Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2002 07:27 am
Thanks in anticipation.

(1) I do envy you, but I do hate your dog!

(2) I'm afraid it does be a good dog! Say, love me, love my dog.

(3) Never have I seen any charm out of a dog! Seems like there is a dodgy friendship between you and your dag.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,710 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2002 08:19 am
Hello! Here's what I can see:

(1) Remove the do's. You don't need them for most positive statements. That changes your original sentence to: I envy you, but I hate your dog!, which works.

(2) You can remove the does (which isn't necessary), and the say from the second sentence (same reason). That changes the original sentences to: I'm afraid it be a good dog! Love me, love my dog. This is better, but the first sentence is unclear (the second sentence is now fine). What are you trying to say with the first sentence? For example:
* I'm afraid it's a good dog
* I'm afraid of good dogs
* I'm afraid it's good to be a dog

Once that's clearer, we can figure out how to repair that first sentence.

(3) The first sentence here is okay, but it would be clarified by switching the order of the words I and never. I would also use from rather than out of. As for the second sentence, the term 'dodgy' is British English and isn't used in the US (that doesn't make it wrong; that's just information for you). I would add an It to the start of the second sentence, which isn't needed, but makes it flow a bit more smoothly. Now your sentences would read: I have never seen any charm from a dog! It seems like there is a dodgy friendship between you and your dog. Both sentences are still a bit unclear but better. Can you clarify what you're trying to say here?
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2002 11:23 am
Thank you!
I would like to read your reply carefully(now time to logoff).

Good day/Sweet dreams!
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2002 09:36 pm
(1) If removing the word "do", then use "really" instead? The sentence becomes:
I really envy you, but I really hate your dog!
Is this change proper? Because the original "do" emphasizes a strong feeling.

(2) As (1), "does be" means "is really". The sentence becomes:
I'm afraid it is really a good dog! Love me, love my dog.

(3)In plain English/oral speaking, switching that order is better.
The word "dodgy", chiefly British, meaning "so risky as to require very deft handling" in the original sentence.
In oral expression, I think your opinion for (3) is worthy to accept.
Just my two cents worth.
Thanks again.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Dec, 2002 10:37 pm
1) I do envy you, but I really hate your dog.

2) I'm afraid it is a good dog! Say, "Love me, love my dog".

3) I have never seen charm from a dog. It would appear there is a dodgy freindship between you and your dog.


Those would be my rewrites. Such would be no more than my opinion though; I felt it best in this instance not to consult with my dogs. I would suspect their own particular cultural biases would likely prejudice their findings, given the illustrative examples you provided.



timber
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2002 07:20 am
Does be isn't proper English at all. I think I can see where you're trying to go with this, that you want emphasis. I have no problem with substituting 'really' for 'do' in the first sentence.

As for #2 - "I'm afraid it's a really good dog." Is that what you intend to say? If so, then I'm puzzled. To me, the sentence makes no sense. I realize you aren't using "I'm afraid" to mean "I'm scared" (rather, you're using it in the sense of the third definition of afraid at www.dictionary.com, which is: "Filled with regret or concern. Used especially to soften an unpleasant statement: I'm afraid you're wrong."). But if you're using it to soften a bad situation, well, what's so bad about telling someone you have a good dog? See what I mean here?
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2002 09:33 am
Re: These sentences acceptable?
oristarA wrote:
Thanks in anticipation.

(1) I do envy you, but I do hate your dog!

(2) I'm afraid it does be a good dog! Say, love me, love my dog.

(3) Never have I seen any charm out of a dog! Seems like there is a dodgy friendship between you and your dag.


Less is more...

1) I love you but hate your dog.

2) A nice dog perhaps. Must it be "Love me, love my dog?"

3) I never trusted dogs, is yours truly safe?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2002 05:35 pm
Piffka, I shall not comment on the sentences. Others have done that quite well. But I chuckled at No. 2:

(2) I'm afraid it does be a good dog! Say, love me, love my dog.

Living in the South, as I do, I hear such locutions frequently. Only the word "afraid" is out of place and, who knows?, perhaps that is some sort of argot, too.

I still shake my head when I hear "might could," as in "We didn't find it at Walmart, but we might could try Target."
0 Replies
 
Debacle
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Dec, 2002 06:29 pm
It might could be that combination's done been hanging around since the founding of Jamestown. Either that or it might could be N.C. Piedmontese. Reckon?
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2002 08:51 am
timberlandko wrote:
1) I do envy you, but I really hate your dog.

2) I'm afraid it is a good dog! Say, "Love me, love my dog".

3) I have never seen charm from a dog. It would appear there is a dodgy freindship between you and your dog.


Those would be my rewrites. Such would be no more than my opinion though; I felt it best in this instance not to consult with my dogs. I would suspect their own particular cultural biases would likely prejudice their findings, given the illustrative examples you provided.



timber



Personally, I think the three rewrites sound fluent and proper.

Dog is human's friend. Why is there someone who hates dogs? It seems probable that he/she suffers lyssophobia. Let it be!

P.S. Why did all of you use "from" instead of "out of"? The phrase "out of " here means "From an origin, a source, or a cause:
made out of wood."(See the third definition of "out of" in AHD; "made out of wood" could be expressed as "made from wood".) Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2002 08:53 am
jespah wrote:
Does be isn't proper English at all. I think I can see where you're trying to go with this, that you want emphasis. I have no problem with substituting 'really' for 'do' in the first sentence.

As for #2 - "I'm afraid it's a really good dog." Is that what you intend to say? If so, then I'm puzzled. To me, the sentence makes no sense. I realize you aren't using "I'm afraid" to mean "I'm scared" (rather, you're using it in the sense of the third definition of afraid at www.dictionary.com, which is: "Filled with regret or concern. Used especially to soften an unpleasant statement: I'm afraid you're wrong."). But if you're using it to soften a bad situation, well, what's so bad about telling someone you have a good dog? See what I mean here?



The second sentence in fact means:

"I'm afraid (you have a prejudice against all dogs), it is really a good dog!", but for terse purpose, the content in the parentheses has been ignored. So the usage actually fits the definition, IMHO.

Talking about "does be", the "do" here is used as an auxiliary, a means of emphasis.

For example: Do be still!
(Note: "Do be still!" actually means "You do be still!")

Thus, in logic, or in some locutions(as Kara introduced), "does be " may work.



Edit: "I'm afraid (you have a prejudice against all dogs), it is really a good dog!" should be:
"I'm afraid (you have a prejudice against all dogs because) it is really a good dog!",
The latter is one sentence.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Dec, 2002 10:22 am
We all used 'from' because it's quicker and a bit closer to the meaning you seem to want, than 'out of'.

'Do be still', while technically all right, really isn't the best way to say that sentence - a better way to say it is: 'Be still'. You just don't need the 'do'; it's redundant.

Kara is (so far as I can tell) telling you about the usages in the South, but these are colloquialisms and aren't technically correct. After all, I know plenty of people who say "ain't" but that doesn't make it correct. It should be "isn't" or "hasn't".

As for your statement: "The second sentence in fact means:

"I'm afraid (you have a prejudice against all dogs), it is really a good dog!", but for terse purpose, the content in the parentheses has been ignored. So the usage actually fits the definition, IMHO. " - to my mind, these should be separate sentences or perhaps you should give some information outside the quotes.

Do you mean "I'm afraid of the dog, but I can see that it really is a good dog"? Do you see where dropping all of those words is making it confusing?
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2002 03:32 am
jespah wrote:
......



(1) About your suggesting that "Do be still!" should be "Be still!".
I think you are suggestting that dictionary should invalidate the one of definitions of do at AHD, which is: "Used as a means of emphasis:
I do want to be sure. Do be still!".

(2) About the second sentence: "I'm afraid it is really a good dog!"

The question is that "it is really a good dog" is a pleasant statement or an uppleasant one.
Yes, for you, or for any healthy person who can treat dog properly, the statement sounds pleasant; but for the one who suffers lyssophobia, this statement really sounds unpleasant! For this reason, the former has to soften his statement.

P.S. I'd like to kick out the usage "ain't" without jocular purpose.
0 Replies
 
mikey
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2002 03:50 am
1. perfect in my book.

2. after 2 or 3 pints i would change the love me, love my dog to 'me' dog.

3. after 4 or 5 pints it's all good!!! but i would add an h in dag to make it a 'proper boston dahg.'
0 Replies
 
Debacle
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2002 05:42 am
And afta 6 or 7 there's no pint in tryin' to speak atall, at leas' not til the marnin' afta. At wich toime ya moight be tinkin' about 'air a th' dahg. :wink:
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2002 09:10 am
I'm not suggesting invalidating the dictionary. But "Do be still!" is pretty awkward. You can say "Be still!" and get the same point across a lot more eloquently.

As for #2 - the lyssophobia argument - I think the real problem here is, that's not at all understood from the context. A simple sentence is one complete thought. A complex sentence can be more than one thought, but it needs to have a connector, either a semi-colon (Wink or a conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for). Do you see where I'm going with this? With no other information, the reader doesn't have a clue that the speaker is afraid of dogs or anything of the sort. You can't expect the reader to figure this out on his/her own. You need to help them along.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Dec, 2002 11:46 am
jespah wrote:
I'm not suggesting invalidating the dictionary. But "Do be still!" is pretty awkward. You can say "Be still!" and get the same point across a lot more eloquently.

As for #2 - the lyssophobia argument - I think the real problem here is, that's not at all understood from the context. A simple sentence is one complete thought. A complex sentence can be more than one thought, but it needs to have a connector, either a semi-colon (Wink or a conjunction (and, but, or, nor, for). Do you see where I'm going with this? With no other information, the reader doesn't have a clue that the speaker is afraid of dogs or anything of the sort. You can't expect the reader to figure this out on his/her own. You need to help them along.


(1) Sorry, I don't think an example from an authoritative dictionary is awkward. The sentence "Do be still!" is such an example from AHD. In my book, both "Do be still!" and "Be still!" are fine.
(2) Is the #2 "I'm afraid it is really a good dog!" simple enough? Why does the speaker reply so? Because the premise/context is that someone says "I really hate your dog!" to the speaker.Is this context clear enough?
Doubtlessly, all are simple and clear.
If you isolate absolutely the #2, the question would become "With no other information". But this isolation is possible? In fact, the reader has read the #1 when he begins to read the #2! Naturally, the reader would know what the #2 is talking about.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Drs. = female doctor? - Question by oristarA
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
 
  1. Forums
  2. » These sentences acceptable?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 10:39:39