participle. That phrase could function a lot like a noun phrase ("Catching fish was fun" = "It was fun") or like a verb phrase ("I'm catching fish right now")

> Yippie! Me catching fish is really fun!

Anonymous

9:34 AM

So if you just look at the internals of that phrase, all you can tell is that it's a verb form, let's call it the -ing form

Anonymous

But then if you look at how the phrase as a whole is used

Anonymous

Then you can divide it into gerund or participle, if you like

Anonymous

On the other hand, a derived noun is different within the phrase

Anonymous

In The catching of the fish, the word catching behaves just like a noun

nods -- And when it has a strong sense of noun, I'd call it a gerund.

Anonymous

9:36 AM

So, here's the problem

Anonymous

People explain the gerund form as being noun-like

But now I have another term deverbal.

nods

Anonymous

From the point of view of the entire sentence, it is noun-like.

Anonymous

But from the point of view of just the phrase it heads, it's verb-like.

Anonymous

So calling it noun-like can be confusing.

Anonymous

9:38 AM

@DamkerngT. Now that this discussion is nearing a close, we've both brainwashed ourselves into wanting to catch fish by repeating the phrase over and over :-)

Anonymous

Catching fish is fun! Catching fish is fun!

Hehe!

I even said Yippie! :)

Anonymous

Yippie!!

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Sometimes the -ing form is used without any modification or complementation that would let you know whether it was a noun or a verb

Anonymous

And then it's ambiguous.

Anonymous

9:41 AM

In cases like those, you could add an adjective or an adverb and force one interpretation or the other.

Anonymous

There are a number of situations in English where you can't definitively pick a single lexical category (a.k.a. part of speech) for a given word

Anonymous

And that's okay :-)

I can't think of a good word in a case such as "We're looking forward to seeing you soon."

Hello @J.R.! -- (I wonder if this is the first time.)

No, not the first time – although it might be the first time you've seen me here.

I meant the latter. :)

Oh, I get it! I couldn't find a good word to add because there was one already: soon. So seeing in seeing you soon is a gerund, I believe.

Anonymous

9:51 AM

@DamkerngT. Yes, compare: "We're looking forward to the party."

Anonymous

Clearly a noun phrase fits there, as a complement of the preposition to

I don't have a problem with looking forward to [noun]. My problem is I'm not sure what I should call that seeing, a gerund, a participle, a deverbal?

Anonymous

I thought your choice ("gerund") was fine.

How about this?

> I'm looking forward to seeing you swim here again soon.

Probably a deverbal.

Anonymous

It's hard to derive a noun from the gerund seeing. "I'm looking forward to the seeing of you swimming here again soon" is rather odd.

9:56 AM

I'm looking forward to seeing where the rest of this conversation goes.

Probably where or when I could say I know deverbal a little better. :)

Anonymous

Actually, F.E. just wrote an answer about the same topic using CGEL's terminology (they would call the "deverbal noun" a "gerundial noun", as distinct from a gerund)

Anonymous

Let me grab a link to it

Anonymous

2

A: a rare unsealing - is this even a noun?

The documents, made public in [a rare unsealing] by a secretive court panel, . . . Yes, as you've already figured out, the phrase "a rare unsealing" is a noun phrase (NP) -- which is evident from the use of the article "a". The presence of a determiner (e.g. "a", "the") is one way of determi...

Anonymous

StoneyB uses the term "deverbal noun"

9:59 AM

Oh, I think I haven't seen him for a while already.

Anonymous

I believe.

Anonymous

Oh, really?

Anonymous

I can re-summarize what I said earlier about the distinctions (and there are two relevant distinctions)

Anonymous

1. Participle versus gerund, 2. gerund versus a derived noun

Not sure. I don't read all the questions on ELL myself lately too. I mean, I can't keep up.

curious, eyes shining...

Anonymous

10:01 AM

A gerund is still a verb form. It takes verb-like modification (adverbs, not adjectives), verb-like complementation (e.g. direct objects, not of-complements), it doesn't take determiners, and it doesn't inflect like a noun

Anonymous

When you derive a noun from a gerund, it becomes completely like a noun: it take determiners, it takes adjectives, it no longer takes objects but instead takes of-complements, and it may inflect like a noun

Anonymous

That is how you can tell the difference

Anonymous

But!

Anonymous

A gerund is the head of a phrase which functions like a noun phrase

Anonymous

Even though within that phrase it appears to be more like a verb form.

Anonymous

10:04 AM

So: "He was expelled for his wanton killings of the birds" has a determiner, an attributive adjective, an of-complement, and can inflect to show that it's plural. All of these are traits of nouns, and it must be a noun form. A deverbal noun.

Anonymous

And: "He was expelled for wantonly killing the birds" has no determiner, but it does have an adverb and a direct object. It takes the same kind of modification and complementation as the verb kill, and it cannot inflect for number.

Anonymous

So it must be a gerund or participle. Which one? Well, for takes a noun phrase complement. The phrase wantonly killing the birds functions a lot like a noun phrase! So we would call it a gerund.

Anonymous

We can substitute in it: "He was expelled for it."

Anonymous

This is a replacement test--it helps convince us that whatever it replaced is or functions like a noun phrase.

Anonymous

(It's not perfect. There are a bunch of tests you can do to figure out how something is functioning, and if they all tell you the same thing, then you can conclude they're probably right in this case.)

Anonymous

10:09 AM

When the phrase as a whole isn't used like a noun phrase, we call it a participle instead

Anonymous

An example from Wikipedia: "I saw John eating his dinner."

Anonymous

Let's try the substitution test: *"I saw John it." Nope! Didn't work.

Anonymous

If you only look at the phrase itself, "eating his dinner", you can't tell whether it's a gerund or participle. They have the same phrase structure.

Anonymous

But if you look at it in the sentence as a whole, you can tell.

Anonymous

And now we have covered both distinctions.

10:11 AM

Hooray!

Anonymous

(Although there is more you could say about each of the above :-)

I think I've used it myself before, but never this deep.

I tried it with this:

> The documents, made public in [a rare unsealing] by a secretive court panel, . . .

Snail, you are on a roll. You should put this in a community Wiki or something.

> The documents, made public in [a rare it] by a secretive court panel, . . .

Anonymous

Oh, like post a question and answer pair?

10:12 AM

"A rare it" doesn't really work. (I think it could work in some other context.) Probably not a gerund.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Well, unsealing there isn't the complete noun phrase.

Oh, about that, I think it's rather ambiguous.

Anonymous

To be sure, replacing a rare unsealing with it would be slightly strange since a rare unsealing is new information.

Anonymous

You can substitute any noun phrase that makes sense, though.

I think we have a tag for gerund and probably a few for participles. I don't know if we already have one for deverbal.

Anonymous

10:17 AM

@DamkerngT. Well, you're definitely right that "a rare it" doesn't work. It is a pronoun and generally can't be determined

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. deverbal

Anonymous

Looks like we do! :-)

Anonymous

All "deverbal" tells you, though, is that it's no longer a verb.

Oh, we do!

Anonymous

A deverbal noun is a noun that is derived from a verb.

Anonymous

10:18 AM

But you can also have, say, deverbal adjectives.

Oh, so this term is not only for when it's used as a noun?

Anonymous

Our example earlier, worried, is an adjective derived from a past participle. Interesting is an adjective derived from a present participle.

Anonymous

Often these are called participial adjectives

Anonymous

You could call them deverbal adjectives, though, if they behave just like regular adjectives.

Anonymous

In English, one of those gray areas where parts of speech overlap is between adjectives and the participle forms of verbs.

Anonymous

10:20 AM

But sometimes we can clearly say one way or the other.

This begs a question, in what ways participial adjectives don't behave like regular adjectives?

Anonymous

Well, we might want to say that participial adjectives are adjectives derived from participial forms

Anonymous

Allow me to borrow from CGEL:

Anonymous

> 1. It was broken deliberately, out of spite. [past participle form of verb]

Anonymous

> 2. It didn't look broken to me. [past-participial adjective]

Anonymous

10:24 AM

> 3. It was broken. [ambiguous]

Anonymous

> The verb broken in 1 denotes an event, while the adjective broken in 2 denotes a state - and the ambiguity of 3 lies precisely in the fact that it can be interpreted in either of these ways.

Anonymous

(p.79)

I see. I think I misread your intention.

Anonymous

My apologies, I was probably unclear :-)

"You could call them deverbal adjectives, though, if they behave just like regular adjectives."

Anonymous

10:26 AM

Yes, you could apply the label deverbal to them

nods

Which is applied to 2 above, I think.

Anonymous

What I meant to say is, if you find that what is apparently a participle form of a verb is behaving just like a regular adjective (as in interesting or worried), you could say it's no longer a verb form but an adjective

Anonymous

And you'll find that if you look up worried or interesting in a dictionary, there are definitions calling them adjectives!

nods -- I like that in those dictionaries. That makes it a lot easier for learners.

Anonymous

It's because they're actually new words, derived from (and identical in form to) participle forms of verbs.

Anonymous

10:28 AM

It's a very subtle distinction to make.

Anonymous

I have to go for now :-)

Anonymous

Talk to you all later!

Oh, thanks a lot, and more, for today!

10:43 AM

Hi

1 hour later…

11:44 AM

@StoneyB Which translation would you recommend for reference, for Shakespeare?

12:11 PM

Hi,

Can I ask a question about teaching English as a 2nd language?

Sure ask away

@user08742 Translation into what? :)

Thanks Ice Boy. I was just told by another user that ELT questions fall within the scope of the English Language Learners website. Will post as a question on the site.

Can't use 'teaching' as a tag. Any suggestions?

Creating the new tag 'teaching' requires at least 150 reputation. Try something from the existing tags list instead.

Is it a discussion type question?

Yes

12:24 PM

@absconditus 'Pedagogy' is an existing tag you may use.

Thanks StoneyB.

Meta is better suited for those kinds of questions.

Or we could just chat about it here :-)

I have tried to phrase it in a way that makes it 'answerable.' Here's the link: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/33366/extent-of-topic-complexity-for-15-minute-demo-lesson

If you still think it is not suited for the site. I'll delete it and post it here. The reason I didn't was because I thought it was too long for chat.

A very interesting question. ... Quite apart from the merits of the question, it will be interesting to see how the community reacts. Some may feel that it is illegitimate because it calls for opinions, not facts; such questions are generally off-topic across SE.

That might be avoided by asking the question somewhat differently: not which approach is better, but what advantages and disadvantages each offers.

@StoneyB into modern english

coz his english is so hard---I wanna understand all of his sentences at least grammatically

12:38 PM

My own feeling (but I am not a teacher) is that 15 minutes is a crippling limitation. :(

Stoney, your feeling is unanswerable

Anonymous

I think we can have some good subjective questions on ELL

Anonymous

@user08742 Interesting! I've never seen a translation into Modern English.

@user08742 I don't know much about such 'translations' - I've been working with Shakespeare since the 1950s, so his language is 'native' to me.

oh, I wish you were my teacher

12:40 PM

@StoneyB :( I know. And that was the ONLY criterion they set for the lesson. When I suggested a few options, however, the No's started pouring in.

BUt what if his archaic style rubs off on me ?

like something that's ok in his plays but not in modern english

Anonymous

The one I have is the Complete Yale Shakespeare, which has plenty of footnotes and discussion

I fear this...like tears running down his cheek...not cheeks as in modern english

Anonymous

The footnotes give brief glosses for possibly unfamiliar terms, and each play has an introduction and an end notes section

i ve read that Shakespeare's grammar is filled with errors

like give it me

12:42 PM

@user08742 Nobody's going to notice a minor difference like that. But 'give it me' might raise some eyebrows.

Anonymous

I think that Shakespeare's grammar is filled with exactly the language he wanted it to have (to the extent that it's preserved, at any rate)

have you read all of his plays and poems?

Stoney?

Anonymous

At any rate, I recommend reading a version with annotations rather than lookng for a translation.

@user08742 Not errors - that's perfectly ordinary in Elizabethan English, and in fact was still common in British English when I was a kid.

A well thought out extremely concise presentation can cover a lot in 15 minutes. The key word here is concise, but it will be difficult without first practicing it thoroughly @absconditus

12:44 PM

So I wanna read a grammar book of Elizathean English ,..that way I can understand his English systematically

Hello @StoneyB. Haven't seen you for a while. I'm glad to see you again!

What snailplane says: get a good scholarly edition and work through Shakes on Shakes' terms. You'll probably find an intro to Shakespeare's syntax and vocabulary in the preliminaries of any complete edition: Yale, Riverside, &c.

what about the RSC complete edition?

@IceBoy Agree; but conciseness is not necessarily very useful in teaching.

@StoneyB can I ask you what this means? O my fate! I but do pine and peak A way to bend this bale do I seek ....

12:47 PM

But the time constraint demands it :(

If I could settle on an appropriate topic at first, I will spend the better part of the next four days planning the lesson. Also, they would be expecting me to minimise my talking time (TTT) and maximise student involvement. My understanding of presentations is that they are one-sided, with the possibility of questions at the end.

Is this Elizabethan English?

Look at snailplane's discussion of gerunds above: that's a very narrow topic, but would probably take thirty or forty minutes to work through with a class.

nods

@user08742 That's not a use of 'bale' I recognize.

12:50 PM

it means a bale of hay.

i think...

@absconditus Your question makes me think of one-on-one sessions rather than a classroom.

no....I found it....it means misfortune

like torment.

Oh, you mentioned "pose as students".

it was so down in the list.

@DamkerngT. Because there won't be any real students?

12:51 PM

Am I right?

@user08742 Yes, but with 'bend' = ? aim ?

No, because it sounds like you expect that they are going to be critical about why you don't do this or that.

I thought bend is like "bend the course of destiny"

In any case, I think a job interview is about giving what they want.

change with force

12:54 PM

@user08742 At any rate, it's not Elizabethan syntax. "I but do ..." would be "I do but...". What's your source?

mathew gibson

a piece of literary garbage

other parts are so?

@absconditus Perhaps instead of a "topic" you might address a common L2 problem ... a frequent confusion or mistake.

@user08742 Sturgeon's Law: 90% of every [literary genre] is crap. :)

but popularity doesn't imply quality

Moby Dick was crap before it was rediscovered by the French

Who is Mathew Gibson?

I don't know...no wiki entry

12:59 PM

What did he write that you took this from?

that s everything just a two line lament

Where did you find it?

library

@StoneyB I like the idea. I will do some research and see.

And the book?

1:00 PM

I'd like to suggest something more basic than that, considering that the students are at A2 or B1.

@absconditus Roam around in the site ... lots of problems there!

i forgot

i just jotted it down

it was databaeese

i tried to find a phrase and it popped up

why drill me like that

Trying to track down what it might mean by locating it in context. Google doesn't recognize it.

Regardless of what I choose, it will have to be appropriate for (A2-B1). Also, I am a native speaker of the students' L1, so the committee could see me addressing and L1 interference as a strength. Just thinking here.

@StoneyB Thanks. It is a very useful resource.

@absconditus That is indeed a strength. You could address an interference problem - or you could provide analogies to some aspect of English from L1.

1:17 PM

@StoneyB I agree. However, I also happen to know that the school is against any direct use of L1 in the classroom. I can only do it indirectly.

@DamkerngT. (Hi, DT. I'm not used to running three conversations simultaneously!)

@StoneyB That actually sounds like fun to me. :P

(Or having two conversations at the same time, each in a different language. :-)

@DamkerngT. To tell the truth, I'm not much good at running ONE conversation simultaneously. :)

LOL

@absconditus Do they do a lot of conversational English, or read a lot of dialogue? If so, 'Conversational Deletion' (treated by John Lawler on ELU, here) might be useful and entertaining.

If your classrooms have the technology, it could be illustrated with film clips off of YouTube.

1:28 PM

I might do a story telling. :) -- Fee, fi, fo, fum! I smell chocolate cookies, nom, nom!

Wait, perhaps I mixed it up with what I like. :)

0

Q: Epistemic or dynamic usage of 'can'?

We hope this digging method can be useful to those workers. Is can epistemic or dynamic here?

Dynamic.

@StoneyB One of the emphasised goals of the programme is to prepare students for using English in an academic setting. Based on this, I think that formal written English is higher on their priority list than speaking skills for informal situations.

Though I think I will leave that to native speakers.

@absconditus If I may, that is a false assumption people usually make. I mean, how far can they go with formal writing without knowing how to make a typical conversation?

It's true that we can treat formal English as a different English and operate within that domain, specifically, as if it's a special English; but I think that won't work very well in the long run.

@DamkerngT. In these circumstances, I don't think absconditus gets a vote on that issue!

I completely agree. But the size of the jackpot makes it rational to play the irrational game, to paraphrase Steven Pinker.
@StoneyB: :)

nods

1:41 PM

Off-topic

"For example, when learners want to add *suffix* to a word with a final e, they must be taught that in this case if the suffix begins with a vowel letter ..."

Shouldn't this read "add a suffix"?

I would use a suffix myself.

@absconditus I tend to be of the other opinion: 1. formal English is perfectly serviceable in conversation, and the colloquial shortcuts are best learned in colloquial practice, with NS 'models' to follow, rather than taught in the classroom. 2. The classroom CAN provide access to models of formal English (videlicet texts of any degree of complexity), and formal English is a sounder basis for formal instruction.

^That sounds quite nice. I think that's fair and very fine.

@StoneyB I'll have to start googling synonyms for 'I agree.' But I can think of some exceptions in which teaching at least some informal English in the classroom might be useful. For example, the case of older learners who live in communities whose spoken English is heavily-accented. Wouldn't you say it might be useful to dedicate a few lessons to explaining the most potentially problematic aspects that could impede their understanding in informal conversations?

I don't follow. I thought your students are relatively young. (Who else would want to learn academic English?)

1:53 PM

@absconditus You are of course quite right, and I overgeneralized from your description of your immediate situation. You have to fit the teaching to the need.

points to self -- confused

@DamkerngT. I was talking in general. Regarding my demo lesson, I'll have to focus on what I think the school finds important rather than on what I think is important.

@DamkerngT. Older students. There are a lot of older people in the US these days who have lost their jobs in the recession and are returning to school to learn new skills.

My plan for now: come up with two lesson plans. One that focuses on an aspect of L1 interference, and one that addresses a basic topic in grammar (countable/uncountable, gone/been ...). Practice. Then decide.

I read your question once again, and I think you will do just fine, no matter what topic or option you'll choose. :-)

2:06 PM

@DamkerngT. :) Thanks for the vote of confidence. Personally, I think it is much more likely that they'll turn me down. I am just doing as a pre-emptive measure against future regrets.

Hmm... I think turning you down wouldn't make much sense.

They must have their staff to attend and evaluate the demo, too. I think they had to see something in you. :)

... and now I have to run away and do the grocery shopping while doughnuts are still fresh! 'Bye all.

Oh, sound delicious! See you around!

Thanks StoneB. Enjoy :)

2:22 PM

Oh, my error above is actually a good case why I think academic English is not a good idea. I should've said they must've seen something in you (and that would be what I usually say), but I somehow edited that to had to see. I think this error is not about my L1; it's about the way I had learned English, which was almost all about writing.

So I was fine with writing a lot documents and stuff. I was okay at speaking, too, in a sense that I could get my points across. But I always slipped some grammatical errors in my writings all the times.

Which was fine. Someone else usually came after and cleaned them up.

In a sense, I didn't speak English. My English was constructional.

@DamkerngT. I used to work with a native English-speaking editor. I have noticed that even he edited his Skype messages more often than not. When writing in haste, everyone makes mistakes.

My old self didn't even have a clue about some errors. :-)

@absconditus I guess he edited his messages because he's an editor. :)

I think I gotta go myself, too. BBL. @absconditus Good luck on the demo!

2:37 PM

Thanks for your help :)

3 hours later…

user116848

5:32 PM

@StoneyB Nice answer here ell.stackexchange.com/a/33376/6200. I want to ask, how did you make the images small and pasted them together? Also how did you write the small caption with them? (Even while looking with the edit button I can't seem to understand)

user116848

+1 from me BTW

user116848

ping me

No, these two have different meanings. In (1), cuts across could be glossed as "be shared among the parties". — Kinzle B 3 hours ago

I think I disagree with this.

Both sentences can be understood fine with exactly the same metaphor.

6:06 PM

@Arrowfar I worked it all up in Photoshop - I did the text pieces in Word and grabbed them with the Windows Snipping tool. And the caption is html: <sub>text</sub>

user116848

6:19 PM

I see. Thanks Mr B

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. I think I, too, disagree with the quoted comment

user116848

@snailboat howdy!

Anonymous

@Arrowfar Yes, it would be the same

@snailboat Oh, so we agree to disagree!

Anonymous

After I wrote it, I felt like was would have been slightly more natural, but I left it the way I wrote it :-)

Anonymous

6:27 PM

I decided is was okay, too.

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Hee.

user116848

Oh, thanks for the confirmation. Very late though.

user116848

makes grumpy face

user116848

:)

user116848

Just kidding

6:29 PM

You shouldn't get grumpy before 40. :)

user116848

@DamkerngT. LOL

user116848

Okay Damk I'll make a note of that :-)

Anonymous

I didn't remember you'd asked until I saw your ping me to StoneyB

user116848

May that's why I repel all the girls lol

LOL

user116848

6:31 PM

Oh, so same here. I used to get confused a lot by snailplane and snailboat. I used to think they were friends using the same avatar lol

Anonymous

I'll change snailplane on ELL to snailboat

user116848

Thanks! That would be better :-)

user116848

But it's fine I guess since I am used to it now :)

user116848

I think one name for all SE sites is less confusing for common folks

user116848

6:54 PM

@fahdijbeli Hello! and salams

user116848

How are you?

@Arrowfar hi wa alaikom salam

hi all too

Hi!

user116848

@fahdijbeli Did you observe fasting this year in Ramadan?

user116848

I sometimes skip it

user116848

6:59 PM

But I know I shouldn't

user116848

:)

« first day (597 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (302 days later) »

Transcript for

Sep '1413

English Language Learners

A room to talk about English, linguistics, or anything you wan...

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile