need comments from native English speakers (willing and able to give good advice to learners)

no x 5 (aka none of them are correct)

I think 2 and 4 are OK. 2 sounds like a sign. 4 sounds like it comes from business correspondence.

1 would be better with you're, not you are.

3 is a question you would ask a person with long hair who sometimes wears it up and sometimes wears it down (long). This is not how you ask whether someone has long hair.

I never heard the expression used in 5. I've heard, "I was at the end of my rope," but it doesn't relate to running out of hope.

Thank you Roberta.

English skill - shouldn't it be English skills?

Note for your reference - I've seen 'please note' or 'for your reference'. But 'note for your reference' sounds like some random phrase mash-up. No?

I think you a very kind person: Not 'you are a kind person'.
think + you + a nice person - is this structure from this time period?

No . . . it's not English at all. It's a bad attempt at English.

1. I think you a very kind person.

This is not English.

2. English skill required

As Roberta notes, this sounds like the text of a sign. As you point out, English skills is what a native speaker would more commonly write.

3. Are you wearing long hair (meaning 'Do you have long hair)

Once again, a native speaker would not say this. A native speaker might say: "Are you wearing your hair long?"

4. Please note for your reference (meaning 'It's just for your reference')

This is not a complete sentence, but it is perfectly understandable. I agree that a native speaker would probably say either "Please note," or "For your reference." The combination of the two looks awkward to me.

5. I was at the end of hope (meaning 'I almost ran out of hope')

While not grammatically incorrect, it is not something a native speaker would say. A native speaker might say: "I had run out of hope."

Thanks Setanta!

The original sentence for #2 was 'My English skill is at entry level'. I should've written out the entire sentence.

That does not alter my response. This is just a matter of customary usage. The English language doesn't actually have very many rules.

Thanks ehBeth

Thanks!!!!

Setanta,
I am just curious about the question and long hair.
I have long hair and always wear it up. Sometimes native English speakers (female relatives) have asked me "Do you ever let your hair hang down ? ...leave it open? or something else like that
But never been asked if I wear it long - it is long not matter what hairstyle I have
For me wear means I can take it off like a wig.

OK, here's the relevant portion of the OP:



The part i have emphasized is the basis of my response. It is an odd question, but not one which is impossible. Someone might be speaking by telephone, or online--a situation in which that person cannot see the person to whom he or she is speaking. Alternatively, someone might be seeing that person for the first time in a long time, and is surprised to see them with long hair. In such situations, one might ask the interlocutor if they have long hair. As the form of the question given here uses the verb wear, i supplied an idiomatic English expression which has the same meaning, and uses the verb wear. A native English speaker who cannot see you, or who is surprised to see you with long hair when they have been accustomed to seeing you with short hair, might say: "Are you wearing your hair long?" It is not a reference to how you have your hair arranged at this moment, but to the long-term condition of the hair.

It is a common enough form of expression that it the opposite were true, if your hair were short, a native speaker might ask: "Are you wearing your hair short?"

Thank you for the clear explanation
I saw a hairdresser ´s with the name OPEN HAIR over here
Honestly I did not understand why it had such a name.
Explanation: Oh it is so fun. It rimes on Open Air.
OK?

I am often bemused by how people use English. If they convey their message, that's fine, because that is what language is for. If people keep asking what something means, though, that should be a clue that it doesn't work.

I know that people don't believe me when i say it, but it is true that there are not a great many rules for English, but there is a great deal of arcane usage--by which i mean usage that one must learn, and which is neither "logical" nor obvious. In England, people will use give to mean physically convey without a preposition. It makes me crazy. "I will give it you." "No, damn you, you'll give it TO me, TO, do you understand, you need a damned preposition!"

About a century ago, good table manners in the United States required one to hold a piece of meat or fish with a fork, in the left hand, and to cut it with the knife in the right hand. Then one puts the knife on the plate, switches the fork to the right hand, and uses it to put the meat or fish into one's mouth. I learned this as a child, but i don't think they teach children that any longer. Still, the Europeans believe that all Americans do this all the time, and it has even been used as a plot device in thrillers where it betrays the Americans. Well, even when one was taught that, that's just Sunday manners, or good manners when one is at a white table cloth restaurant--not something one does at every meal.

However, it is expected of us. So i have done this when among the English or the Irish, so as not to disappoint them. They seem to be fascinated. I have been in a hotel dining room or a restaurant, and looked up to see most people watching me. They look away quickly--it's bad manners to stare--but they still want to see it done. So, i will look down at my plate, and perform the deed for them, just because they want to see it. Then i'm sure they go tell their acquaintances: "It's true, i saw him myself." (Stark staring madness--the English use acquaintance for the singular and the plural, Americans say acquaintance and acquaintances.)

That is not just in English
In Danish it used to be :"I have problems"or I am in a problematic situation.
Now I see all the time I am in problems or in a problem.
Swedish has several grammatical expressions which have changed to the worse.
Once I had to use a book teaching Swedish for foreigners. There were grammatical mistakes, really bad mistakes how to behave, and more about foreign food than Swedish. Several nationalities told about their favourit food and then one Swede said:"We do not have much good food in Sweden".
How can they even write it, b e allowed to print it and then use it in a school????

I don't know about other varieties, but it is perfectly correct in formal British English although rather old-fashioned. Probably best avoided, as a modern reader may think it awkward or unfamiliar.

My uncle is old-fashioned in his views; some might think him a bigot. I consider him a very wise man. I do not think you a fool. I think her a very naive girl. I do not think you a very athletic individual. I do not think her a very skilled musician.

"To those who asked him what he thought of Hitler now, he replied, ‘I think him a very fine fellow." Hitler's Englishman. Selwyn, F.1987 (This was probably said in the 1930s).

"For with all his rectitude,’ said Iago, coldly considering, ‘I think him but very small in goodness, and very drear." Edith Pargeter (aka Ellis Peters), 1989. (a novel set in the 14th(?) century).

Think/find/consider can all be used this way.

.

There is a distinction, though. Him and her are objective pronouns. Since English speakers abandoned the second person singular, we have only the second person plural. In the second person plural, you is the subjective and the objective. What would you think of someone who said: "I think he a fool.?"

Not sure what you are getting at here?