A Small Test on English Grammar

hog.wash

王永平緊係講佢讀大學的時代，a two-university age when only less than 3000 students were admitted a year.

However, the universities in Hong Kong are doing a lot more than I expected. Their students can go on an exchange at least once if they have a decent GPA like over 3.2 or 3.3. Some even subsidise students going on overseas summer courses.

[ 本帖最後由 hog.wash 於 10-12-9 11:33 編輯 ]

cherubic

My son is struggling with this.  He is P.3 after all.
Can I try?  My answer is "We have been away from Hong Kong for 5 days."

原帖由 hog.wash 於 10-12-8 08:39 發表

I'll change the sentence to the following:
6.
我們離開香港已五天了。

I'll post the answer to this question tomorrow.

hog.wash

世事真巧(最近好似講咗呢句嘢幾次)，古德明先生在今日蘋果的專欄中也提及 to 後面接 infinitive 或 -ing 的問題，基本上與我說的無不同，但他提及 committed to 後可接 -ing 亦可接 infinitive。 唔通我教錯咗個女，等我查一查再同大家報告。

hog.wash

原帖由 cherubic 於 10-12-9 10:56 發表

My answer is "We have been away from Hong Kong for 5 days."

It is almost identical to mine:

We've been away from Hong Kong for five days.

Some students wrote wrongly like this:

We've left Hong Kong for five days.

hog.wash

原帖由 hog.wash 於 10-12-9 11:21 發表

世事真巧(最近好似講咗呢句嘢幾次)，古德明先生在今日蘋果的專欄中也提及 to 後面接 infinitive 或 -ing 的問題，基本上與我說的無不同，但他提及 committed to 後可接 -ing 亦可接 infinitive。 唔通我教錯咗個女，等我查一查再同大家報告。

似乎傾向跟 -ing 的佔大多數。有趣的是，原來連葉劉都有講及此問題，見
http://paper.wenweipo.com/2010/01/28/ED1001280011.htm

我原來的句子真實可以更簡潔地寫成:

We're committed to (a) quality service to our guests.

由是觀之，因 service 是名詞，若要畫蛇添足加上 provide 一詞，用 providing 是一定錯不了的。但能用 provide 與否，讀者自行決定好了。

hog.wash

原帖由 stccmc 於 10-12-9 23:34 發表


Can I say:

We left Hong Kong 5 days ago.

No, this time I'm afraid you can't. It is not past vs present perfect this time.

We are trying to emphasize the state we are in, i.e. we are away from Hong Kong, and not the actual timing when we left Hong Kong. There was a slight difference.

hog.wash

原帖由 stccmc 於 10-12-10 00:02 發表


Can I say:

It's been 5 days since we left HK?

Perfectly ok, I think.
If we want to emphasize the timing in Chinese, we probably would say

五天前我們離開香港。

hog.wash

原帖由 stccmc 於 10-12-10 01:30 發表

1. The vendor is going to clean all the meeting rooms after-hours.  They are required to access the rooms.

2. Tomorrow I am going to Peter's Salon to cut my hair.

The second one is easy even for able primary school students:

Tomorrow I'm going to Peter's Salon to have my hair cut (done).

As to the first one, it is more difficult without knowing the context. Is the "vendor" here a jargon with a special meaning? What does "they" refer to? The vendor?

Without knowing more details and considering it most likely part of a conversation, I'll just say:

The vendor needs to clean the rooms (or to have the rooms cleaned) after the meetings are over. Please keep the door unlocked (or Please give him(them) the keys).

Or course if the passage is part of a written instruction, the wording will be changed slightly.

Other readers may have better answers.

[ 本帖最後由 hog.wash 於 10-12-10 15:10 編輯 ]

hog.wash

原帖由 stccmc 於 10-12-10 17:33 發表
Q1 was in a email I saw yesterday.  I have seen this kind of sentences many times. My issue with this one is not on the structure and it does not need major rewrite to make me happy.

Of course, if we want to be picky about the emails we see every day, we probably cannot get anything else done. However, even we tolerate the jarons, we should still change 'vendor' to 'vendor people' , correct the passive voice back to active voice and change 'access' to 'have access to' in the second sentence. Still it is bad English.

[ 本帖最後由 hog.wash 於 10-12-10 21:05 編輯 ]

hog.wash

原帖由 stccmc 於 10-12-10 21:57 發表
Normally I am quite easy going with emails, as long as I don't need to stop and think.

Here I am not bothered by vendor vs vendor people. I am bothered by the passive voice. Nobody else require them ...

Dear Stccmc

It is always easy for us to find fault with the English written by other people, sometimes even people who are supposed to be authorities in this area.


既然你用日常實例，我想請讀者 proofread 以下一段一間學校介紹自己的文字(不需改寫，無謂益佢)。學校主持人自稱是英語專家，並曾在電視節目中「教」大家英文:

About xx College
         xx College , which was founded in 1989, is a government registered private college in the HKSAR. xx, as the name implies, is a xx. We guide anxious students towards the right goals, and provide assistance for bona fide students to achieve success.
        Thanks to the persistent and devoted efforts of the founders, xx College has evolved from its humble origins in a two-storey school in xx to 13 branches with a capacity of over 90 classrooms throughout the territory today. Every year, we nurture tens of thousands of students.

方便大家，我將中文版也貼上:

"學校背景
         xx學校 (xx COLLEGE) 創立於一九八九年，乃一所於香港特別行政區政府註冊之私立學校。xx之意思是xx，象徵著xx一直引領同學步向光明前路，走出困境，邁向成功。學問為濟世之用，引領學生「本其所學，貢獻社會」乃本校一貫的教學理念。希望經過我們悉心的教育能讓學生認識真理、持守真理，他日定能貢獻國家、社會。
        二十年來一直默默耕耘，憑著專業、誠意、關懷逐步建立了良好的聲譽，每年培育出數萬名學生。學生人數與日俱增，校網更拓展至香港各地，分校增至現時十三間，課室合共九十多間。"

該學校似乎不是BK的客户，大家應該不用害怕重蹈stccmc 疑案的覆轍，但會否惹來打手纏身，則未可知。

[ 本帖最後由 hog.wash 於 10-12-11 01:21 編輯 ]