User:Joshua Jonathan/Grammar

__NOINDEX__



Grammar links

 * English Grammar Lessons, Quizzes and Games
 * Grammar Slammer Deluxe

Note 10 in Hinduism article
I was reading your last few edits to the "Hinduism" article and I found two typographical errors in Note 10 but I don't know how to access the note to correct the errors. (I clicked on Edit in the Notes section and saw almost nothing in the edit mode box.) Perhaps you would like to correct the errors. They are:


 * ont instead of on, and
 * eight century CE instead of eighth century CE.

Cheers. – CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just corrected them. The notes are in the article itself, with the make-up tag. Thanks for not y ifying! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. By the way, it's "notifying".  Also by the way, you forgot the final left-facing carat, so your user name did not appear, and mine didn't either.  I changed double curved brackets to left-facing carat (or whatever it's called) after "nowiki" near the end of your comment, but I don't know what happened to your user name.  It's not there. CorinneSD (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A note on vocabulary
Hi, Joshua Jonathan -- I've been reading the discussion on the Talk page of the Hinduism and Yogi articles. I've noticed that you have used the word "representant", or its plural, "representants", several times. It didn't sound right to me; I've never heard it used as a noun. I looked it up on Wiktionary, and I see that I was right. As a noun, it is obsolete – it hasn't been used in a long time. It is still an adjective, though, although not even common as an adjective. So you can't say, "they are representants of...." Some words you could use instead are, "a representative/representatives", "an exemplar/exemplars", "an example/examples", "an instance/instances" (for things and occurrences, not people). There are probably others I cannot think of right now. You could also change the sentence so that you use a verb instead of a noun: "they represent..."; "they symbolize/ise", etc.CorinneSD (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Corinne. Thanks for your feedback. I'll read it again, and try to memorize it. I read the text you submitted to and removed from your userpage; it's astonishing. so complex, and yet flowing. Funny thing is, it's the kind of language I use in Dutch.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary
Movement, but not removement. Rather: removal.CorinneSD (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Grammar
To Joshua Jonathan: JJ, I have to tell you how impressed I am with how well you write in English in spite of being a non-native speaker of English. You write very nearly to the level of a university-educated native speaker of English. I don't know if you would mind my offering corrections or suggestions now and then, or if you would prefer that I not. Here is one, in the meantime: There are certain verbs that are not followed by the infinitive of another verb but rather by the gerund (the -ing form of a verb which functions as a noun), if not a noun itself. "Avoid" and "enjoy" are two of them. So, you would say, "I will avoid looking at it", not "I will avoid to look at it", and "I enjoy reading", not "I enjoy to read". You can, of course, use nouns: "I will avoid that website" and "I enjoy mysteries". But let me know if you would prefer that I not provide any more corrections or suggestions, and I won't. I certainly do not want to embarrass you.CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Corinne, you are so welcome! I have to confess, I don't even remember those rules exactly for Dutch, let alone for English. But I really appreciate your effort en encouragement - though I can't honestly promise you that I will remember your advices consistently. So, here's a proposal: User:Joshua Jonathan/Grammar, so I can read back your advices. Thank you very much!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh. Until I saw your reply today, I did not realize your native language was Dutch. I hadn't even seen your reply on December 9, 2013, in "Note on vocabulary", above, in which you say that. I don't know much about Dutch, but I'm fascinated by it because it is pretty close to English in many ways. By the way, "advice" is an uncountable noun, which means there is no plural form. It takes the singular form of the verb. Some nouns are always countable (there is a singular and a plural form) like "a book - books", some nouns are always uncountable (there is no plural form, and it takes the singular form of the verb), like "advice", and some nouns can be countable or uncountable depending upon the meaning intended, like "time". If you're interested, you can find lists of uncountable nouns on-line.CorinneSD (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yesterday my 7-year old daughter and I were watching a Garfield-movie. At some point, he's being thrown into a mediaeval jail. I thought: "No way, he'll escape right away, because this jail is build for men. He'll find a tiny spot where he can move through." The same moment, my daughter said: "Papa, he'll get out, because he's so thin. They didn't think about it." That's why I like your feedback: you notice the details, and you don't leave them aside. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Shall I start a new section, or just continue here? It's related to my note just above on "advice": I just read the exchange on your Talk page; very interesting. I saw this in your reply:


 * "And a second "advice": cherish the tradition, but seek out what's relevant for today, and what's not."


 * Remember that "advice" is an uncountable noun, so there cannot be a first or a second one. One must use "a piece of" or "a word of" to count it: "And a second piece of advice:...." or "Another word of advice: ..." – CorinneSD (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is really placing things back into context (serious!) I'll try to remember. In Dutch, it is possible to sat "een tweede advies".  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you still have your old Paspoort voor de grammatica (H.J. van Moll, J. van Delden) laying around? I find occasional use for it, more then three decades after buying it in high school. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Drmies, it's "lying around", not "laying around". Even native speakers of English mix up these two irregular verbs "to lie" and "to lay":


 * To lie/to lie down, meaning to recline, or sit flat, is an intransitive verb, which means it does not take an object after it. Present tense: lie, lies/lie down,lies down; past tense: lay/lay down; past participle: lain/lain down; present participle: lying/lying down. "She doesn't feel well; she's lying on the sofa." "Do you still have your grammar book lying around somewhere?" "He was tired, so he lay down for half an hour." "Whose notebook is that? It has lain there for two weeks and is gathering dust." (Notice there there is no noun or pronoun right after the verb in each sentence, only a preposition or an adverb.)


 * To lay/to lay down, meaning to put, or place, something flat (horizontally), is a transitive verb, which means it takes an object after it. Present tense: lay, lays/lay down,lays down; past tense: laid/laid down; past participle: laid/laid down; present participle: laying/laying down. "She's laying the plates on the table." "Take off your coat and lay it on the bed." "She had read enough, so she laid the book on the table." "So far, that chicken has laid three eggs today." (Notice the object – a noun or a pronoun – after the verb in each sentence.)


 * Then there is the regular verb to lie, meaning to tell an untruth. Present tense: lie, lies; past tense and past participle: lied.CorinneSD (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

New section/new userpage
JJ: There is no option to select "New Section" on this page. Where do you want me to put new notes? Wouldn't you want them to have a heading?


 * Regarding your new User page:
 * "Hallo,

I have a broad interest in psychology, religion, philosophy and history, trying to understand how we people think about ourselves. My main interest is in Buddhism, but I'm also trying to understand Indian religions, since that's the area where Buddhism originated.

Thanks to all Wikipedians who coorect my typo's!"

If you don't mind the first line sounding informal, you can leave it as it is. If you want it to be correct, you need to make some changes. In this first line, you need to add some words after "history":

I have a broad interest in psychology, religion, philosophy and history, and am trying to understand... or: I have a broad interest in psychology, religion, philosophy and history, and I try to understand... "...and am trying to understand" suggests that you are trying to do that right now, or these days. "...and I try to understand" suggests that you do this all, or most, of the time; it describes part of your outlook on life.

The "I'm also trying to understand Indian religions" is fine. It's what you are doing these days.

In "Thanks to all Wikipedians who coorect my typo's!", it should be "correct". Many people put an apostrophe before a plural "s" as you did in "typo's", but you really don't need the apostrophe. The plural of regular nouns is formed just by adding an "s": "typos". (At any time this gets annoying to you, please let me know.) – CorinneSD (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Corinne. Thanks for your feedback! I've removed the whole second part; in old-fashioned Dutch it would be something like "proberende ...". As for "coorect": I know! It's a typo; I love to leave it this way, since it's a nice illustration of the kind of typos that I make (and this sentence is incorrect, I guess). I've corrected "typos", though. Thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh...I should have guessed that. I can see from your user page that you have a sense of humor. CorinneSD (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Vocabulary Note: the Negative prefix -in / -im / -il
I just saw your response to another editor under the heading "Rarevogel" at User talk:Dougweller. Your comment was well-written and polite. I noticed that you wrote "unpolite" once and "inpolite" once. I'm sorry to tell you, Jonathan, that they're both wrong. The correct word is "impolite". As you probably know, the Latin preposition "in", used in English as a prefix, can mean either in, into or not. Here it means not. However, in English the spelling of the original "in" sometimes changes to either "-im" or "-il", depending on the initial consonant of the following Latin root or English word. So, we see:


 * correct, incorrect, credible, incredible, indelible, indescribable, decent, indecent, sensitive, insensitive, tolerant, intolerant, voluntary, involuntary, etc., but


 * permeable, impermeable, polite, impolite, proper, improper, pertinent, impertinent, etc. "-In" changes to "-im" before a "p" (and, I believe, before "b", but I can't think of an example right now).


 * legal, illegal, literate, illiterate, logical, illogical, illicit, etc. "-In" changes to "-il" before a word or root starting with "l". And so ends this mini-lesson. CorinneSD (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! You're wonderfull again! One of the two was a typing-mistake, but I didn't bother to correct it. Thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. CorinneSD (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Archiving
 I just saw your edit summary, "Archivated", which accompanied your archiving of some material on your talk page. I just thought I would point out that the correct form is "Archived" (or "Archiving"). Here is the link to the Wiktionary entry for the word archive. Look at the forms for the verb. The past tense, archived, and the past participle are the same.


 * Past tense: I just archived some material from my talk page.


 * Past participle: I have just archived some material from my talk page. / That's archived material.


 * Present participle: In this edit, I was archiving some material from my talk page.

CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! In Dutch, we say "gearchiveerd". So, I guess it's a "Dutchianism" (from "Germanism"). Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)