radio hk kong kong connection

eviepa

eviepa兄,

文法、默書這類學習英文的方法是我們那代平民百姓的唯一選擇, 因為那時沒有任何影音,多媒體器材幫助. 那年頭最佳的學習英文方法是有一位Native的英文老師 , 此所以當時貴族名校或教會學校(有外籍神父, 修女)出來的學生英語能獨佔鰲頭.

但今時今日, 各種多媒體輔助學習器材的出現, 要學到字正腔員的英文已不一定需要一位Native神父老師 , 我們更無需要抱殘守舊單純依賴文法、默書這類事倍功半的方法.

Stjoboldboy兄，

完全同意。

同樣邏輯，有了多媒體輔助學習器材，要學好英文，英中不再是唯一的選擇，讀中中也可學得好英文。

講開又講，為補中中英文寫作的不足，我想出了一個特別的方法去訓練囡囡的寫作能力，預計實行半年，現行了三個月，似乎有不錯的成效，幾個月後和你們分享。

eviepa

eviepa

阿女放假後便要測驗，今天和同學煲電話粥。談到世史英文部分的一句： “It made every man equal before the law.”

同學對這句的文法有疑惑：「equal是 adj，為何沒有verb to be在前面？」

阿女走來問我，文法不是我強項，但我知這句是對的，很多時adj都會跟著這個pattern，但至於怎樣解釋，我不懂，只能套用小弟中一班主任一句說話： “English is like that.”

我問阿女，妳覺得這句如何？她答：「我覺得這句很順口，如果加插is或 be進去，整句就變得不順口了，所以我知道這句大概是對的，但我不知怎樣解釋給她聽。」

估計中中生很少像我囡囡，憑語感去分辨文法對錯，大部分都是以文法法則去辨別。但文法這東西博大精深，文法有很多部分，連普通大學畢業生也不懂的，中學生怎可以單憑文法法則，就有把握判別文法對錯？

培養語感需要多接觸英文，但這絕非做文法練習及串生字，而是閱讀、聆聽，最好有講和寫。

有了語感，上文法課時自然容易明白，學文法自然事半而功幾倍。

幾十年前，我在錯誤的方法訓練下長大，日夜埋首於文法操練，串生字，所得是甚麼？到出來做事後，我才在錯誤與嘗試中摸索到英文的正確學習方法，知道後，我女兒便得到了一個良好的環境，於是英可以長期名列前茅，可以盡情享受中中母語教學的好處。

香港現在小學教育過分著重文法、串生字，忽略閱讀、看英文片是英文不能較快提高的原因。

eviepa

[ 本帖最後由 eviepa 於 10-4-3 23:36 編輯 ]

ChiChiPaPa

為甚麼她們不去請教英文科老師？

[ 本帖最後由 ChiChiPaPa 於 10-4-4 08:52 編輯 ]

P6MA

原帖由 eviepa 於 10-4-3 23:32 發表
阿女放假後便要測驗，今天和同學煲電話粥。談到世史英文部分的一句： “It made every man equal before the law.”

同學對這句的文法有疑惑：「equal是 adj，為何沒有verb to be在前面？」

阿女走來問我，文法不是我強項，但我 ...

Actually, this sentence has two objects: 'every man' and 'equal before the law'. 'Every man' is the direct object, while 'equal before the law' is the indirect object. Take this sentence as an example:

Mary bought Tom a bike.

In this sentence, 'Mary' is the subject, 'bought' is the verb, 'Tom' is the direct object and 'a bike' is the indirect object. We put the direct object before the indirect object, hence constructing a sentence pattern:

Subject + Verb + Direct object + Indirect object

Therefore, this sentence is correct.

這是小兒的回覆，他只是f.1，文法不可能博大精深，或會有錯，請原諒！

[ 本帖最後由 P6MA 於 10-4-4 16:45 編輯 ]

ChiChiPaPa

我覺得Eviepa應信任專業，信任老師和學校。有關學術上的問題，家長不是專業的老師，未必能給予孩子適當的答案。遇上不能解答的學術問題，應向老師請教。

Do I make myself clear?

eviepa

ChiChiPaPa,

我不相信每遇到問題都必定問老師是一種可行的求學方法，由其是語文。無論中、英文，遇到的問題都是太多了。比如說，文法，你程度低，你就有大量低層次的問題是你不懂的；你程度高，自然有大量高層次的問題出現。一個英文老師有幾十個學生，如果每人都每事問，根本應接不下。

學生是要問，但問的應是關鍵性的問題，可以自修的，應自已去攪清。

以這條為例，我囡囡根本知道notes裡的是對的，沒有必要去問。囡囡同學如果覺得這是關鍵，可以一問。

P6MA的兒子就是得力於大量閱讀，語感極強，因此可以很有效率地明白grammar，可喜可賀，但其他的沒有大量閱讀作後盾的，要在中二明白這樣的文法背後的意義，難矣。

香港學英文要學文法，是錯不了的，但在沒有相應的語境配合下，勉強去學一些高層次的文法，實在是浪費時間。stjobolboy說得好：

文法、默書這類學習英文的方法是我們那代平民百姓的唯一選擇, 因為那時沒有任何影音,多媒體器材幫助. 那年頭最佳的學習英文方法是有一位Native的英文老師 , 此所以當時貴族名校或教會學校(有外籍神父, 修女)出來的學生英語能獨佔鰲頭.

但今時今日, 各種多媒體輔助學習器材的出現, 要學到字正腔員的英文已不一定需要一位Native神父老師 , 我們更無需要抱殘守舊單純依賴文法、默書這類事倍功半的方法.

幾十年前，齋讀文法、串生字，英文就能名列前茅，但今天，再死抱這方法就是過時，落後於形勢了。

eviepa

eviepa

為甚麼她們不去請教英文科老師 ？

ChiChiPaPa,

前文講過，我囡囡本人沒有需要去問這問題。

另外，我一向都說我囡囡素質平凡，你覺得她會不會為了這一點不很重要的學術問題，去找老師問個明白？求求其其的她只會求求其其下去，問一問老爸也只是應同學的提問而矣。

有尋根究底性格的學生，學有所成的機會極大，但我相信，大部分學生的態度都像我女兒，求求其其。

eviepa

eviepa

Stccmc,

“equal before the law” 沒有 finite verb，應是adverb phrase。

不過要解釋給我囡囡的同學，會很複雜，因為她的想法是，adj一定要在 verb to be 之後，如：

The car is red.
He will be happy.

在文法上，需要對adj的用法有一個系統的認識。 “equal” 本身是 adj ，但加在這裡會變 adverb phrase，當中學問甚大，大概不是她現在就要學習的東西，還是 “English is like that” ，就算了。

在BK：偶爾會有人提出文法問題，看下去像是很淺易的東西，大家七咀八舌講完一輪之後，往往發現問題並不是想像中那麼簡單。總之，文法博大精深，太難了。

eviepa

P6MA

原帖由 stccmc 於 10-4-5 01:19 發表


I do not agree with your boy on this.  "Equal before the law" is not a direct object.  Equal is an adjective to support the object "every man".  "before the law" is an adverb clause. I might be wron ...

I admit I was wrong about the objects. ‘Before the law’ is, yes, an adverb phrase, and it modifies ‘equal’. Here, ‘equal before the law’ is an objective complement that modifies ‘make’, because ‘make’ is an incomplete transitive verb. Take the following examples:

1) Mary killed Tom.
2) Mary made Tom unhappy.
3) That made every man equal before the law.

In 1), kill is a complete transitive verb. That is because the meaning is clear: Mary – Killed – Tom. In 2), however, it is different. Assuming that Tom isn’t a puppet that Mary made, Mary can’t make Tom. That’s where the objective complement comes in handy. Mary – made – Tom – unhappy. ‘Unhappy’ is a single word, but ‘equal before the law’ is also good enoughJ.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply

Reference: http://www.npc.edu.hk/staff/~ngt ... essons/lesson10.htm

[ 本帖最後由 P6MA 於 10-4-5 10:50 編輯 ]

P6MA

原帖由 eviepa 於 10-4-5 10:28 發表
Stccmc,

“equal before the law” 沒有 finite verb，應是adverb phrase。

不過要解釋給我囡囡的同學，會很複雜，因為她的想法是，adj一定要在 verb to be 之後，如：

The car is red.
He will be happy.

在文法上，需要對adj ...

Yes, you are right. It is a phrase not a clause.

P6MA

原帖由 stccmc 於 10-4-5 12:19 發表


Agree with make being the incomplete transitive verb and your comment about objective complement.  

Point is, we don't need all these analysis and jargon before we can use English effectively.  I r ...

Grammar is important for Hongkongers, as Hongkongers don’t have as much chance to experience and use English as Australians. Australians don’t necessary ‘use English effectively’, and if they do so without worrying much about grammar, that is not surprising at all, since they have the environment that Hongkongers don’t.

If a man from Shanghai learns Cantonese, he will have to start from the basics: the intonation, for example. I’m quite convinced that 9 out of 10 native speakers of Cantonese[Citation needed] don’t know about the ‘394052786’ (or whatever. I’m not sure if I’m remembering it correctly.) However, if you’re asking somebody who’s not a native speaker but still speaks Cantonese well, he might tell you confidently, ‘Yep. I know about all the intonations of Cantonese. And vowels and consonants too.’

As we are non-native speakers of English, grammar often does not come naturally. Say, for example, the huge number of people who say things like ‘I am very like Michael Jackson.’ That is because he has not familiarised himself with the use of ‘very’.

Or take two sentences (which somewhat contradict each other). ‘You are eat rice’ or ‘You very beautiful’. The former has two main verbs (are and eat) and the latter has no main verb at all. If non-native speakers don’t learn that we must put one verb in one sentence (excluding auxiliary verbs), then these mistakes will be recurring in our speech and writing over and over again.

Also, take the sentence ‘If you will keep playing computer games, then you ought to get a zero.’ A non-native speaker will have no idea why the future tense is used here, unless they have read a grammar book about the usage (such as Hewings, P.32.) That’s where grammar is useful here.

Finally, as every person’s way and approach of learning English are different, the way people look upon grammar are also different. I therefore respect your opinion.

Reference:
Hewings, Martin. Advanced Grammar in Use. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. (2005)

P6MA SON

P6MA

原帖由 stjoboldboy 於 10-4-5 15:12 發表


咁樣係到正正經經討論咪好囉!

做人應該光明磊落, 唔好再做埋d鬼鬼鼠鼠野, 你係”升中派位”個邊既唔知大家有冇睇鏗鏘集, 開個新名”lkma” , 明駡chichipa, 喑嘲eviepa, 好唔光彩喎!
  ...

今次的討論是兒子看到這句英文不難解釋，故嘗試在網上回覆，或者因而引起你的誤曾，我想，你會認為我是三為一體，隨便你了，過我正式向你說，你所說的與我無関，再回了。

P6MA

It must be stated that I, Mum, and ‘lkma’ are three separate persons, and Mum, afaik, has no intention to disguise as any other person in order to gain an advantage in discussions. I only comment here on grammar-related topics, and not to argue against any particular person. However, if my making comments evoke your disapproval, I will cease doing so.

Miss/Mr ‘stccmc’, in fact, the definition of an ‘early age’ differs from person to person. I started touching onto such grammar topics when I was about p.5, which is not a very early age imho. I’ve never in my life done any repetitive exercises on grammar. Simply knowing the basics can assist in the usage and understanding of English.

P6MA SON

[ 本帖最後由 P6MA 於 10-4-5 16:37 編輯 ]