-
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
Thanks a lot for your help, I'll post the threads then back to learn, this is very important explainationIt is guarantee, not warranty (warranty is written with a double r, by the way). You will find guarantee used in contexts similar to your intended meaning much more often than warranty; the latter word is mostly used in a legal context. I guarantee you that when you buy a new phone, for example, you can find one with a good warranty.
A better way to express the first sentence would be, "I had this question pop up in my mind," "This question came to mind," or simply "I have had this question on my mind"/"I have this question on my mind."
The second sentence should be, "If we, the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful, have become involved in violence like this [...]." Notice the commas in bold and red separating the phrase, "the Muslims who are supposed to be peaceful" from the rest of the sentence. This phrase modifies the pronoun we. When a phrase or noun modifies another noun or pronoun, it is called an appositive. Appositives are separated by commas from the rest of the sentence. If you remove an appositive, the sentence remains meaningful, albeit with less details and clarity.
"Drop in something" is a common Arabic expression, but it is not common at all in English. In the future, it would be a good idea to avoid assuming that an expression makes sense in English because it is used in Arabic. A lot of ESL speakers fall for this mistake of literally translating expressions from their native languages. The more fluent one gets in English, the more they use English idioms rather than ones from their native language when writing in or speaking English.
1) The word you want here is safe, not save. Save is often used as a verb; when it is used as a noun, it is usually used in a context related to sports. When a goalkeeper prevents the ball from entering the net in soccer, he or she has made a save. When you are not at risk of something, you are safe from it.
2) It is spelled violence, not voilence.
3) Between you each other, besides being syntactically incorrect, is pleonastic or tautological—that is, it is an expression that uses more words than necessary to express its intended meaning. Also, among is better than between in this context; you are talking about a large group of people. So the phrase would be much better written thus: "among yourselves."
4) You are talking about guns in general, so it is not the gun. It is not the guns either; you are not talking about a specific group of guns. Instead, it is simply guns.
1) You have committed a comma splice above, but I'm not going to delve into that again for now because it is a relatively nuanced punctuation mistake that requires its own post to correct.
2) It is example, not exemple. Also, it is atheists, not athiests. It is also not a proper noun, so you shouldn't capitalize it.
3) It shouldn't be against religious; religious is an adjective, and you used it as a noun. If you want to use it as a noun, use the before it. This usage is similar to the poor, the old, and the rich: when an adjective is preceded by the, it can be used as a noun. So it is either "against the religious" or "against religious people."
4) The expression you want to use here is not inverse; it is vice versa. It means "the other way around."
So, here is the OP of your thread written from scratch with the intended meaning in mind:
I'm going to address this in my next post, as this post would probably be too lengthy otherwise.
Thanks a lot for your help, I'll post the threads then back to learn, this is very important explaination
You are welcome.
By the way, you should say, "[...] then come back to learn" or "return to learn."
this is very important explaination
That should be "a very important explanation", since the adjective "important" is followed by a complement; a subject in this case. If there was no complement, it can be "this is very important" without the indefinite article "a". However, if the complement is plural, then the article should be dropped; e.g. "these are important explanations".
Keep in mind the following:
1- The same applies with the definite article "the".
2- "Some" and "many", which are considered plural articles, can be used with the plural instances.
By the way, it is true that the word in the basic form (or root) is "explain", but the derived noun of it is "explanation", not "explaination". This is a spelling mistake non native speakers make with similar words when they try to derive others from it. Another good example is "pronounce" and "pronunciation".
Are we clear?
Debater Slayer
I have a confuse about the spelling of the word "live", since it's had lot of meaning
How it's spell , when it's mean " direct online" LIVE in TV .
How it's spell, when I said " I live in Algeria"
How it's spell, when it's said : " many lives were saved by army "
I have a confuse about the spelling of the word "live", since it's had lot of meaning
How it's spell , when it's mean " direct online" LIVE in TV .
How it's spell, when I said " I live in Algeria"
How it's spell, when it's said : " many lives were saved by army "
It is spelled the same in all three contexts. (By the way, it is live on TV, not in TV.)
The difference is in the pronunciation: when it is the plural of life and when it means broadcast while occurring (as in, "live on TV"), it is pronounced lahyv. When it is used as a verb, it is pronounced liv.
hello Debater Slayer
I want to correct this thread
The title :
When a country punish differently it's citizens by race/religion !!!
Thread :
Imagine that you are living in a country (treat you depend your race or religion) , If you or one of your family memeber commit a crime , your family home will destructed .
Israel punish the criminal Arab by destroy his family home , but in same way Israel don't punish the Jew criminal whom made crime against Arab by destruct his family home !!!
I want to correct this thread
The title :
When a country punish differently it's citizens by race/religion !!!
Thread :
Imagine that you are living in a country (treat you depend your race or religion) , If you or one of your family memeber commit a crime , your family home will destructed .
Israel punish the criminal Arab by destroy his family home , but in same way Israel don't punish the Jew criminal whom made crime against Arab by destruct his family home !!!
hello Debater Slayer
I want to correct this thread
The title :
When a country punish differently it's citizens by race/religion !!!
Thread :
Imagine that you are living in a country (treat you depend your race or religion) , If you or one of your family memeber commit a crime , your family home will destructed .
Israel punish the criminal Arab by destroy his family home , but in same way Israel don't punish the Jew criminal whom made crime against Arab by destruct his family home !!!
This is going to need a long explanation. Give me a bit to make coffee, have a sandwich, and then come back to answer.
Take your time , don't worryThis is going to need a long explanation. Give me a bit to make coffee, have a sandwich, and then come back to answer.
hello Debater Slayer
I want to correct this thread
The title :
When a country punish differently it's citizens by race/religion !!!
1) You are talking about a singular noun, country, so the verb that follows should be conjugated accordingly: it should be punishes, not punish.
2) The possessive form of the pronoun it is its, not it's. The apostrophe s is used in three ways with a pronoun and a noun—in this case, let's use it as an example of a pronoun and Godobeyer as an example of a noun:
- As a contraction of is in it is
- As a contraction of has in it has
- Indicating possession: what follows the apostrophe s belongs to the noun that the apostrophe s is attached to. So when we say Godobeyer's T-shirt, we mean that the T-shirt belongs to Godobeyer.
3) The expression you are looking for is based on, not by. Let's say we have a lawyer named Bob. He says that all people who don't follow the law are immoral. Thus, Bob's argument is based on the law of the country he is in. When X relies on Y as a reason or justification, then X is based on Y.
4) Punctuation marks are never preceded by a space in regular English sentences. Also, using two exclamation marks would have been pushing it to the limit; using three is just superfluous. One should be enough (and remember, again: it should not be preceded by a space).
This is where the explanation gets quite involved.
Imagine explicitly states that we are talking about an unreal situation; you are asking the person or people you are addressing to form an image in their head of a situation that doesn't exist in reality. Therefore, the most proper mood to use is the subjunctive. A lot of native speakers forgo its usage, but that doesn't make it any less proper or grammatically accurate.
The usage of the subjunctive mood can be quite difficult for ESL speakers, so here are a few of its rules to help simplify it for you:
1. Every pronoun in the subjunctive takes the infinitive form, but in the case of verb to be, every pronoun takes the conjugation were in the present, had been in the past, and were to + infinitive in the future. I were, he were, she were, and it were are all perfectly correct. Don't let them confuse you into believing that they are incorrect just because they may look strange.
2. The subjunctive is used in the unreal past as well as to express wishes, demands, and recommendations, among other things. You can find a list of the uses of the subjunctive here: http://grammarist.com/grammar/subjunctive-mood/
3. When you use the subjunctive mood in a sentence, you need to switch the verb tenses in it to be in accordance with the mood you are using (the subjunctive). So, for example, notice the bolded red part in this sentence: "I wish I knew what I was going to do soon." You are expressing a wish about the future, yet you used the verb in the past tense because you used the subjunctive in your sentence.
4. In if conditional sentences, using the subjunctive in the conditional clause (the one with if) necessitates that you use would or would have in the main clause. Here is a brief guide on if conditional sentences: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conditional2.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now that we have gotten the explanation about the subjunctive out of the way, here are the other mistakes in your sentence:
1) You said country, a singular noun, and then said treat. It should be treats so that it is properly conjugated.
2) You don't need to use parentheses in this case; parentheses are typically used to interject sentences that provide extra information but that can be removed without affecting the core meaning of the main sentence. You put a crucial part of your sentence in parentheses to highlight it, which is an incorrect usage. If you want to emphasize a specific part of your post, italicizing that part can be useful.
3) Depend is a verb; depending on means based on or according to. In other words, you need to use depending on in the above sentence.
4) It is member, not memeber. Also, in your sentence, you said one of, so you should follow up with a plural—in this case, it should be members.
5) You have two options here when it comes to the conditional sentence (using if):
1. Use the first conditional, in which case your sentence should be, "If you or one of your family members commits a crime, your family home will be destroyed."
2. Use the second conditional, in which case your sentence should be, "If you or one of your family members committed a crime, your family home would be destroyed."
The two forms have different connotations: the first one expresses more probability and possibility of occurrence than the second. The second puts emphasis on the improbability or imaginary status of the scenario being explained. In this case, if I were talking to an Israeli Arab, I would use the first conditional. If I were talking to someone who lived outside Israel and who was most likely never going to be in the situation of committing a crime inside Israel, I would use the second.
6) You need verb to be after will, and it is destroyed, not destructed. So it should be, "[...] will be destroyed."
1) Again, you need to conjugate your verbs properly: it should be punishes.
2) Arab criminals would be a more natural-sounding phrase.
3) By, when followed by a noun or gerund (verb-ing), means "through the means of" or "in this particular way." It is not followed by a verb, so your phrase should be, "[...] by destroying [...]."
4) It should be in the same way.
5) Another conjugation mistake: you should say doesn't punish, not don't punish.
6) Jew is a noun, and some people take offense when it is used as an adjective. The standard adjective to use is Jewish, so your phrase should be, "Jewish criminals."
7) The pronoun you are looking for is who, not whom. Who is a subjective pronoun, and whom is an objective pronoun. Since the pronoun in your sentence is followed by a verb, it is a subject—that is, it refers to the person or people who have done what the the verb describes. That's why you want to use who and not whom.
8) One doesn't make a crime; one commits a crime.
9) You are talking about a general case and Arabs in general, so you should say, "[...] against Arabs. [...]."
10) Once again, it is destroy, not destruct, and since you used by, it should be destroying.
11) You don't need more than one exclamation mark, and they are not preceded by a space.
Here is your OP rewritten according to the above rules:
One last note: You originally wrote, "When a country punish differently it's citizens by race/religion !!!"
This is a mistake. You inserted an adverb ("differently") between a transitive verb ("punish") and an object ("its citizens"). The adverb can go either before the verb or after the object. In this case, it sounds a lot more natural, at least to me, when it goes after the object.
I hope this helps. I took a relatively long time to reply because I wanted to make sure I gave a detailed response.
Yikes!!!
now I'm confused.
Ah, two Arabs are discussing the English language. Go figure
Tumah
Veteran Member
Apparently wherever you learned English was a lot more effective than wherever I learned English.
I learned the basics at school, and my mother helped me with them in addition to teaching me to use dictionaries. Most of the grammar, vocabulary, and punctuation rules I know today are self-taught.
Now that's the difference in semantics between us and native English speakers
I do hear non native English speakers make strange sounding choice of words. Give the meaning, but it just sounds strange and gives the impression of non English speaking nativity.
Last edited:
Now that's the difference in semantics between us an native English speakers
I do hear non native English speakers make strange sounding choice of words. Give the meaning, but it just sounds strange and gives the impression of non English speaking nativity.
It'll be very interesting to observe the development of 'International English'. It's well observed in languages that suddenly become spoken by huge numbers of non-native speakers, who then pass it on, that they become a lot simpler. It happened in Spanish in Latin America, happened to English when the Vikings swarmed in, and seems likely to happen now as English becomes the world's lingua franca