Wikipedia:Babel | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Search user languages |
CorinneSD kindly offered to help me further improve my English. Being a non-native English speaker and writer, I highly appreciate her efforts. Her comments are collected here, so I can easily readt hem again.
From our conversations: JJ, I have to tell you how impressed I am with how well you write in English in spite of being a non-native speaker of English. You write very nearly to the level of a university-educated native speaker of English. I don't know if you would mind my offering corrections or suggestions now and then, or if you would prefer that I not [...] But let me know if you would prefer that I not provide any more corrections or suggestions, and I won't. I certainly do not want to embarrass you.CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Corinne, you are so welcome! I have to confess, I don't even remember those rules exactly for Dutch, let alone for English. But I really appreciate your effort en [sic...] encouragement - though I can't honestly promise you that I will remember your advices consistently. So, here's a proposal: User:Joshua Jonathan/Grammar, so I can read back your advices. Thank you very much! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC) |
I was reading your last few edits to the "Hinduism" article and I found two typographical errors in Note 10 but I don't know how to access the note to correct the errors. (I clicked on Edit in the Notes section and saw almost nothing in the edit mode box.) Perhaps you would like to correct the errors. They are:
Cheers. – CorinneSD (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just corrected them. The notes are in the article itself, with the make-up tag ((refn|group=note|........)). Thanks for notyifying! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Joshua Jonathan -- I've been reading the discussion on the Talk page of the Hinduism and Yogi articles. I've noticed that you have used the word "representant", or its plural, "representants", several times. It didn't sound right to me; I've never heard it used as a noun. I looked it up on Wiktionary, and I see that I was right. As a noun, it is obsolete – it hasn't been used in a long time. It is still an adjective, though, although not even common as an adjective. So you can't say, "they are representants of...." Some words you could use instead are, "a representative/representatives", "an exemplar/exemplars", "an example/examples", "an instance/instances" (for things and occurrences, not people). There are probably others I cannot think of right now. You could also change the sentence so that you use a verb instead of a noun: "they represent..."; "they symbolize/ise", etc.CorinneSD (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Movement, but not removement. Rather: removal.CorinneSD (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
To Joshua Jonathan: JJ, I have to tell you how impressed I am with how well you write in English in spite of being a non-native speaker of English. You write very nearly to the level of a university-educated native speaker of English. I don't know if you would mind my offering corrections or suggestions now and then, or if you would prefer that I not. Here is one, in the meantime: There are certain verbs that are not followed by the infinitive of another verb but rather by the gerund (the -ing form of a verb which functions as a noun), if not a noun itself. "Avoid" and "enjoy" are two of them. So, you would say, "I will avoid looking at it", not "I will avoid to look at it", and "I enjoy reading", not "I enjoy to read". You can, of course, use nouns: "I will avoid that website" and "I enjoy mysteries". But let me know if you would prefer that I not provide any more corrections or suggestions, and I won't. I certainly do not want to embarrass you.CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
JJ: There is no option to select "New Section" on this page. Where do you want me to put new notes? Wouldn't you want them to have a heading?
I have a broad interest in psychology, religion, philosophy and history, trying to understand how we people think about ourselves. My main interest is in Buddhism, but I'm also trying to understand Indian religions, since that's the area where Buddhism originated.
Thanks to all Wikipedians who coorect my typo's!"
If you don't mind the first line sounding informal, you can leave it as it is. If you want it to be correct, you need to make some changes. In this first line, you need to add some words after "history":
I have a broad interest in psychology, religion, philosophy and history, and am trying to understand... or: I have a broad interest in psychology, religion, philosophy and history, and I try to understand... "...and am trying to understand" suggests that you are trying to do that right now, or these days. "...and I try to understand" suggests that you do this all, or most, of the time; it describes part of your outlook on life.
The "I'm also trying to understand Indian religions" is fine. It's what you are doing these days.
In "Thanks to all Wikipedians who coorect my typo's!", it should be "correct". Many people put an apostrophe before a plural "s" as you did in "typo's", but you really don't need the apostrophe. The plural of regular nouns is formed just by adding an "s": "typos". (At any time this gets annoying to you, please let me know.) – CorinneSD (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I just saw your response to another editor under the heading "Rarevogel" at User talk:Dougweller#Rarevogel. Your comment was well-written and polite. I noticed that you wrote "unpolite" once and "inpolite" once. I'm sorry to tell you, Jonathan, that they're both wrong. The correct word is "impolite". As you probably know, the Latin preposition "in" , used in English as a prefix, can mean either in, into or not. Here it means not. However, in English the spelling of the original "in" sometimes changes to either "-im" or "-il", depending on the initial consonant of the following Latin root or English word. So, we see:
Joshua Jonathan I just saw your edit summary, "Archivated", which accompanied your archiving of some material on your talk page. I just thought I would point out that the correct form is "Archived" (or "Archiving"). Here is the link to the Wiktionary entry for the word archive. Look at the forms for the verb. [1] The past tense, archived, and the past participle are the same.
CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)