Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Englishman

The English Class

Recommended Posts

@Radux

Great master Yoda, the point of my message completely missed you had. Trying to see who’s light sword is bigger the point was not. Teaching Hamlet’s usage of this skill is as appropriate as practicing ballet before going to the discotheque.

 

And insulting your Jedi trainees is not the way of the Teacher.

 

 

 

Back ontopic

 

How about “don’t hesitate AND ask”? Is it an error or sophisticated English?

Share this post


Link to post

I can also give a piece of advice for people involved in contracts reviewing or translating: Do NOT use the word WILL. Replace with SHALL.

 

Example: "The Construction Company SHALL execute the work as prescribed in the legislation." The use of the word SHALL is implying an obligation inforced by the Contract or a higher law governing the Contract.

 

Always, in contracts, use capital letters for the parties involved even if they are concluded in Romanian, use bold for amounts and if they are written in English you must use the symbol of the currency before the amount, i.e. "€50.00". In the same time you have to be careful not to forget the delimitation of the hundreds by "," in English and by "." in Romanian. You MUST not use Romanian type of delimitation in an English document and the other way around. A correct amount in an English version should look like that: "The amount to be paid: €5,250,300.00". The same in Romanian should look like that: "Suma de plata: 5.250.300,00€".

Share this post


Link to post

@Alx, you are right. The reasons for that are a little more complex, I`m afraid. But you are right.

@Gizmo : unfortunately, there is only a handful of English grammar books that deal with this type of usage. The idea is that SHOULD, in a condition, does not fulfill the role of an auxiliary. Not at all ! Here, it merely substitutes the role of IF. Example : If you come with me, I will be happy . This IF can easily be substituted with SHOULD, where SHOULD means exactly the same thing. Example : Should you come with me, i will be happy. ( "in case you come with me,I will be happy" ) Of course, the 3 types of conditions ( If clause 1, if clause 2 and 3 ) suffer no modifications of any kind. They preserve they well known rules, but IF , in in each of them, can be substituted with no fear, with SHOULD. I say it again, SHOULD does not fulfill an auxiliary role.

@Mr. My opinion is that you should have asked first, don`t you find it appropriate? Well, there is no sophistication in that, that`s plain old English. "Do not hesitate and ask, and do whatever you want, and do it, and etc...." This is an imperative that is normally used, linked by ...and. If I come to think about it, I cannot find a similar expression in which "and " disappears. " Don`t hesitate, ask" is not common and may be used in speech, not in writing, but it should sound like this : Don`t hesitate , ask away !"

There was no intention of offending anybody...but English is what I do for a living... :thumbl:

Share this post


Link to post

I think in this case it would be better "don't hesitate TO ask". Is there any rule about this?

Share this post


Link to post

Well, "don't hesitate TO ask" is grammatically completely different from "don`t hesitate AND ask" . First of all, in your case, after hesitate comes a direct object ( complement direct) because "hesitate" may act as a transitive verb, if you want. So, we are talking about a DIRECT OBJECT following a TRANSITIVE VERB. It is ok if the aim of " hesitate" is ...to ask. If, on the other hand, we talk about a PHRASE linked by the conjunction AND, we thus have two different sentences, right? " do not hesitate, (and) ask, (and) speak about, (and) etc... We hereby have a series of INDEPENDENT sentences in which there is no direct object, they are stand alone sentences. I hope I made myself clear .  <img src= ">

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, but in this case "do not hesitate" doesn't make sense without the "ask" part.

 

If you say "my engine hesitates and looses power" you use "and" cause you have two independent phrases. Even independently and still they still make sense.

 

If you say "don't hesitate and ask" the "hesitate" part is completely futile here... you could just say “ask”. Or, if you’re afraid the people would hesitate TO ask, say then “don’t hesitate TO ask”.

 

I’m not talking only about grammar, but also about sense. When you use English as an everyday utility with a lot of different English speakers (native or not) it is very important to use clear phrases and no redundancy. And when you do it over phone is even worst…

Having dinner with the Queen is slightly different :D

Edited by mr_

Share this post


Link to post

I give up. My "light saber" has just switched off.

 

"my engine hesitates and looses power" ...And when you do it over phone is even worst

 

????? maybe...."loses" and..."worse"

Edited by Radux

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I can see, nobody is interested in finding answers to any questions. If nobody thinks English might trigger any problems whatsoever, I therefore suggest closing this topic. Maybe next time...

 

Close it, please.

Share this post


Link to post

Brilliant idea, Englishman! :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post

Considering in disbelief that English is just a piece of cake that everyone can master is a commonly met prejudice. I`m somehow disappointed, that`s all.

Share this post


Link to post

And it's not a 'prejudice' to disregard several other points of view? It's been a few months since I've stated the inutility of such thread. Oh well.

Edited by Immortal

Share this post


Link to post

I like the most common mistake used by secretaries: The things "witch: should be done are... This mistake should have been on top of that list...

Share this post


Link to post
Anyway, nice idea, and I promise I'll do my best to help. When needed and...when possible :)

 

And it's not a 'prejudice' to disregard several other points of view? It's been a few months since I've stated the inutility of such thread. Oh well.

 

Hmmm...just a blow in the wind, might I say... =((

On the other hand, besides the obvious contradiction,  <img src= "> it`s been a few months since i stated the inutility etc. In such a phrase, the first present perfect does not accept ...another one, but in this case...past tense simple. So ...the inutility is not that futile, after all, don`t you think?

 

I like the most common mistake used by secretaries: The things "witch: should be done are... This mistake should have been on top of that list...

 

Explain for everybody, please. :)

 

PS . Do not underestimate the so called " easiness" of English ...Many did this mistake and got burned in times of need. Examples? just look above...waaaayyyy above...  <img src= ">

Edited by Englishman

Share this post


Link to post

Stop being so acid, it harms your skin.

 

Leaving that aside, there's no contradiction. Taking a sentence out of the context doesn't make it a "point of view". On my 1st post, I have had a second 'line', which has been confirmed... up until now.

 

Blah, Im not in a position to 'teach' english anyhow, so feel free to be acid and make fun of whoever you want (but watch the skin) :)

Share this post


Link to post

Come on, man, I was not trying to be acid, but if was was, please forgive me... :drinkers:

 

I really mean it, sorry, in fact I am grateful to you for posting here in the first place, because as you see, this topic is deserted...

Edited by Englishman

Share this post


Link to post

How do you translate 'sursa comandata in curent/tensiune' ?

Edited by andreis

Share this post


Link to post

Current / voltage controlled power supply.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, by looking where one may find such an expression, you'll find some theoretical articles/lessons about: voltage/current-controlled voltage/current sources (the / alternatives could be any to any).

So, it's not necessarily about "power supplies", but generally about "sources". You may have a small operational amplifier that is driven by an input current and deliver an output voltage. That's a "current controlled voltage source".

To conclude:

- the common denominator is: source

- the differentiators are:

* the output type: current or voltage

* the input type: current or voltage

- the verb is: "to control"

- good english requires adequate hypenation

As an example: voltage-controlled voltage source

Edited by Abram Burel

Share this post


Link to post

- good English requires adequate hyphenation :mrgreen:

 

Voltage controlled source/ supply.

Edited by Englishman

Share this post


Link to post
hyphenation

 

Ha?

Share this post


Link to post

Well...

 

hyphenation = the inclusion of a hyphen between words to create a compound from two separate words (as in self-restraint); also, the practice of breaking words between syllables at the end of lines of type (also known as word division)

 

I really don't get the point, but I don't mind as well :D

Share this post


Link to post

AB:

- good english requires adequate hypenation

 

vs. : "good English requires adequate hyphenation"

 

 

I was merely correcting the spelling, that`s all... :thumbl:

 

Sato: :tongue: ( just kidding)

Edited by Englishman

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

 

×
×
  • Create New...