• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Debater Slayer Tutors Godobeyer

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
@Godobeyer and I have agreed to start a thread here for me to help him improve his English by pointing out the grammatical, spelling, and punctuation mistakes in his posts and correcting them. The reason we decided to do this in a public thread instead of privately is that there are some non-native English speakers on the forum who might benefit from this thread; they are welcome to post here if they have any questions about English. Also, the fact that my native language is Arabic like at least a few members here can be useful while I'm trying to help them.

Please note that making fun of any member's English is against the rules and may be treated as a rule violation. Not everyone is a native or fluent English speaker, and this thread is to help non-native speakers improve, not to discourage and mock them.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
@Godobeyer and I have agreed to start a thread here for me to help him improve his English by pointing out the grammatical, spelling, and punctuation mistakes in his posts and correcting them. The reason we decided to do this in a public thread instead of privately is that there are some non-native English speakers on the forum who might benefit from this thread; they are welcome to post here if they have any questions about English. Also, the fact that my native language is Arabic like at least a few members here can be useful while I'm trying to help them.

Please note that making fun of any member's English is against the rules and may be treated as a rule violation. Not everyone is a native or fluent English speaker, and this thread is to help non-native speakers improve, not to discourage and mock them.
thank you very much for this very kind action :)

I am so happy that you made this thread , i appreciate that so much

how i suppose to do now , i choose my old reply and post them here , or post my important futur reply to correct it here or both ?
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
thank you very much for this very kind action :)

I am so happy that you made this thread , i appreciate that so much

how i suppose to do now , i choose my old reply and post them here , or post my important futur reply to correct it here or both ?

Both. I will start with your above post, since it has quite a few mistakes; I'll correct it line by line.

First, this line:

thank you very much for this very kind action :)

You are welcome. :)

Two things to note:

1) You should always start sentences with a capital letter.

2) You should always end sentences with periods/full stops.

Second:

I am so happy that you made this thread , i appreciate that so much

The first sentence is perfectly correct; the second one, however, while correct in its syntax, contains a mistake: you put the pronoun I in lowercase. This pronoun must always be in the uppercase. Think of it this way: proper nouns—names of specific or unique places, people, products, etc.—start with a capital letter. There is only one I in the world, and it is always you. Always capitalize it.

The second mistake in the above line is called a comma splice, but I'm not going to get into that at the moment. It can be pretty challenging to identify for some non-native speakers, and even a lot of native speakers make this mistake.

The third mistake is that you put a space between the first sentence and the comma. Remember that commas, colons :)), semicolons (;), question marks (?), exclamation marks (!), and periods (.) are followed by a space but are not preceded by one.

Third:

how i suppose to do now , i choose my old reply and post them here , or post my important futur reply to correct it here or both ?

The above line contains a lot of mistakes, so I'll rewrite it properly and explain what I did:

How am I supposed to go from here? Do I choose my old replies and post them here, or do I post my important future replies here for you to correct them, or both?

Or

What am I supposed to do now? Choose my old replies and post them here, post my important future replies to correct them here, or both?

"How I suppose to do now" is syntactically wrong; I suppose makes it sound like you are supposing something, because suppose here is used as a main verb. When it is used as an adjective, you should use verb to be. So the correct form is What am I supposed to do now?

Note that auxiliary verbs function in a very specific way in interrogative sentences (question sentences): they cause inversion, that is, the auxiliary verb precedes (comes before) the subject. This is called subject-auxiliary inversion. So we don't say How the game went? as we would in Arabic; instead, we say How did the game go?

The structure in questions is subject + auxiliary verb + main verb.

You needed another auxiliary verb, do, in the sentence, "i choose my old reply and post them here [...]." You should have said, "Do I choose [...]." The structure of the question also contains the subject-auxiliary inversion.

Another mistake:

i choose my old reply and post them here , or post my important futur reply to correct it here or both ?

You first said, "I choose my old reply" and then referred to it with the plural noun them. Also, you said, "Post my important future reply" as if there were only one future reply you were going to post. When talking about an unspecified number of things, use the plural form.

By the way, it's future, not futur.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. :)
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm glad y'all are doing this. I often struggle to grasp what godobeyer is posting. I can't tell if the problem is grammar and sentence structure or a cultural difference.

May I c&p quotes and ask for clarity?
Tom

It is possible to clarify the meaning of posts without correcting every single mistake in them, so quoting posts for clarity rather than correction may not be beneficial to the purpose of this thread. You could ask for clarity in the threads themselves and tag me, though, assuming that Godobeyer would be okay with that.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
The third mistake is that you put a space between the first sentence and the comma. Remember that commas, colons :)), semicolons (;), question marks (?), exclamation marks (!), and periods (.) are followed by a space but are not preceded by one.

Alas! Had I learned that colons and semicolons are formed from smilies perhaps I would know how to use them properly today.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
(I hope you both can forgive me for meddling in uninvited. I aim only to spare Debater Slayer a bit of work and perhaps give Godobeyer a slightly faster understanding. Also, I am attempting to faithfully present Rosends' statements, but he should of course feel free to correct me.)

Hi, Godobeyer.

In #175

Well, I also accept the limitations on carrying out penalties based on time and circumstance, not just location. The temple was destroyed. After that, even in Israel, different implementations under the law were necessary.

Rosends is saying that the enforcement of laws is subject to various circunstances, including but not limited to those of time and location. He mentions the absence of the temple as a significant circunstance that influences the means of enforcing (religious) law.

The general gist of what he is saying in those posts is that Jewish religious laws can adjust to various circunstances, allowing for instance for alternative penalties if the favored penalty would be a sacrifice at the temple which is not possible at that time and place due to the unavailability of an adequate temple.
 

Godobeyer

the word "Islam" means "submission" to God
Premium Member
(I hope you both can forgive me for meddling in uninvited. I aim only to spare Debater Slayer a bit of work and perhaps give Godobeyer a slightly faster understanding. Also, I am attempting to faithfully present Rosends' statements, but he should of course feel free to correct me.)

Hi, Godobeyer.

In #175



Rosends is saying that the enforcement of laws is subject to various circunstances, including but not limited to those of time and location. He mentions the absence of the temple as a significant circunstance that influences the means of enforcing (religious) law.

The general gist of what he is saying in those posts is that Jewish religious laws can adjust to various circunstances, allowing for instance for alternative penalties if the favored penalty would be a sacrifice at the temple which is not possible at that time and place due to the unavailability of an adequate temple.
Thanks for this explaination LuisDantas.
You, any friend are welcome to help :)

So he tried to say that: they stop practicing some Jewish laws because the temple is not exist, "or not build yet" ?


How I re-structure this sentence to be understandable to him : " Why Practice Jewish laws required build a the temple ?"
 

Papoon

Active Member
Thanks for this explaination LuisDantas.
You, any friend are welcome to help :)

So he tried to say that: they stop practicing some Jewish laws because the temple is not exist, "or not build yet" ?


How I re-structure this sentence to be understandable to him : " Why Practice Jewish laws required build a the temple ?"
Hey Godobeyer. I must say I respect your courage and the quality of your intention in having your language skills analysed and corrected in a public forum. I also extend appreciation and respect to Debate Slayer for taking on this praiseworthy effort.
For the record, let me say that I have always understood your English. I am well versed in grammar and punctuation, possibly because I was born in 1955, and the education system was much more thorough in the 60s than it is today.
Here is an interesting fact - when George Bush was the Governor of Texas, prior to becoming President, Texas had the lowest level of literacy ever recorded in the USA. His English is lamentably bad, and the ideas he so badly attempts to express are often pathetically childish. FWIW (for what it's worth), you are more lucid and eloquent than he is :)
Also remember - many posters here pretend to misunderstand you, in an attempt to denigrate and diminish you.
I am also very happy to help you. If you ever wish me to, I will proofread and edit any posts before you post them in a thread, if I am available to do so.
Cheers my friend :)
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
So he tried to say that: they stop practicing some Jewish laws because the temple is not exist, "or not build yet" ?

Fairly close to that, as I understood it.

He was using an example where the law prescribed an action that needed a temple to be performed. Without a temple, the law could still be followed, but of course not in exactly the same way. The absence of a temple did not create a loophole, nor made the law unenforceable.

As a comparison, let's say a certain hypothetical law somewhere punishes someone who damaged a personal car by demanding the guilty person to lend is own car to the person who suffered fron the damage. If it turns out that the guilt part has no car, it is of course conceivable that alternate compensation may be decided upon (for instance, a compensation in money).


How I re-structure this sentence to be understandable to him : " Why Practice Jewish laws required build a the temple ?"

In this context (and assuming I did not misunderstand Rosends, which would not be all that surprising), the most natural question would seem to me to be:

"Why does the practice of Jewish religious law need a temple? Are you referring to activities that are themselves impossible without the temple?"


Or, if you want to invite Rosends to elaborate on the role and importance of the temple for Jewish laws, a possible wording would be:

"How necessary is the Temple, from the perspective of Jewish religious law?"
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Hi brother Debater Slayer I find some difficulty to understand the point of friend rosends ,he also in #175 #179

This is what I said :
Does God law suppose changed by time ?!!
And what circumstance that could change God laws , for exemple ?
Why Practice Jewish laws required build a the temple ?



this is the link :
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...breakers-be-killed.182740/page-9#post-4552627

As I understand those posts, @rosends (and he is free to correct me if I'm wrong) is saying that the implementation of Jewish laws or the way in which they are applied can vary depending on time, circumstances, and location. In other words, God's laws (from the member's perspective) don't change with time in and of themselves; only their implementation and circumstances of application do.

By the way, you could have worded your post correctly this way instead:

Is God's law supposed to change with time? And what are the circumstances that can change God's law, for example? Why does practicing Jewish laws require building the temple?
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Thanks for this explaination LuisDantas.
You, any friend are welcome to help :)

So he tried to say that: they stop practicing some Jewish laws because the temple is not exist, "or not build yet" ?

The post about sacrifice is saying that if Jews are commanded to bring sacrifices after sinning when there is a temple, they will not bring sacrifices when there is no temple because they are commanded to bring sacrifices after sinning when and only when there is a temple.

Basically, it means that the existence of a temple is the condition that must be fulfilled for Jews to bring in sacrifices after sinning—if there is no temple, the commandment doesn't apply.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Since you are tutoring anyway, mind if I ask you:

What's the difference between "Salam" and "Assalam" as in "Assalamu Aleikum". I'm also assuming that the "u" at the end is for plural?
Also does Mawlid al Nabi mean "birth of prophet"?
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Since you are tutoring anyway, mind if I ask you:

What's the difference between "Salam" and "Assalam" as in "Assalamu Aleikum". I'm also assuming that the "u" at the end is for plural?

"Salaam" is "peace"; "assalaam" is "the peace." The As- prefix is the definite article Al, meaning "the." However, because the Seen (Arabic equivalent of S, basically) is a solar letter, Al becomes As- and takes the sound of the letter after it. There are 14 lunar letters that take Al normally, and the rest are solar letters that cause Al to basically be fused into the letter after it. So it's Al-qamar ("the Moon," hence the naming of the letters that take Al as "lunar letters), but Ash-shams (the Sun, hence the naming of the letters that change the sound of Al as "solar letters").

The standard Islamic greeting is Assalaamu a'laykum, meaning "peace be upon you." The U at the end of Assalaamu is the dhamma, an Arabic diacritic that sounds like an O in English. Since there is no equivalent English diacritic, it is replaced by a U in the anglicized version of the word.

A'laykum means "upon you." The "um" is added for addressing more than two people.

Also does Mawlid al Nabi mean "birth of prophet"?

It means "birth of the prophet."
 
Top