Forgot your password?Close
linked by , date unknown
added by , date unknown
linked by Guybrush88, 2012-06-25 19:58
linked by Kamelio, 2012-10-10 11:36
linked by Balamax, 2012-11-18 16:00
linked by mraz, 2014-04-11 16:38
linked by deyta, 2014-09-14 22:44
unlinked by Horus, 2015-01-20 06:15
linked by Horus, 2015-01-20 06:15
You cannot translate sentences because you did not add any language in your profile.
I wonder, this sentence sounds natural or not? It seems to me, it doesn't.
I don't know why, but I really don't like this sentence.
It's not owned by anybody, maybe, you can adopt and correct it?
This sort of sentence is unlikely to come up very often, but it has got a meaning (I don't understand judging whether a sentence makes sense based on whether you would use it personally - there are many millions of speakers, so very likely any sentence grammatically and logically valid has a chance of being used at least occasionally).
Its grammar seems wrong though; using 'have' without the auxiliary 'do' in negation, like modal verbs, is apparently either antiquated or colloquial in certain phrases, but this is not one of those.
So I guess it's better be "haven't got" or "don't have".
CK, Be honest, I don't like it in Russian as well. It means "I have (very) few brothers". I think, it's more natural to say "I have only one brother" or "I have only two brothers", couse three brothers is already "many". But it's owned, and it's correct grammatically.
Ooneykcall, I agree, it's better. "Haven't brother" is the way, which I learned at school, but I haven't met it in real texts or conversations. Now I don't use it, but I can't judge, if it grammatically correct or not. I just can say, this sentence seems clumsy to me...
Szerintem is! Mert mi a ,,sok,, ?
Inkább: egy testvérem van, vagy egy bátyám van stb. mraz