|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted January 23, 2007 08:03 PM |
|
|
I have never noticed that mistake. So if I install a surveillance camera at my house I've ensured myself against burglary. However if I insure my house against burglary I've signed a contract with an insurance company, right?
Now the more I think of it the more confused I get. Perhaps you'll need to pin out the details for me.
A politician might say: I assure you that your rights will be respected; the law ensures that.
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted January 23, 2007 08:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay I better stop before my limited knowledge of German becomes too clear (...) I'm glad I study mathematics... 
Ecoris you show-off.  You have an almost uncanny understanding of English and German gramma, and then you ruin all my chances at regaining my self esteem by saying language is not even your major. 
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 23, 2007 09:20 PM |
|
|
lol, thank you for the compliment Alci. But grammar is a lot about rules, logic and systems, so...
____________
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted January 23, 2007 11:24 PM |
|
|
I know, but even though I'm quite apt at mathmatics, I still happily forgot everything about german gramma I ever learned. Ah well, perhaps if someone opened up a thread about Advanced Mathmatics Lesson I would have my chance to shine. 
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 23, 2007 11:26 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:30, 23 Jan 2007.
|
Quote:
I have never noticed that mistake. So if I install a surveillance camera at my house I've ensured myself against burglary. However if I insure my house against burglary I've signed a contract with an insurance company, right?
Now the more I think of it the more confused I get. Perhaps you'll need to pin out the details for me.
A politician might say: I assure you that your rights will be respected; the law ensures that.
It's one of those technicalities that happen so often that it goes unnoticed. A lot of people feel that the two words should be used interchangeably (most people defaulting to insure at all times), when they really do have slightly different meanings. Granted, the difference is very subtle.
Here is a good explanation of their differences (from http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081600.html)
assure, ensure, or insure
To assure something is to make certain it will happen: Victory is assured for the younger, fitter boxer as he has the advantage. (Usually in this way it is used in passive voice; in active voice it generally refers to "putting the mind at ease", as in, "I assured my brother that everything would be alright.") To ensure something is to take steps to make sure that something happens: Seat belts should ensure that you will be unhurt in an accident. To insure something is to take precautions against something undesirable happening: The concertgoers insured against disappointment by buying their tickets early. (Usually pertaining to financial undesirables.)
Here's another little article about it:
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19960916
So if I were to put the difference in my own words, I'd say,
ensure means to make something happen (i.e., to make it a sure thing)
insure means to protect myself in the event that something happens (i.e., to make sure I'm protected if something happens).
Meh, it's not that big a deal. Insure is used in this way in so many cases that it's pretty much just accepted by everyone. But, my 10th grade English teacher was very particular about it so I guess that's why it always catches my eye.
|
|
radar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Castle/Haven player
|
|
posted April 24, 2008 08:45 PM |
|
|
My English teacher tells me the bunch word can be used and has meaning with words like keys or flowers only (and several others which I don't remember).
 
I want to ask you if we can use it as a term of anything that is, generally saying, a group of many things - like:
- Kate has a bunch of pencils on her desk -
or is it restricted to several words only?
____________
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted April 24, 2008 08:53 PM |
|
|
I guess phrases such as "A bunch of stuff" would be used much more in America than in other English-speaking countries. It's not incorrect English though.
You'd normally just say "pencils", "a few pencils" or "some pencils" around here.
|
|
Korejora
Promising
|
|
posted April 24, 2008 09:02 PM |
|
Edited by Korejora at 21:03, 24 Apr 2008.
|
A "bunch" of anything is a very common phrase in Canada (and I assume in the U.S. as well). I can't think of a single word that it can't be used for.
One specific thing though: a "bunch" of bananas does not imply simple that you have several bananas; it describe the way bananas grow together, on a "bunch". So, you can have a "banana bunch", which implies that you have several bananas stuck together at the stem, in the way that they naturally grow.
You can also have more than one banana bunch, while you would not normally say you have more than one bunch of anything else, because a bunch already implies having a lot of that thing.
____________
That's the best part. 
|
|
GenieLord
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 12:32 AM |
|
|
I haven't noticed this thread until now, and it seems so useful. 
My question is:
1) When to use "who" and when to use "whom"?
There was a thread for that in the VW but it was deleted before I had time to read it.
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 12:37 AM |
|
|
I know the answer, but since I'm bad at explanations, I'll let Google speak for me:
"Use the he/him method to decide which word is correct.
he = who
him = whom
Examples:
Who/Whom wrote the letter?
He wrote the letter. Therefore, who is correct.
For who/whom should I vote?
Should I vote for him? Therefore, whom is correct.
We all know who/whom pulled that prank.
This sentence contains two clauses: We all know and who/whom pulled that prank.
We are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. He pulled that prank. Therefore, who is correct. (Are you starting to sound like a hooting owl yet?)
We want to know on who/whom the prank was pulled.
This sentence contains two clauses: We want to know and the prank was pulled on who/whom. Again, we are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. The prank was pulled on him. Therefore, whom is correct."
|
|
Gnoll_Mage
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 01:04 AM |
|
|
Both "whom" and "him" are both dative and accusative.
Edit: @angelito: 2 OT questions:
1. When learning English words, do you learn where the stresses go (e.g. suPERfluous not superFLUous etc.)?
2. Is this clause okay: "..., weil ich habe gehen sollen"?
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 05:05 AM |
|
|
Nominative (subjective)
I/he/she/we/they/who/whoever
I went to the store.
Who went to the store?
Objective
me/him/her/us/them/whom/whomever
Joe ran with her.
Joe ran with whom?
In American English the words whom and whomever are fairly formal and you will rarely hear them used.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 10:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1. When learning English words, do you learn where the stresses go (e.g. suPERfluous not superFLUous etc.)?
Yes.
Quote:
2. Is this clause okay: "..., weil ich habe gehen sollen"?
Not sure what this sentence should mean (maybe u write the english version here, so I may know what u want to express). But still the way u wrote it isn't correct anyhow.
If it should mean "...because I had to go/leave", then the translation would be "...weil ich gehen musste".
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 01:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't think of a single word that it can be used for.
Can you say "I want a bunch of water"?
|
|
radar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Castle/Haven player
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 01:11 PM |
|
|
I guess no, water itself is uncountable
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 01:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Can you say "I want a bunch of water"?
I want to drink a lot of water.
I want to drink some water.
or shorter:
I want some water / I want a lot of water.
|
|
Gnoll_Mage
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 08:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
1. When learning English words, do you learn where the stresses go (e.g. suPERfluous not superFLUous etc.)?
Yes.
Do you get taught any rules for working it out for a word that you've only ever seen, and not heard?
Quote:
Quote:
2. Is this clause okay: "..., weil ich habe gehen sollen"?
Not sure what this sentence should mean (maybe u write the english version here, so I may know what u want to express). But still the way u wrote it isn't correct anyhow.
If it should mean "...because I had to go/leave", then the translation would be "...weil ich gehen musste".
It was supposed to mean "because I should have gone", maybe "..., weil ich gehen sollte" is better? What was wrong exactly with my first attempt? (Sorry for mangling your language!  )
Quote:
Ah well, perhaps if someone opened up a thread about Advanced Mathmatics Lesson I would have my chance to shine.
Well wouldn't that be fun! 
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 10:06 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 22:29, 25 Apr 2008.
|
Quote:
Do you get taught any rules for working it out for a word that you've only ever seen, and not heard?
To be honest, I don't remember. I know we had some kind of dictionaries, where all these things were listed and explained, and we just had to learn that by heart.
Quote:
It was supposed to mean "because I should have gone", maybe "..., weil ich gehen sollte" is better? What was wrong exactly with my first attempt?
"weil ich habe gehen sollen" this sentence doesn't work first of all, because u talk about a thing which is over already...happened in the past (should have...but I didn't), but in your german translation, no word has a past tense or simple past form...all words have present form. And 2nd, the combination "habe" and "infinitiv" never works in german.
E.g.:
I know = Ich weiß
I knew = Ich wusste
I have known = Ich habe gewusst
So in your example, u use the word "should" which expresses "it would have been better if....", and therefore the correct translation into german would be:
"weil ich besser gehen hätte sollen" (the strange position of some words is due to the "because" at the beginning)
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 11:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Can you say "I want a bunch of water"?
No, But you could say I want a bunch of liters of water" though that would be awkward.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Gnoll_Mage
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2008 11:31 PM |
|
|
I was told that the past participle of sollen was sollen when used with an infinitive (and not gesollt), so "habe ... sollen" is in the past - but then, I forgot that sollen doesn't really mean "should" anyway, it's sollte etc., hence your sentence structure. How would you translate just, "because I should have"?
____________
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
