Ну это не отменяет факта, что языком я не сильно владею. Читать как-никак могу, слушать уже хуже, говорить/писать совсем неважно.
В моем посте выше, опечатка, кстати "не нужен был", вместо "не нужен не было", естественно.
Модератор: zymbronia
Ну это не отменяет факта, что языком я не сильно владею. Читать как-никак могу, слушать уже хуже, говорить/писать совсем неважно.
No or Not a/an?
When a noun has an ungradable meaning (it is either something or it is not) we cannot use no + noun:
A potato is not a fruit.
Not: A potato is no fruit.
When a noun has a gradable meaning, no + noun means the same as not a/an + noun:
[a football manager talking about signing a new player]
It’s no secret that we are interested. (= It’s not a secret. A secret is gradable. Something can be more of a secret than something else.)
Bingo! Ungradable noun!
1 no: emphaticСпойлерПоказатьNo can be used instead of not a or not any when we want to emphasise a negative idea.
Would you believe it? There's no wardrobe in the bedroom! (More emphatic than ... There isn't a wardrobe ... )
Sorry I can't stop. I've got no time. (More emphatic than ... I haven't got any time.)
There were no letters for you this morning, I'm afraid. (More emphatic than There weren't any letters ... )
After no, countable nouns are usually plural unless the sense makes a singular noun necessary. Compare:
He's got no children. (More natural than He's got no child.) He's got no wife. (More normal than He's got no wives.)
Ведь это ж практически цитата из PEU, M. Swan, 376.3, на той же стр.!))
Итак, отгадка #1 - the usage is not emphatic.3 not a/any
We prefer not a/any in objects and complements when the sense is not emphatic. Compare:
He's no fool. (= He's not a fool at all. - emphatic negative)
A whale is not a fish. (NOT A whale is no fish) - the sense is not emphatic.
Заметим аналогичность примеров про картошку-нефрукт и кита-нерыбу.Avaddon пишет: ↑01 май 2018, 17:41 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/gramma ... /no-or-notNo or Not a/an?
When a noun has an ungradable meaning (it is either something or it is not) we cannot use no + noun:
A potato is not a fruit.
Not: A potato is no fruit.
When a noun has a gradable meaning, no + noun means the same as not a/an + noun:
[a football manager talking about signing a new player]
It’s no secret that we are interested. (= It’s not a secret. A secret is gradable. Something can be more of a secret than something else.)
(А затем рекомендует обратить внимание на гораздо более очевидные затруднения аскера.)I don't recommend your wasting a lot of time on this topic. There can't be more than 200 linguistics experts in the whole world who know or care anything about it.
CJ
https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/201 ... portunity/Gradable adjectives are adjectives like ‘cold’ ‘hot’ and ‘frightened’.
You can be very cold or a bit cold. Gradable adjectives show that something can have different degrees.
The adverbs a bit, very, really, extremely and quite can all be used with gradable adjectives.СпойлерПоказатьIt’s a bit cold in here. Shall I turn the fire on?
He’s very interested in history. Why don’t you buy him a history book?
This exercise is really difficult. I don’t know any of the answers.
I’m extremely tired. I’m going to bed.
Там же можно увидеть первое понимание термина ungradable adjective - "non-gradable (or absolute) adjectives".Gradable adjectives, such as hungry, fat, or cold, are those which have degrees or levels of intensity, size, etc.: you can be very hungry, in the coldest place on Earth, or less fat than your friend. This means that gradable adjectives have comparative (hungrier, fatter, colder) and superlative forms (hungriest, fattest, coldest) and you can strengthen or diminish these adjectives with adverbs such as very, rather, more, less, fairly, and so on.
Non-gradable adjectives are adjectives like ‘married’ or ‘wooden’.
You can’t be very married or a bit married. Non-gradable adjectives do not have different degrees.
Absolute adjectives, such as dead, ballistic, or spherical, are those which don’t have degrees: you can’t be rather dead (you either are or you’re not), a missile isn’t very ballistic, and a basketball isn’t less spherical than a tennis ball. So it follows that absolute adjectives don’t have comparatives or superlatives and you can’t usually apply intensifying adverbs such as really or very to them.
Понятно, почему эти "экстремалы" не переносят наречий степени: их суть - эксцесс! жизнь - "на разрыв аорты" "по гамбургскому счёту"!))Adjectives like ‘terrifying’, ‘freezing’ ‘amazing’ are also non-gradable adjectives.
They already contain the idea of ‘very’ in their definitions – ‘freezing’ means ‘very cold’ etc.
The adverbs absolutely and completely can be used with non-gradable adjectives.СпойлерПоказатьIt’s absolutely freezing in here. Shall I turn the fire on?
He’s completely fascinated by history. Why don’t you buy him a history book?
This exercise is absolutely impossible.
That film is really terrifying. Don’t go and see it on your own.
Всякий раз, когда крыса complacency добирается до моей кроватки, появляется ангел-Йети и объясняет, что "ничего-то ты, Мишка, не знаешь". На душе становится радостно и легко - как в десятом классе с неожиданным и в принципе невозможным к выполнению заданием написать сочинение "Как я провел лето" на английском (аж 20 предложений!).Милый ангел, приходи скорее,
Защити от крысы, и помилуй!
Tima took a draw on his cigarette and said sort of plaintively:
- Yeah, having a sweet tooth is a failing of mine, but I can't help it. You see, when you spend the most of your childhood at the penitentiary, you don't have many opportunities to taste sweets. A potato is no fruit, if you get what I mean.
Или так:Tima took a draw on his cigarette and said sort of plaintively:
- Yeah, having a sweet tooth is a failing of mine, but I can't help it. You see, when you spend most of your childhood at the penitentiary, you don't have many opportunities to taste sweets. A potato is no fruit, if you get what I mean.
And to drive the point home:Yeah, we had some fun together, but this most surely won't work in the long run - said she. You see, I'm rich, and you are poor. A potato is no fruit; a guy who spent most of his childhood in prison is no match for a woman from a decent family.
Tima took a swig from the bottle and made a face:
A potato is no fruit - grumbled he - a koala is no bear, the US is no Russia, Avaddon is no Yeti, and this stuff is no Stolichnaya.
Ясно, спасибо.Mike пишет: ↑05 май 2018, 04:36 Я не совсем понимаю, в чем здесь проблема. A potato is no fruit образовано по аналогии с I am no doctor, то есть эмфатическое подчеркивание в стиле "Из меня такой же доктор, как из картошки фрукт". И в этом контексте такое отрицание оправдано, но в обычном утверждении, что картошка не является фруктом, отрицание через "no" будет неверным ( о чем и пишут на cambridge.org)
"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" was a remark made during the 1988 United States vice-presidential debate by Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen to Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator Dan Quayle in response to Quayle's comparing himself to John F. Kennedy, ...
They are universal, so you could even find it in any book on Russian grammar.
Yes, while technically it belongs with the group in question, there's no point adding it to the list (or any other verb from the "list", for that matter). That's because no other verb causes any trouble for a Russian speaker: in Russian the rest of these verbs are completed with adjectives, not категорией состояния (кажется прелестным прелестно). So there's no chance one could say something like *It seems nicely. Thus, there are only those 5 worth mentioning in terms of the rule above. Including any other verbs would be counter-productive, 'scattering the brain' of a learner.=)
Not necessarily. Many of them are stative verbs indeed, but that's only one group of them describing 'perceptional' aspects of an action - unlike those 'factual' ones that easily can be used in a progressive form.
Yet, there is a correlation between:http://gendocs.ru/v7324/лекции_-_развернутые_лекции_по_теоретической_грамматике_английского_языка._часть_2 пишет:The specification of the connections may be either “perceptional”, e.g.: to seem, to look, to feel, etc., or “factual”, e.g.: to grow, to become, to get, etc.
These (to become, to get, you could add turn, e.g.) are not worth mentioning in this respect as they require the same part of speech (adjective) in Russian when denoting a change of state, I believe. Although It's getting cold might seem somewhat tricky for Russian English speakers)
No trickier than the elementary It's cold with it understood as referring to 'the whole world around'.
It's not about learning how to translate this variety of Russian equivalents from Russian into English; it's all about discerning the working model behind the English phrasing, about identifying the pattern which would help feel the difference between a) notional verbs modified by adverbs and b) semi-notional ones modified by adjectives (in English)/'категорией состояния' in Russian. That should help avoid interference of the Russian structure in English speech and writing. Metaphorically speaking, I see it as 'defanging the snake'.
Кто какой/-ие вариант(ы) считает возможным(и) - на слух? И если несколько, то какую разницу вы усматриваете между ними?
Харбин Хэйлунцзян пишет: ↑14 фев 2020, 23:25 ничего не имею против вашего выбора но сам бы поставил Simple в обеих частях:
Mark stayed with Harry while he visited from Boston.
Просто мне не очевидна необходимость упирать на продолжительность. Оставшиеся два варианта мне не нравятся но я не вижу технических причин объявлять их неграмотными.
alanta пишет: ↑15 фев 2020, 00:03Для меня это не совсем равно. Во втором случае ощущение, что он так быстренько глянул ТВ пока она также быстренько что-то там помыла. В первом процесс и длительность передается. В общем, не одно и то же это.He was watching TV while she was washing up = He watched TV while she washed up.
Некто Николай Иванович нашёл в благословенном Своне ответ на часть возможных затруднений:deaptor пишет: ↑15 фев 2020, 00:16 Ключевые слова там:В данном случае это не так.When we use these two tenses together, it shows us that the past simple action happened in the middle of the past continuous action, while it was in progress.
самым естественным мне тут кажется Simple Past в обеих частях. Теоретически я бы не стал исключать возможность Past Continuous в обеих частях.
Всем, кто читает Свона с любовью, а не с претензией к индексу, ясно, что разница не объясняется, потому что её... как бы это выразиться без капса... нет.) По крайней мере, той, о которой стоило бы вести речь.в том же вашем любимом Своне, где индекс специально разработан для "умных" -А в чем разница не объясняется.We usually use while to say that two longer actions or situations go/went on at the same time. We can use progressive or simple tenses.
While you were reading the paper, I was working.
John cooked supper while I watched TV.
https://books.google.ru/books?id=uf_JAw ... 22&f=false... Yet if there are two overlapping periods of time, rather than one point of time and a period extending on both sides of it, either the progressive or non-progressive can be used, especially with verbs that normally indicate continuing activity:
John read while Bill worked.
John read while Bill was working.
John was reading while Bill worked.
John was reading while Bill was working.