The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Ivan Fadeev
About
User Name: Ivan Fadeev
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Saturday, February 21, 2015
Last Visit: Saturday, September 14, 2019 9:23:59 AM
Number of Posts: 419
[0.04% of all post / 0.25 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: saw that
Posted: Thursday, September 5, 2019 8:34:28 AM
Thanks a lot.
Topic: saw that
Posted: Thursday, September 5, 2019 7:52:04 AM
If we say:
1
I saw that she lost her bag.


It means that I saw that she didn't have her bag because probably she had lost it.
But why is it not OK to use the past perfect? For example,

2
I saw that she had lost her bag.


It's clear that at first she had lost the bag and then I saw it.

My question. Would it be wrong to say 2? Or if it's correct what's the difference between 1 and 2?

I also think that 1 is ambiguous because it can mean 2 things: a) I saw that she didn't have the bag because she had lost it. b) I saw (regularly) that she lost her bag (every other week). Isn't it misleading?
Topic: an hour's talk
Posted: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:04:58 PM
BobShilling wrote:
Have a nice day.

Useless and false.
Topic: an hour's talk
Posted: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:54:02 PM
BobShilling wrote:
Ivan Fadeev wrote:

To show up in a thread without answering the question is really nasty. I agree.


I gave a link to a site in which some answers had already been given. I had nothing of value to add there or here, so I didn't. The link I provided saved members here the time and effort of coming up with an answer that had already been give over there. I think it's a little bit of a strtch to consider that 'nasty'



If the answer was given why did you bother to react at all? Why did you provide the link without the answer which was given? Where is the answer answering the question? I agree on one thing with you as you said "I had nothing of value to add there or here, so I didn't." That's 100% true, you add nothing of value.

PS: I can only imagine how much dirt would be dug on me if I dared provide a link in someone else's thread. But as long as I am not of a royal position as the rest of the others here I am not allowed to be treated with respect. All respect should be given to the masters.
Topic: an hour's talk
Posted: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:30:57 PM
Romany wrote:

Because this (responding on TFD) is something people give up their "spare" time to do: to help others. No pay or reward is expected or given. Thus, (once more) it is only polite that their time isn't wasted.

Well nobody makes you do it. Why rebuke for something you do voluntary? If you don't want to answer don't do it. It's as easy as that.

Romany wrote:

e.g. my answer would also be that "a talk" (no matter the length of the talk!) is a formal, instructive/educative piece of information.

"To talk" is to chat, or even have a D & M (that's a short-form of Deep & Meaningful Discussion).

"We talked for an hour." = we had a conversation that lasted for an hour. "We had a one hour talk about Health & Safety as school today." we were given information about health and safety measures.

However, I see that, on the other forum people have already said all this. So I (and probably Bob, as well)have no suggestion about how to make it any clearer. You see?


What are you talking about? Sorry, but you are answering not my question.
Topic: an hour's talk
Posted: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:26:21 PM
Romany wrote:
Bob's comment was perfectly natural - and one which is often voiced in similar circumstances with other posters. He was not giving a direct ORDER (such as "Be attentive!" "Don't be so tactless, please.") He phrased it the way polite people speak English, by saying "...it would be useful to give us a link...". No order. No rudeness, just a suggestion.

Oh really? Why did he include the link himself then? If it was a suggestion why did he do that? Because you think that all you do is right and people of other level are inferior to you.
Topic: an hour's talk
Posted: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:24:24 PM
Wilmar (USA) wrote:

Ivan Fadeev -- that's just nasty.

To show up in a thread without answering the question is really nasty. I agree.
Topic: an hour's talk
Posted: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 6:09:10 AM
BobShilling wrote:
If you are going to ask about what you have been told in other forums, it would be useful to give us a link so that we can see for ourselves what has been said.

https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/one-hour-talk.3611137/#post-18389652

I don't think that it's necessary. You can give your opinion. Plus, where is your answer? Did you pop up to say that I did something wrong ? ))) Funny.

Be attentive, my question wasn't ONLY about what I was told. I provided examples. Don't be so tactless, please.
Topic: an hour's talk
Posted: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 5:27:26 AM
I have three phrases which at first sight should mean the same.

one hour's talk
a one-hour talk
an hour's talk
Let's use them in a sentence.

We had {1} with Jack yesterday.
We had {2} with Jack yesterday.
We had {3} with Jack yesterday.
My questions are these:

1) Are all three grammatically correct?

2) If yes, do they all mean the same thing?

I was told by a native this:

If you wanted to describe a talk/lecture/presentation that lasts two hours, you would not call it "two hours' talk", you would call it "a two-hour talk".

I wonder if all natives observe this distinction.
Topic: Can present simple be used like this?
Posted: Monday, September 2, 2019 1:35:04 PM
I see. I was told by a native that this is correct:

I know English from my time in school.

Is it because "from" doesn't mean "since" in the sentence?

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.