2007年7月のアーカイブ
第20世紀映画製作者[札] Ingmar Bergman [/tag]およびフットボールの改新者[札]のすばらしい芸術家の2つはビルWalsh [/tag] -両方同日、月曜日、2007年7月30日渡った。
フットボールはまだビルWalshの方法されて、フィルムにこのごろ決して感情的な深さかBermanが彼のレパートリーで浸透できたことを意味することがない。 さらに、クラスおよび様式の紳士はあった両方。 それは堅いに見つけおよびこれらのような失巨人である。
別の名声は同日、TVのnewscasterそして面接者[札]トムSnyder [/tag]渡った。 Snyderは確かの表わした 生きる喜び (もっと多分 joie de bonneのチャンス)、しかし私ほとんど他の2つの部門に彼を置いてはいけない。
但し、それは私が熟したold ageと考慮するものをに3人のそのような個人が私達の世界を同日残すこと1 Bergman生存とだけ珍しい。
それは私達の集合的な損失である。
これは古い屁(私)の口からの部門に分類されるの「」。
私が車の乗車のための私の犬を取る時はいつでも、彼は絶対にbonkers行き、このかん高い喚き声をあらゆる動物の、鳥、猫、犬、リスならばまたは人間屈めに視力で引き出す。 かん高い音は彼が窓でshreiksそれ、彼熱狂的に引き裂く間、実際に耳穿孔、であり。
今日、私に十分があり、彼で叫た、「やめられたmanaicizing!」 これは顕著、当然、「muhnaiih cizing」である(私はこれらの発音装置によいよではないし、単語を綴る方法を正しそれがcの前に2つのi'sを必要とするかもしれないか)実際に確実ではない。
とにかく、私は私達を始めるこの単語のための動きを推薦する。 日没、またはあなたの前のこの新しい単語のあなたの友人の電子メール5はあなた自身を神秘的に狂気に行くことを見つける。
英語では、当然。 今度は、私はこのリストを編集しなかった; 私は「呼ばれる場所にちょうどつながっている英語の100つの最も頻繁に誤って発音された単語そして句」、私がaをいつ書くことを準備していたか私が発見した 英語のブロック 句の記入項目。
私は週末にわたる句の説明に得るが、楽しむ 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 »
0コメントする 
