Zdania

Temat przeniesiony do archwium
Czy zdanie: I am a tree which has never grown up moge wyrazic w taki sposob: I am a tree to have never grown up?

O ile dobrze pamietam to po rzeczownikch/przymiotnikach mozna uzywac to infinitive, wiec chcialbym wiedziec czy to jest dobrze.

Dzieki za odpowiedz.
zwykle bezokolicznik jest uzywany wraz z okreslonymi wyrazami, np. typu first, second, superlatives (best, worst, neatest) i jeszcze kilkoma innymi - do znalezienia w podręcznikach.
to zdanie brzmialoby troche dziwnie, no i konieczna bylaby poprawka gramatyczna: never to have grown up.
'to have never grown up' czy nawet 'to never have grown up' nie raziloby mnie az tak bardzo
Ok, dzięki.
Cześć, szlifuję transformacje i mam problem z kilkoma zdaniami:

1) Our new car goes realy fast. (LIKE)
Our new car ...

2) No room in the hotel was better. (EASILY)
It was ... in te hotel.

3) Their essays were only slightly incorrect, but they were extremely immature. (NOT SO MUCH)
Their essays were not ... .

Będę wdzięczna za pomoc :)
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/easily-the-best-biggest-etc
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english/not-so-much-sth-as-sth
Super, dzięki za pomoc, zmagam się jeszcze z tymi dwoma.

1) The new car is much faster than the old one. (NOTHING)

2) Paris is one of the most beautiful cities. JUST
1. nothing as
Cytat: Daffy123
Ok, dzięki.

Dispose of the "never" negation that might only confuse you.

I am a tree to grow up. (OK)
I am a tree to be grown up. (OK)
I am the tree to grow up. (OK)
I am the tree to be grown up.(OK)

The post nominal infinitival gives a de dicto (kind), not a de re (token) flavor to the entire noun phrase.
Additional check: ??? A tree to grow (up) is missing a few branches. (not OK):

???I am a tree to have grown up.??? Not OK." (To) have grown" denotes a stage-level property and clashes with the de dicto expectation.
I am a tree to grow up. (OK)
I am a tree to be grown up. (OK)
I am the tree to grow up. (OK)
I am the tree to be grown up.(OK)


None of them are correct because they are not meaningful sentences.
and how can he see several never negations in that sentence?
Cytat: zielonosiwy


None of them are correct because they are not meaningful sentences.[/quote]

I am your tree to grow,
I am your shovel in snow,
You are a piece of shit,
And I will shovel you in it.
None of them are correct because they are not meaningful sentences.

I am your tree to grow,
I am your shovel in snow,
You are a piece of shit,
And I will shovel you in it.

It makes perfect sense.
Cytat: mg
and how can he see several never negations in that sentence?

Endure and keep asking the zielonosiwy zaskroniec. The piece of shit might click back to you. She knows things.

You owe me a lot already. Pay up first.
de dicto? If Daffy wasn't confused before, she sure is now.
Cytat: Janski
I am your tree to grow,
I am your shovel in snow,
You are a piece of shit,
And I will shovel you in it.

Thanks for the rhyme, but if you wanted me to be your Valentine, you could've just asked.
Janski, what exactly is it that makes you explain things using language that is inaccessible to those who ask? Is this how you want to improve your impact factor?
Note also that those who might be familiar with the terminology you use might also be able to point out gross inaccuracies. Infinitives and de dicto?
NPD?

Just a guess, though. It could be your former student taking revenge for getting flunked. :-)
edytowany przez zielonosiwy: 16 lut 2020
Cytat: mg
Janski, what exactly is it that makes you explain things using language that is inaccessible to those who ask??

It is a facade, social mask, persona and self-presentation trick to feel better about himself. Janski believes in his superiority and he uses the language to prove it to himself. But he is unstable and he reveals his real him to us in a language that best describes his mental states:
Cytat: Janski
You are a piece of shit,
You are an ass
Enough of this horse manure
You are a fool, as I said before.

and many more. But his mostly used words are shit and ass, or their synonyms. His fixation on disgust-oriented language is telling.
Cytat: Aaric
de dicto? If Daffy wasn't confused before, she sure is now.

De re and de dicto should be known expressions to those who know (of) the difference between denotations of kinds (or types, sorts...) and of instances of a kind (aka tokens).

(0) A BMW is a/the car to drive. What does "a/the car to drive" mean? Does "a/the car to drive" denote a token or a kind?

Are the sentences below OK?
(1) The car to drive is missing a wheel cap.
(2) A BMW is the car to be driven hard.
(3) Yesterday, I washed the car to drive.

If in doubt, Daffy should put the right amount (lots) of emphasis on THE (thee) in (1), (2), and (3). And (0).
If Daffy still doesn't get it, Daffy can ask again.
Cytat: labtes
Cytat: mg
Janski, what exactly is it that makes you explain things using language that is inaccessible to those who ask??

...But his mostly used words are shit and ass, or their synonyms. His fixation on disgust-oriented language is telling.

Right wording is essential in cooperative communication. Grown-up language doesn't register with exemplars like zielonosiwy zaskroniec. Pipsqueak, knucklehead, twerp, and nitwit are terms too sublime for those to comprehend.

Re de re and de dicto see above, or talk to zielonosiwy or whatever it calls itself
Cytat:
talk to zielonosiwy or whatever it calls itself

For your information, I'd like to be referred to as 'ze'. This is the only pronoun I accept.
Temat przeniesiony do archwium

« 

Nauka języka