Filter by language

Comments on sentences (total 42959)

<<< 1234567 >>
  1. 5 hour(s) ago
    I'm writing a book. ??
  2. 5 hour(s) ago
    (It seems 'would' in this meaning tends to require time to be explicitly specified, e.g. in this case 'when Tom was a teenager', while 'used to' does not?)
  3. 5 hour(s) ago
    Thank you. Very useful.
  4. CK
    6 hour(s) ago - edited 6 hour(s) ago
    >Can I also say Tom would write songs?

    I wouldn't say it to mean this.

    We seldom use "would" in short sentences as you suggest.

    The following is an example of "would" used with this meaning.

    When Tom was a teenager, he would often sit on the front porch and write songs in the evening after dinner.
    http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/show/3464931

  5. CK
    6 hour(s) ago - edited 6 hour(s) ago
    Source:
    Chronic Alcoholism: Its Cure, Without Money, Without Price
    By Edward Hooker Dewey (1899)
    https://archive.org/details/chr...holi00dewegoog
    Page 13

    Original punctuation and italicization is as follows.

    This raises a most interesting question, <i>How long does it take to starve to
    death?</i>
  6. 7 hour(s) ago
    "Should I" and "shall I" mean much the same thing, but "should" is a bit more polite I think.

    One grammar site says when you use shall it sounds more like an offer, whereas when you use should it sounds like you are asking for advice; oftentimes, the distinction is not a big one.

    Personally, I would not say "shall I drive on the way back?". I would be most likely to say "would you like me to...", "do you think I should drive.." "do you want me to..." (all are polite, seeking advice) with "should I" also a possibility.
  7. 8 hour(s) ago - edited 8 hour(s) ago
    Hello! Welcome to the Tatoeba project! Please make sure your sentences start with the capital letter. Also, this link may be useful to you:
    http://en.wiki.tatoeba.org/arti...ow/quick-start
  8. 9 hour(s) ago
    Thank you for the comments.

    @patgfisher
    Do you think "Should I" and "Shall I" mean the same thing and it's only a register that differs?
  9. 10 hour(s) ago
  10. 11 hour(s) ago
  11. 11 hour(s) ago
    I like it, so I've added it again, though I'm not a native. I've used Alan's advice to correct it, so I think it should be good now.
    If you think it should be corrected one more time, please, write. If you're you're a native and want to adopt it, write and I'll unadopted it for you.
  12. 14 hour(s) ago
    Russian is not ambiguous. It means only "a little male cat".
  13. 15 hour(s) ago
    Anyway, this sentence needs a full stop.
  14. CK
    16 hour(s) ago - edited 16 hour(s) ago
    Related:

    #1138321 François, is this yours?

    #3121549 Is this yours?
    #3071656 Is this yours?
    #1436332 Is this yours? *audio*
  15. 16 hour(s) ago
    As Objectivisea recommended me.
    I want to solicit to retire the sentence # 243228.
    Thanks.
  16. CK
    19 hour(s) ago
    AlanF_US,

    If you think this is a good sentence, you should adopt it.
  17. 19 hour(s) ago
    Annotation:

    This would be said to someone who has some good news (pregnancy, promotion etc) but who hasn't personally told the speaker about that news.
  18. 19 hour(s) ago
    "Should I" "Do you want me to" are common in Australia (which has close historical links to British English). "Shall I" can also be used but is a slightly higher register and (in my opinion) less commonly said.
  19. 20 hour(s) ago
    (@NNC)
    The normal plural of "fish" is "fish". The older form (fishes) is sometimes used*, but I think "fish" would sound better here. Apart from that, the sentence seems OK to me.

    * (from Oxford dictionary) The normal plural of fish is fish ( a shoal of fish; he caught two huge fish). The older form fishes is still used, when referring to different kinds of fish ( freshwater fishes of the British Isles).
  20. CK
    20 hour(s) ago
    Not owned and no translations, so I deleted it.
    If you feel this was a good example sentence, you may resubmit it with your username.
  21. 20 hour(s) ago
    What about those sentences? They lack a period, all belong to the same user who just became a member of the site. Actually they are the only sentences of this user. I don't see any problem with the "vulgarity" of the sentences per se, but it looks like some kind of vandalism or trolling.
  22. 1 day(s) ago
  23. 1 day(s) ago
  24. 1 day(s) ago
  25. 1 day(s) ago
  26. 1 day(s) ago - edited 1 day(s) ago
    Punctuation of this sentence should be checked.
  27. 1 day(s) ago - edited 1 day(s) ago
    Link to #3463179
  28. 1 day(s) ago
  29. 1 day(s) ago
  30. 1 day(s) ago
  31. 1 day(s) ago
    I think I just dislike the idea of going to bed wearing wool socks so much that I convinced myself that no one would do it all the time. :)
  32. 1 day(s) ago
    "Should I" or "Do you want me to" both work fine for American English. I'm not an expert on British English, so I don't know how the use of "Shall I" has evolved over there in competition with these alternatives. However, I'm pretty sure that a good number of British English speakers use it.
  33. CK
    1 day(s) ago
    Similar:

    #508349 Never lose hope. (FeuDRenais)
  34. CK
    1 day(s) ago
    Not owned and no translations, so I deleted it.
    If you feel this was a good example sentence, you may resubmit it with your username.
  35. CK
    1 day(s) ago
    Not owned and no translations, so I deleted it.
    If you feel this was a good example sentence, you may resubmit it with your username.
  36. 1 day(s) ago
    such → such a, was is → was in?
  37. CK
    1 day(s) ago
    Not owned and no translations, so I deleted it.
    If you feel this was a good example sentence, you may resubmit it with your username.
  38. 1 day(s) ago - edited 1 day(s) ago
    Kara Katidino,

    Mi akordas kun Ooneykcall kaj Dejo, ke via frazo eĉ ne klaris, poste tiam vi plispecifis ĝin kun kelkaj komentoj. Jes, la via estis valida angla frazo, kaj jes, eblas ke anglaj virparolantoj ne ĉiam komprenas frazon, kiun iuj parolantinoj komprenas. Tamen, la angla lingvo ne estas la japana, en kiu iam evoluis specialan inan lingvostilon, kiun neniu viro povas plene kompreni. Ni devas ĉiam strebi atingi sufiĉan klarecon, ke oni ne bezonas apartan vortaron aŭ aliaseksan kunparolanton por ke oni komuniku. Dankon! :-)
  39. CK
    1 day(s) ago
    Not owned and no translations, so I deleted it.
    If you feel this was a good example sentence, you may resubmit it with your username.
  40. 1 day(s) ago
  41. 1 day(s) ago
  42. 1 day(s) ago
    Specialized language is part of language corpus too. Hence, it too has its place here.

    However, it is certainly advisable for the sentence provider to leave annotations in comments concerning any word or expression involved that is not used in its literal sense.
  43. 1 day(s) ago - edited 1 day(s) ago
    I posted the article prior to any translations being posted, so if anyone has failed here it certainly wasn't me... do you think it might be possible that these native English speakers don't understand my sentence because they are men?
  44. 1 day(s) ago
    Yes of course....
    You're all right.
    I'm going to change it by "watching".
    And I'm considering too they're both the same sentences... so what can I do to suppress it?
    Thanks.
  45. 1 day(s) ago
    Dear katido. If native English speakers don't understand your sentence then your communication has failed, even if the sentence is technically correct. Furthermore the translations are wrong because the translators didn't understand your meaning. The problem here is that a common word "winter" is used in a specialized sense and there is not enough context to make it clear. After reading the article which you kindly provided, I now understand that what you meant is that " we both have winter complexions", or " our complexions are both of the winter color scheme."
  46. 1 day(s) ago
    >The actual meaning is: we only miss (lack?) a few details (to be able) to precisely reconstruct the crime scene.

    In that case, my suggestion would be something like:
    We only lack a few details... or
    We're only missing a few details..
  47. 1 day(s) ago

    Mi aldonis la ligilon pri "seeing as how" por helpi aliajn tradukantojn.

    Laŭ dictionary.com "as how" estas: Chiefly Midland and Southern U.S.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/as+how
  48. 1 day(s) ago - edited 1 day(s) ago
    Danepo is correct; it must be "for my sister and me." In English, we'd never, never say "It's easy for I to paint the wall," or "It's possible for I to eat six potatoes." The "me" form would be required in both cases. So when two or more people are involved, the pronoun must also be in the dative case (the object of the preposition "for."

    Danepo pravas; vi bezonas la frazeton "for my sister and me." Esperante, kiam pronomo sekvas prepozicion (escepte kiam oni eniras iom) oni uzas ne akuzativon sed nominativon: "Facilas por mi farbi la muron" aŭ "Eblas por mi manĝi ses terpomojn." Tamen, angle, oni neniam diru: "It's easy for I to paint the wall," aŭ "It's possible for I to eat six potatoes." Do, kiam la frazo koncernas du aŭ plurajn homojn, la pronomo devas esti en la dativa kazo kiel objekto de prepozicio "for."
  49. 1 day(s) ago
  50. 1 day(s) ago
    Also it might help people to have "seeing as how" in example sentences, because that will provide them with translations of it.
<<< 1234567 >>