 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / ESL Teaching / June 2004a question about "be careful"
There is a sentence: "Doris, be careful that the water is not hot," Smith said. In the sentence above, what do Smith want? Is "the water is not hot"? Or is "the water is hot"? Thanks a lot in advance. > In the sentence above, what do Smith want? He wants Doris to take care not to allow the water to become/remain hot. > Is "the water is not hot"? > Or is "the water is hot"? The former.  SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > There is a sentence: > "Doris, be careful that the water is not hot," Smith said. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks a lot in advance. Not just the syntax, but the old-fashioned name Doris, and the curious use of Smith's surname but Doris' first name (I bet she's the maid, natch) indicate we're in no more recent times than the 1920s. If you aren't an L1 speaker I wouldn't attempt to use this structure. DC Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' ) - 30 May 2004 21:27 GMT > > There is a sentence: > > "Doris, be careful that the water is not hot," Smith said. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not just the syntax, but the old-fashioned name Doris, and the curious use > of Smith's surname but Doris' first name Smith is talking to Doris. He's probably going to use her first name because he knows her. The narrator, who is telling you who said what was quoted, might use last names to refer to characters, perhaps to remain more distant, disinterested. > (I bet she's the maid, natch) > indicate we're in no more recent times than the 1920s. If you aren't an > L1 speaker I wouldn't attempt to use this structure. What is wrong with telling someone to be careful the water isn't hot?: "I turned up the water heater yesterday. Before you take a shower, be careful [that] the water isn't too hot." In the case of: "Be careful that the water is not hot." The speaker is worried that the water might be too hot. In the case of: "Be careful that the water is not cold." The speaker is worried that the water might be too cold. The exact temperature of the water isn't material, just the fear that it might be out of spec. Binary expressions on the same theme can exist: A father is telling his son about driving a car: "Before you pull out into the intersection, be careful the light isn't red." Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:27:19 -0700, Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' ) <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: >> > There is a sentence: >> > "Doris, be careful that the water is not hot," Smith said. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > quoted, might use last names to refer to characters, perhaps to remain > more distant, disinterested. Fair enough, it's reported speech. How old was the last piece of fiction you read where the narrator identified characters by their second names? But the antique and faintly comical Doris is a clincher that this is quite an old peice of writing. >> (I bet she's the maid, natch) >> indicate we're in no more recent times than the 1920s. If you aren't an [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > A father is telling his son about driving a car: "Before you pull out > into the intersection, be careful the light isn't red." Fine, no arguement there. Eagleloch's rubric and the fact the example caused problems for him/her suggests she/he isn't a native speaker. While it's laudable for learners to experiment with new structures, the chances of getting this wrong, the fact that it's fairly unusual and that the intonation would need to be got exactly right if used in speech, means it might well not be understood and might be best not used. DC > Fair enough, it's reported speech. How old was the last piece of fiction > you read where the narrator identified characters by their second names? > But the antique and faintly comical Doris is a clincher that this is quite > an old peice of writing. I don't see anything "old" about this writing. I read works of fiction that are modern and still identify characters by both first and last names, depending on the circumstances and the author's preferred style. > Eagleloch's rubric and the fact the example caused problems for him/her > suggests she/he isn't a native speaker. While it's laudable for learners > to experiment with new structures, the chances of getting this wrong, the > fact that it's fairly unusual and that the intonation would need to be got > exactly right if used in speech, means it might well not be understood and > might be best not used. The intonation wouldn't really matter much in speech. It would be understandable even with no intonation at all, like most English sentences. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> Fair enough, it's reported speech. How old was the last piece of >> fiction [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that are modern and still identify characters by both first and last > names, depending on the circumstances and the author's preferred style. So do you know a lot of Doris's? >> Eagleloch's rubric and the fact the example caused problems for him/her >> suggests she/he isn't a native speaker. While it's laudable for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > understandable even with no intonation at all, like most English > sentences. You *are* a tease Micks. DC SignatureUsing M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ > So do you know a lot of Doris's? 'Dorises', I'd write. I have an Aunt Doris out California way. She's in her early 80s. I think 'Doris' may have survived about a generation longer than in the UK or wherever you were referring to; indeed, I think 'Doris' was at one time a fashionable AmE name. Cf. Doris Day, who's about 80. She's from Cincinnati, but she might as well be a matron goddess of Chicago wrt her heyday persona. Bwahahaha! BTW, in New York English (and, indeed, unreconstructed AmE generally) 'Doris' is in the 'orange' class[tm]. > So do you know a lot of Doris's? I only know a handful of people, none of whom are named Doris. Why? A quick search of the Web reveals many people named Doris, many of whom don't even have grandparents who were around in the 1920s. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > On Sun, 30 May 2004 13:27:19 -0700, Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the > St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' ) <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > exactly right if used in speech, means it might well not be understood and > might be best not used. I agree. As a non-native speaker, I avoid writing complex sentences. I tend to write simple sentences that use common words with clear meanings. But sometimes this misled the readers into thinking I am very youthful. :) > I agree. As a non-native speaker, I avoid writing complex sentences. > I tend to write simple sentences that use common words with clear meanings. > But sometimes this misled the readers into thinking I am very youthful. :) It can also give you away as a non-native speaker. In that last sentence, for instance, aside from the tense mismatch (I assume you mean 'misleads'), and the unnecessary 'the' before readers, the last part "I am very youthful", while perfectly grammatical, sounds unidiomatic to my ears. A native speaker would probably use a slightly more involved (but hardly complex) sentence structure like... Mind you, sometimes this can mislead readers into thinking I'm a lot younger than I actually am. Even that sounds a little simplistic. I might say "Of course, you always run the risk of coming across like a 10 year old kid" Again, not especially complex, and no uncommon words, but it's put together in a way that (I hope!) demonstrates an intimate familiarity with the language. Dylan > "Liz" <liz@where.abouts> wrote > > I agree. As a non-native speaker, I avoid writing complex sentences. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > native speaker would probably use a slightly more involved (but hardly > complex) sentence structure like... You assumed right. It's unidiomatic to your ears because it's kind of Chinese-English. > Mind you, sometimes this can mislead readers into thinking I'm a lot younger > than I actually am. I have seen "mind you" from time to time, but have never tried to use it because I'm not sure what it means. > Even that sounds a little simplistic. I might say > > "Of course, you always run the risk of coming across like a 10 year old kid" > Again, not especially complex, and no uncommon words, but it's put together > in a way that (I hope!) demonstrates an intimate familiarity with the > language. Thanks! The examples are much better, it's archived for reference. :) > > Mind you, sometimes this can mislead readers into thinking I'm a lot younger > > than I actually am. > > I have seen "mind you" from time to time, but have never tried > to use it because I'm not sure what it means. It's an odd sort of construction...an imperative where the pronoun is actually made explicit. Not even sure if there are any other examples in English. It doesn't really mean anything, it's just used to introduce an especially interesting or perhaps unexpected idea. > > "Of course, you always run the risk of coming across like a 10 year old kid" > > Again, not especially complex, and no uncommon words, but it's put together > > in a way that (I hope!) demonstrates an intimate familiarity with the > > language. > > Thanks! The examples are much better, it's archived for reference. :) There's not really 'better' or 'worse' unless you are aiming to sound like a native speaker, which really only comes with constant use and interaction with other native speakers over a long period of time. Dylan "Dylan Nicholson" <wizofaus@hotmail.com> wrote: > "Liz" <liz@where.abouts> wrote in message > > Thanks! The examples are much better, it's archived for reference. :) > > > There's not really 'better' or 'worse' unless you are aiming to sound like a > native speaker, which really only comes with constant use and interaction > with other native speakers over a long period of time. Well, I thought I am interacting with a native speaker, and this is part of that long period of time! :) > > "Liz" <liz@where.abouts> wrote in message > > > Thanks! The examples are much better, it's archived for reference. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Well, I thought I am interacting with a native speaker, and this is > part of that long period of time! :) Actually I'm a cyborg from the planet Xqoppl that's been carefully programmed to emulate emulate emulate emulate emulate emulate <%@$%(( SYSTEM PANIC MODE > > Well, I thought I am interacting with a native speaker, and this is > > part of that long period of time! :) > > > Actually I'm a cyborg from the planet Xqoppl that's been carefully > programmed to emulate emulate emulate emulate emulate emulate <%@$%(( > SYSTEM PANIC MODE Mind you, my husband is from another planet, too. Planet Panic, that is. Okay, I'll leave you alone. Back to lurking mode. :) >> > Mind you, sometimes this can mislead readers into thinking I'm a lot > younger [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > actually made explicit. Not even sure if there are any other examples in > English. Actually there's any number of [explictive + pronoun] imperative structures which could be said to work in a similar way grammatically... DC > >> I have seen "mind you" from time to time, but have never tried > >> to use it because I'm not sure what it means. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Actually there's any number of [explictive + pronoun] imperative > structures which could be said to work in a similar way grammatically... Hmmm...screw you...bugger you...f*** you... Not convinced these are actually imperatives instructing the listener to perform the action in question. Dylan >> On Mon, 31 May 2004 12:10:32 +1000, Dylan Nicholson >> <wizofaus@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Dylan No, I'm not either, but it's a curious structure; a similar thing came up with a student asking me what was happening in an example like:- "You've spilt my drink!! You ****!!" (In which 'prat' is only one possiblity). But in 'mind you,' who's doing the minding I wonder? In 'miss you!' the speaker is doing the missing; does 'mind you' actually mean 'let me remind you'? Not sure... Cheers DC > >> On Mon, 31 May 2004 12:10:32 +1000, Dylan Nicholson > >> <wizofaus@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Not convinced these are actually imperatives instructing the listener to > > perform the action in question. [...] > But in 'mind you,' who's doing the minding I wonder? In 'miss you!' the > speaker is doing the missing; does 'mind you' actually mean 'let me remind > you'? Not sure... Nesfield's 1898 English Grammar recognized imperatives with pronouns of the 'mind you' and 'speak thou' form. But the only modern example he produces is Browning: "Thither our path lies; wind we up the height", in which I'm sure the author is being archaic. He gives no 'live' example of the second person imperative with the pronoun. The 'screw you' series is different, as you say: is it an impersonal third-person imperative with 'you' as direct object? Or is it an optative? (Nesfield says the latter.) Either way, I assume it's an analogue of 'God damn you'. Mike. > The 'screw you' series is different, as you say: is it an impersonal > third-person imperative with 'you' as direct object? Or is it an > optative? (Nesfield says the latter.) Either way, I assume it's an > analogue of 'God damn you'. There's a much-cited (and only mildly facetious) article that deals with constructions of the form "screw you". You can read it at http://www.lonniechu.com/QUANG.html . -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > It can also give you away as a non-native speaker. In that last sentence, > for instance, aside from the tense mismatch (I assume you mean 'misleads'), > and the unnecessary 'the' before readers, the last part "I am very > youthful", while perfectly grammatical, sounds unidiomatic to my ears. A > native speaker would probably use a slightly more involved (but hardly > complex) sentence structure like... You are so right! I myself wonder at times why my sentences don't sound as "English" as those by native speakers', even when they are perfectly grammatical [and that would not always be the case, anyway ;) ] I reckon that reading good English texts may help, especially if one takes of usage, vocabulary, constructions. Rewriting perfectly grammatical sentences into a more idiomatic way, as you just showed, can be a good exercise as well :) X'Posted to: misc.education.language.english,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C - not an English native speaker "if the speed of light were sixty miles per hour, life would be youthful, fast, and dark." http://www.cyberslayer.co.uk/jokes/joke0587.html > It can also give you away as a non-native speaker. In that last sentence, > for instance, aside from the tense mismatch (I assume you mean 'misleads'), > and the unnecessary 'the' before readers, the last part "I am very > youthful", while perfectly grammatical, sounds unidiomatic to my ears. A > native speaker would probably use a slightly more involved (but hardly > complex) sentence structure like... You are so right! I myself wonder at times why my sentences don't sound as "English" as those by native speakers', even when they are perfectly grammatical [and that would not always be the case, anyway ;) ] I reckon that reading good English texts may help, especially if one takes note of usage, vocabulary, constructions. Rewriting perfectly grammatical sentences into a more idiomatic way, as you just showed, can be a good exercise as well :) X'Posted to: misc.education.language.english,alt.usage.english X'Posted to: misc.education.language.english,alt.usage.english SignatureEnrico C - not an English native speaker "if the speed of light were sixty miles per hour, life would be youthful, fast, and dark." http://www.cyberslayer.co.uk/jokes/joke0587.html Bill Bonde ( ``I could have nailed the St. Helena goat's pelt to the deck'' ) - 31 May 2004 20:09 GMT > > It can also give you away as a non-native speaker. In that last sentence, > > for instance, aside from the tense mismatch (I assume you mean 'misleads'), [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Rewriting perfectly grammatical sentences into a more idiomatic way, > as you just showed, can be a good exercise as well :) "...in a more idiomatic way." Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" Hi Enrico, > I reckon that reading good English texts may help, especially if one > takes note of usage, vocabulary, constructions. > Rewriting perfectly grammatical sentences into a more idiomatic way, > as you just showed, can be a good exercise as well :) What do you mean with "good English texts "? Books? If so, what sort of? Irma. > Hi Enrico, > > > I reckon that reading good English texts may help, especially if one > > takes note of usage, vocabulary, constructions. > > Rewriting perfectly grammatical sentences into a more idiomatic way, > > as you just showed, can be a good exercise as well :) > What do you mean with "good English texts "? Books? Also, but not only. What I had in mind is that whatever you read (books, stuff on the Internet, any text actually) you can come across either "good" English (i.e. finely written, rich of idiomatic expressions, interesting from an EFL point of view), or "humdrum" English, so to speak, (i.e. too simple, banal, non native usage). > Books? If so, what sort of? That's largely a matter of taste, I would say. The best book is the one you are completely engrossed in :) X'Posted to: misc.education.language.english,alt.usage.english Signature"if the speed of light were sixty miles per hour, life would be youthful, fast, and dark." http://www.cyberslayer.co.uk/jokes/joke0587.html > > What do you mean with "good English texts "? Books? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > expressions, interesting from an EFL point of view), or "humdrum" > English, so to speak, (i.e. too simple, banal, non native usage). The thing is that the other day I got a National Geographic magazine, I thought, "just for a change", Oh God! I was so disappointed when I saw I was unable to understand an article about "urbanization" in Cincinnati. How could it be possible that I am able to read a book, and I can't read an article in the National Geographic? > > Books? If so, what sort of? > > That's largely a matter of taste, I would say. The best book is the > one you are completely engrossed in :) Yes you are right.... See you, Irma. > Fair enough, it's reported speech. How old was the last piece of > fiction you read where the narrator identified characters by their > second names? Picking up a random book on Susan's nightstand (Kathy Riechs, _Bare Bones_, 2003), I find that it does. It doesn't seem at all unusual to me. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |People think it must be fun to be a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |super genius, but they don't Palo Alto, CA 94304 |realize how hard it is to put up |with all the idiots in the world. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > How old was the last piece of fiction > you read where the narrator identified characters by their second names? The Da Vinci Code, current bestseller. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam was too much. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.