FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
What about a clean water, is't a grammatically wrong as well.
for example "it's a clean water"
-
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
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
What about a clean water, is't a grammatically wrong as well.
for example "it's a clean water"
It all depends on whether "water" is standing for some sort of countable portion of water - anything from a waterdrop to the an ocean.
Such may be the case, particularly in poetry or highly stylized texts.
Otherwise, no, it would be incorrect, and the correct form would be "it's clean water".
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
The word itself is uncountable regardless of its quantity, for example we say a glass of water,
A glass doesn't mean that the word water is a countable.
The glass is a countable but the water isn't.
That is correct. The article "a" refers to the glass, not to the water itself.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
And can't we describe the water in the glass as a clean water?
We can and we do, once it is established that it is countable for some reason. As in, it is not just water in general, but a specific body of water - in this case, that inside the glass.
In usual circunstances, we do not count water in English. We do not talk about "one water", "two waters", etc. And because we do not count water, we do not prefix it with "a", but rathr with "the".
If I may, this feels to me like one of those things that is most easily understood with practice and some reading of examples. It is subtle enough to deserve some immersion and persistence.
I googled for the subject matter and these links seem decent enough explanations and examples. You may want to browse them some if you have the time.
http://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/nouns/countable-uncountable-nouns/
http://www.edufind.com/english-grammar/countable-and-uncountable-nouns/
http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/countable-uncountable-nouns.htm
http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/noununcount.html
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/pt/gramatica/gramatica-britanica/nouns-countable-and-uncountable
http://www.engvid.com/english-resource/countable-and-uncountable-nouns/
http://www.onlinemathlearning.com/countable-uncountable-nouns.html
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Check this statement from a lesson on English grammars.
A fresh air on a sea beach is refreshing, so I feel refreshed.
http://www.englishtechniques.com/2015/01/parts-of-speech-adjectives-and-adverb.html
In this case, "A fresh air" is technically incorrect.
Just "Fresh air" would be (more) grammatically correct.
Sure, people sometimes (not often) talk sentences just like that, with the opening "A" article. But that can only be explained in three ways (far as I know):
1. Plain grammatical mistake (always a possibility)
2. Artistic license (basically a mistake which has been specifically allowed to exist for reasons of style, aesthetics or boldness)
or, perhaps the most interesting possibility:
3. The implicit understanding that there is some unwritten part of the sentence, which is to assumed nevertheless.
In this case, "A fresh air" could be read as truly meaning "A fresh breath of air".
Most native or experienced speakers will think of the sentence as having that exact meaning, perhaps without even realizing it, due to context and familiarity. Our minds just "put the missing parts" there for us.
Just "Fresh air" would be (more) grammatically correct.
Sure, people sometimes (not often) talk sentences just like that, with the opening "A" article. But that can only be explained in three ways (far as I know):
1. Plain grammatical mistake (always a possibility)
2. Artistic license (basically a mistake which has been specifically allowed to exist for reasons of style, aesthetics or boldness)
or, perhaps the most interesting possibility:
3. The implicit understanding that there is some unwritten part of the sentence, which is to assumed nevertheless.
In this case, "A fresh air" could be read as truly meaning "A fresh breath of air".
Most native or experienced speakers will think of the sentence as having that exact meaning, perhaps without even realizing it, due to context and familiarity. Our minds just "put the missing parts" there for us.
Poetry often takes liberties with normal grammar, and the language of Holy script is usually archaic.
They aren't good examples of everyday, colloquial speech. Trying to explain their irregularities gets complicated and confusing to someone trying to master the basics.
They aren't good examples of everyday, colloquial speech. Trying to explain their irregularities gets complicated and confusing to someone trying to master the basics.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I am still confused, btw when I done my replies in RF, I look at this thread to learn1) Godobeyer is talking to Richard Dawkins about the Islamic concept of God, and Richard Dawkins doesn't understand it well. Therefore, Richard Dawkins is confused; the Islamic concept of God (the subject) has confused him (the object). Richard Dawkins, in his state of confusion, says, "I am confused. This conversation confuses me."
Then, seeking to understand the Islamic concept of God after failing to understand it from his discussion with Godobeyer, Richard Dawkins asks Abdullah about it. Dawkins says, "Abdullah, I'm trying to understand your religion's concept of God; it has confused me; I have been confused about it for a while [which is why Mr. Dawkins used the present perfect to express his confusion]."
2) Dawkins, failing to understand the Islamic concept of God yet again, says, "This is confusing [here, confusing is an adjective, meaning "causing or resulting in confusion."]." He has been confused for a long time because it has confused him, he is still confused right now because it is confusing him, and he finds it confusing.
I hope this helps; hopefully it is not confusing to you.
(Feel free to ask if you have any questions about the above or anything else.)
You said : "it is confused me" is wrong ,then how it is confusing him is correct ?
Last edited:
Shad
Veteran Member
The only advice I am going to offer here is to watch the videos you are transcribing repeatedly. Even stop and restart small sections if you have issues. The John Stewart video had him changing the pace of his speech for a number of reasons; time requirements, jokes, etc. There were a few errors made just due to this factor. Rather than using media sources which have time slot restrictions like a hour or 1/2 hour long show. Try to find lectures for university programs. Lectures tend to be practiced thus conform better to time restrictions. Be warned lectures cause sleep. Best of luck
I am still confused, btw when I done my replies in RF, I look at this thread to learn
The above sentences should be, "I am still confused. [Period instead of a comma to avoid a comma splice.] By the way, when I compose [or write] my replies on RF, I look at this thread to learn.
"That's good to know.
The present continuous tense takes the auxiliary verb to be, whereas the present perfect takes the auxiliary verb to have. This is why "It is confused me" is wrong while "It is confusing me" is correct; it's all about the auxiliary verb.
It can be helpful to remember the structure of both tenses: the present continuous tense takes the form verb to be + present participle, while the present perfect takes the form verb to have + past participle. So it is "It is confusing me" but "It has confused me." Both sentences are correct, but they have slightly different connotations. The first sentence signifies that you are confused right now, whereas the second can mean that you are still confused or that you have been confused up until now.
As an example of the above, if something has been confusing you and you have finally understood it, you can say, "It has confused me [for a long time/for a while/up until now]." If you still don't understand it, you can say, "It is confusing me [right now/currently/at this time]."
Also remember that the present perfect tense, despite its name, can refer to a present state or a past state depending on the context in which it is used. When it refers to the present, it refers to a state that has continued for a while, such as "I have lived in Algeria for years." When it refers to the past, it refers to something that has happened at an unspecified time before or that has just ended: if you have just left Algeria and are at the airport of another country, you can say, "I have lived in Algeria for years."
Let's take it a step further: I have personally lived in Saudi Arabia for years. Notice that I used the present perfect tense because I'm referring to something that happened in the past without specifying when it happened. I could also say, "I have been to Saudi Arabia" without specifying when I went to Saudi Arabia. It is wrong to say, "I have been to Saudi Arabia in 1995" because I specified the time, so the correct tense to use in this sentence is the past simple tense.
English tenses in general can be tricky for native Arabic-speaking learners because, at least in my opinion, Arabic tenses are much simpler and more straightforward. Arabic verbs have only two tenses, which are the present and the past. The fact that there are more tenses in English makes it difficult for some Arab ESL (English as a second language) students to master the use of those tenses and employ them in proper contexts.
Hello all
LuisDantas , Debater Slayer
I have a question about verb "to can",I found a website conjugate it like this way:
Present indicative:
I can
you can
he cans
we can
you can
they can
From this website http://www.theconjugator.com/la/conjugaison/du/verbe/can.html
Other website said :
Present indicative:
I can
you can
he can
we can
you can
they can
From this website:
http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/can.html
Which one is correct ?
LuisDantas , Debater Slayer
I have a question about verb "to can",I found a website conjugate it like this way:
Present indicative:
I can
you can
he cans
we can
you can
they can
From this website http://www.theconjugator.com/la/conjugaison/du/verbe/can.html
Other website said :
Present indicative:
I can
you can
he can
we can
you can
they can
From this website:
http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/English/can.html
Which one is correct ?
"He can," i.e., the second one. Can is a modal verb, and one of the characteristics of modal verbs is that their conjugation is the same for all pronouns.
Modal verbs have past tenses, however. Here are the English modal verbs with their past tenses:
1) Can/could
2) Shall/should
3) May/might
4) Will/would
5) Must/ought to/had to
I googled the list of English modal verbs again to make sure I wasn't giving you an incomplete list. You can google them yourself if you want to check as well.
Edit: By the way, when speaking of the modal verb, one should say, "To be able to," not "to can." Similarly, when speaking of the negative modal verb cannot, one should say, "To be unable to," not "to cannot."
Thanks, this is first time I heard about Model verbs!
So it's wrong when someone said :she musts , or he cans ?
How about verbs "to need" and "need to"?
We don't add the "s" with she,he,it?
They are modal verbs, not model verbs.
Need is a regular verb, so you add an s with he, she, and it. It can also be used as a modal verb. Let's take these two sentences as an example;
"He needs to go to work."
"He need go to work."
In the first sentence, need is a regular verb, so it takes an s with he. In the second sentence, it is used as a modal verb, so it doesn't take the s.
Both forms are correct. The first (regular) form should be sufficient to express what you need to say.
@Godobeyer, I noticed that you misused the word racism in your recent thread about a Muslim woman's being discriminated against by supporters of Donald Trump. I think the confusion stems from the fact that discrimination and racism are the same word in Arabic.
To put it simply, mistreating/persecuting someone based on an aspect of their identity, such as nationality, gender, or religion, is discrimination. Racism is just one type of discrimination. Here are some different types and their respective terms:
- Discrimination based on religion is bigotry/religious intolerance.
- Discrimination based on race and/or skin color is racism.
- Discrimination based on sex or gender is sexism.
- Discrimination based on sexual orientation (homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc.) often stems from homophobia, heterophobia, or biphobia, respectively. Also, discrimination against transgenders often stems from transphobia.
- Discrimination based on nationality is chauvinism.
- Discrimination in favor of family, relatives, or friends is nepotism.
- Discrimination in favor of authorities or obedience thereof is authoritarianism.
I hope this helps. If you want to talk about any specific kind of discrimination but don't know what it is called, feel free to ask here.
To put it simply, mistreating/persecuting someone based on an aspect of their identity, such as nationality, gender, or religion, is discrimination. Racism is just one type of discrimination. Here are some different types and their respective terms:
- Discrimination based on religion is bigotry/religious intolerance.
- Discrimination based on race and/or skin color is racism.
- Discrimination based on sex or gender is sexism.
- Discrimination based on sexual orientation (homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc.) often stems from homophobia, heterophobia, or biphobia, respectively. Also, discrimination against transgenders often stems from transphobia.
- Discrimination based on nationality is chauvinism.
- Discrimination in favor of family, relatives, or friends is nepotism.
- Discrimination in favor of authorities or obedience thereof is authoritarianism.
I hope this helps. If you want to talk about any specific kind of discrimination but don't know what it is called, feel free to ask here.
hello Debater Slayer and LuisDantas
Friend Tumah ask me to re-rephrase the sentence
he did not understand this reply : Today at 10:41 AM#117
I want to say :
God used sometimes past tense in Quran because he had no future and events are already happened for him, so he could use the present and future and past when he talking to us about other issues in our life or in hereafter.
God creat time , and time not apply on Him .
Friend Tumah ask me to re-rephrase the sentence
he did not understand this reply : Today at 10:41 AM#117
I want to say :
God used sometimes past tense in Quran because he had no future and events are already happened for him, so he could use the present and future and past when he talking to us about other issues in our life or in hereafter.
God creat time , and time not apply on Him .
A better wording would be, "God transcends time, so he can talk to us using any tense. It doesn't make a difference to him because he created time, so he is not bound by time like we are."
"God transcends time" means that God is beyond time and thus doesn't change with the passage of time as humans do. To transcend something means to be or go beyond it.