Archiv für Juli 2007
Zwei der großen Künstler des 20. Jahrhundertfilmemachers [Umbau] Ingmar Bergman [/tag] und Fußballpionier [Umbau] Rechnung Walsh [/tag] - beide überschritten weg am gleichen Tag, Montag, den 30. Juli 2007.
Fußball wird noch die Rechnung Walsh Weise gespielt und diese Tage haben nie die emotionale Tiefe oder das Bedeuten filmt, daß Berman in der Lage war, in seinem Repertoire einzuflößen. Außerdem waren Herren der Kategorie und der Art. Es ist hart zu finden-und Verlierenriesen wie diese.
Eine andere Berühmtheit führte weg den gleichen Tag, Fernsehapparat Nachrichtensprecher und Interviewer [Umbau] Tom Snyder [/tag]. Snyder stellte ein sicheres aus Joie de Vivre (wahrscheinlicher Joie de Bonne Wahrscheinlichkeit), aber ich setzen Sie ihn kaum in die Kategorie der anderen zwei ein.
Jedoch ist es, daß drei solche Einzelpersonen unsere Welt am gleichen Tag lassen würden, mit nur ein-Bergman-leben ungewöhnlich zu, was ich für einen reifen Old age halten würde.
Es ist unser Kollektivverlust.
Dieses fällt in die Kategorie von „aus den öffnungen der alten farts (ich) heraus.“
Wann immer ich meinen Hund für eine Autofahrt nehme, geht er absolut die bonkers und bekommt dieses schrille Heulen am Anblick jedes Tieres, sei es Vogel, Katze, Hund, Eichhörnchen oder buckeln-über Menschen heraus. Der schrille Ton ist wirklich Ohrdurchdringen und während er shreiks es, er maniacally am Fenster kratzt.
Heute hatte ich genug und ich kreischte an ihm, „beendigtes Manaicizing!“ Dieses ist selbstverständlich „MuhnaI-ih-cizing“ ausgeprägt (ich bin kein gutes an diesen Aussprachevorrichtungen, und wirklich bin ich nicht sicher, wie man sogar das Wort korrekt-es konnte zwei i vor dem c benötigen buchstabiert).
Sowieso empfehle ich uns beginne eine Bewegung für dieses Wort. E-mail fünf Ihrer Freunde mit diesem neuen Wort vor Sonnenuntergang oder Ihnen findet sich, geheimnisvoll maniacal zu gehen.
Auf englisch selbstverständlich. Jetzt kompilierte ich nicht diese Liste; Ich bin gerechte Verbindung zu einem benannten Aufstellungsort „100 häufig Mispronounced Wörter und Phrasen auf englisch,“, dem ich entdeckte, als ich mich vorbereitete, a zu schreiben Bausteine von Englisch Eintragung auf Phrasen.
Ich gelange an die Phrasen Erklärung über dem Wochenende, aber genieße the list. I’ve already seen several words and phrases that I routinely mispronounce.
We’ve all seen those cheesy Las Vegas ads that tout the benefits of having sex in Sin City (as if you can’t have it anywhere else and as if your spouse/significant other doesn’t care that you go to L.V. by youself or with a circle of horny friends).
The ad saying is: "What happens here, stays here."
Now, the truth of this saying aside (and there is none), let’s look at the grammar. I’ve read numerous grammar explanations that mandate a comma after the first verbal phrase. But why?
Doesn’t "What happens here stays here" make the same sense without the interrupting comma? To me, this is another example of a misued and overused comma, the grammar books (and Oxford English Dictionary if they’ve weighed in on this) be damned.
Now, if you start with a dependent clause, finishing it with a comma is appropriate: "When you sin here, it stays here."
But that doesn’t sell. I guess clean grammar doesn’t sell overall. LOL
From the Los Angeles Times Sports section, Tuesday, July 24, 2007: Vick told to not go to camp.
Bad grammar, because in truth he was told not to go, which is correct English. Putting the not before go split the infinitive, to go. And worse, it’s not even the correct meaning, though to most ears it makes perfect sense.
I supposed the copper-outters at the Oxford English Dictionary, who basically end up approving of anything that people do everyday, no matter how much it’s based in ignorance and laziness, would approve of this usage, but it jars my ears.
Sorry, folks, but you’re told not to do something, not to not do something.
One of my students in an online writing class enquired whether she should use only "unbiased sources" for her references. I replied in the negative, saying that "there’s no such thing as unbiased writing."
Now, the terms objective writing and objective reporting came about when newspaper owners and editors realized what partisan rags their products had become in the 19th century. Thus was born a movement toward objectivity in the national interest.
Of course, anybody who reads newspapers frequently knows that the editor’s or publisher’s agendas dictate how events are covered. For instance, what’s the ratio of road-kill stories to helping-save-people stories coming out of Iraq from the liberal media and why the preponderance of body-count articles? The answer is obvious, and it’s not just that tragedy sells (though that’s true too).
Similarly, even a scientist has an agenda, and I believe it was a man named [tag]Werner Heisenberg[/tag] who developed the principle that a scientist would invariably find what he’s looking for because his bias would influence the results; nature would oblige, so to speak. (I extrapolate a bit here.)
Anyway, if you can find a work with no bias in it besides the bills you get in the mail, please let me know.
I just graded a pile of papers for a writing class, and I can’t tell you how many students wrote now days when they meant nowadays.
Is this because of faulty hearing, faulty pronunication, or just faulty learning of English words? I mean, nowadays could sound like now days depending upon how the person pronounces it.
Which came first–the now or the days? LOL
(TIP: Don’t use the stupid word anyway. Today works just fine.)
I’m so lousy at effectively using body language that I usually end up sending the exact opposite message of what I’m trying to say. I guess this reveals something about the inner me that comes through when I’m speaking with others. Or maybe it’s just that I look like Richard Nixon (one of the many reasons I don’t post my photo here).
However, [tag]Tonya Reiman[/tag] of Smithtown, N.Y., is a fairly noted body language expert (a word my first newspaper copy editor told me meant nothing, but I couldn’t think of another word here–aha, analyst!), who appears on The O’Reilly Factor. She’s pictured here in her publicity photo, but she’s really much more attractive when she has her glasses on and you see her on TV.
Ms. Reiman has a newsletter available on her Web site, and you can also book her for your next seminar or business meeting if you’ve got that kind of jingle. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t mind having lunch with her to discuss anything and everything except my body language. LOL
Yesterday, I discussed the importance of being able to, and knowing when to, combine and separate independent clauses. Usually, it’s obvious when two independent clauses need to stand alone as unique sentences, but people will still try either to pack too much into one sentence or to use too many sentences (and words) when they can combine and economize.
Today, I’m just going to give rules, five of them, for combining and separating independent clauses (see yesterday’s post for a definition and examples), without going into detail about the sins and abuses I mentioned in the first paragraph.
Full Story »
Anmerkungen 0 
