I want to say ''Questions are going to be tried to be answered'' but I know it is gramatically wrong. Is there any way that I can give this exact meaning and make it gramatically correct ?
But how can we ''try an answer''? I think it doesn't work.
But thanks anyway. I said ''answers to the questions are going to be sought.'' And you made me do that.
Your solution, "Answers to the questions are going to be sought," really isn't all that bad. To say that "answers will be sought" is a good option for when "answers" is your subject.
However, if the subject is someone answer the questions, then you probably want to use something like this:
"[subject] will try to answer the questions."
But, as per usual with languages, context is pretty important.
The text I'm trying to translate is a course description and no, there is no subject in that sentence. So I'm gonna say ''Answers to the questions are going to be sought''. But ''The answers to the questions will be given a try'' is really a good suggestion, I could think that too. Thank you all.
Btw, aren't you talking about a standard objective to a course? Then it goes: This course will try (attempt) to answer these questions. That's a cliche!:)
Bad language creates bad translations. A couple of guys above already suggested using active form instead of passive. But yet, who original sucks, these's nothing actually said.
The course will be trying to answer the questions?
- I would not take this course!
The course will be trying to answer the questions is really bad English.
But the course will try to answer the questions is OK. There's a big difference between these sentences. Besides, active forms are more appealing to readers because they create an effect of personal involvement. Young writers and journalists are encouraged to use active forms rather than passive. It's creative writing and translating basics. :)
Actually, I tried to click the "Like" for sandring, but as a novice [yes, my picture is a real picture of me:-)] I cannot. So here's my like to sandring.
Well, nobody tries to say ''will be trying''. Nobody tries to make the sentence in continuous tense. You've misunderstood, old man ;)
And this is not for my course. I'm just a translator and now I'm working for a Ph.D instructor.
Sorry, have to but in again. There are verbs and verbs in English. They may roughly be divided into three major groups. Verbs that can be used in any tense (try is among them, "We've been trying to sort it out for a long time"), verbs that can never be used in Continuous Tenses (know, mind etc.) and Stative/Dynamic Group in which a verb may or may not be used in Continuous depending on the meaning. "Can you see anything?" (see=sight- stative i.e. No Continuous ever) but "I'm seeing my dentist next week" (see=have an appointment. Continuous is all right.) The list of all the three groups is in grammar books. But as you have correctly mentioned Continuous forms are emotional and very expressive so I've noticed a tendency to use non-continuous verbs in Continuous tenses. "You won't be needing it, I hope" As for try "to be trying" is applicable only to people. "We'll be trying" is OK. or "The book will try to explain" Sorry, if this explanation sounds a bit messed up but I think that's better than a link to a boring grammar book.
The language doesn't ask linguists, it goes its own way and we have but follow. :)
I completely agree with sandrig. Thx by the way.
And if anyone's wondering, I used ''Answers to the questions are going to be sought'' in the text. Thx everyone for your good ideas.
As a result of reading sandring's ridiculous statement "(see=sight- stative i.e. No Continuous ever) " I'm seeing red! Use of "see" in continuous aspect in connection with "sight" is less frequent that non-contuinuous use, but still rather common and certainly not forbidden. It realy does hinder learners of English to be faced with a statement like that one.
Sandring's ridiculous statement is called English grammar. What you're talking about is still considered a deviation not a rule yet. Deviations help to develop a language and native speakers may use them as much as they want to but learners should be careful about them. Many of them will have to take English exams and your "I'm seeing red" will bring their score down while their "Michealt said that" won't be accepted as an excuse. Cheers!
If you are such an expert on grammar, perhaps you can tell me exactly how many examples of "see" used continuosly in reference to sight rather than meeting there are in the Oxford corpus?
Or are you just making an assertion with no evidence at all, in the style of the infamous 18th and 19th century English grammar pedants who invented rules like "no split infinitives" and "no using 'healthy' where 'healthful' could be used"?
As Thoreau said when the plague of such presecriptive nonsense was at its worst:
"When I read some of the rules for speaking and writing the English language correctly … I think –
Any fool can make a rule
And every fool will mind it."
Note that the OED says that seeing is "the action (rarely an act") of the verb SEE"; it doesn't say "not an act" and it doesn't say "never an act", it says "rarely an act".
Right now I'm talking about exam requirements which dub I'm hearing nice music as wrong You''ve taken up quite a different subject of theoretical grammar which is exciting in itself. I'd love to share my ideas on that provided we speak in a productive and friendly way
I;d love to hear your ideas on that. But be warned, I'm very much a descriptivist in my attitude to language, and I think it absolutely wonderful that Oxford now has a vast corpus of 21st century English to add to its older corpus of English since the days of Old English and AngloSaxon and the dictionary team are using it in their continuing revision of the dictionary. And I'm a bit of a fan of Jeremy Butterworth, who used to be Collins' top dictionary man and is pretty much on the descriptivist side himself (as are just about all professional linguists).
Dear Michealt! I still can't get what you're trying to warn me about or against. Oxford? - not a new place for me, Collins'? - my favourite dictionary and my students' must-have, you're a descriptivist? - same here. I do believe we should follow the language, not otherwise. But as a teacher I must think of my students' well-being. Beginners, for example, are very easy to get discouraged. You can't pour out your descriptive ideas on them. Whenever I give them another option I hear "And which is right?" Beginners are set on "speaking right" and any choice scares them out of their wits. So I have to measure out info depending on the level and my descriptive ideas don't always work here. For "communicative" students (mainly adults) the plural for "a person" is persons/people - healthy persons/people who eat healthy/healthful food. But for a language college applicant it's only healthy people who eat healthful food because the exam has a descrimination of synonyms task. And that's where the problem lies - exams! Unlike in other languages there's no board or institution that yearly outlines what should be considered an accepted modern norm of English and which serves as a basis for all language exams. "I haven't a visa" - is it right or wrong? A bit outdated, yes, but nothing wrong about it. In some exams it's a grammar mistake to say so. And despite my ideas as a linguist, swearing under my breath, I have to look through previous exam papers only to find out the exam-makers' outlook. I advised ShadOw the safe option because he was applying for an "academic" position and it would have done him good to sound "scholarly", as simple as that. I think I've made myself clear. Anyway, we've done a lot to entertain the reading public so I call it a forum. Good day! :)
I thoroughly understand that examiners can get it hopelessly wrong. This can make it very difficult for teachers. Unfortunately, bodies appointed to decide what is or isn't correct in a language can also get it totally wrong. So can teachers or language, sadly.
An obvious example is the farce that ended up with the current Gaelic Orhographic Coventions rules, which are enforced in the schools and in examinations up to Scottish Highers level, so that students have to learn a whole new set of spelling rules if they study it at University: that arose because people marking pre-University examinations would insist for example that the word traditionally spellt "dorus" with a perfectly acceptable alternative spelling "doras" must be spelled with a "u" while other examiners would insist it had to be spelt with an "a" (and many, perhaps a majority, had the sense to accept either), which is about as stupid as insisting that in English only one of "spelled" and "spellt" and "spelt" is right and both the others are wrong. Even worse, some examiners would insist on the spelling "mór" for the word meaning "big" (spelled with "ó" by all northerners, since that's how it is pronounced in the north) and others on the spelling "mòr" (spelt with "ò" by all southerners, because that's how it is pronounced in the south) - again, most would accept either spelling (but when writing email most of us usually spelled it "mor" which was certainly wrong but much easier to type with the computers of that era). A committee was created with a brief to ensure fair and sensible marking. Unfortunately the majority of its members were spelling reformers who though they could reform spelling without having a basic grasp of the phonology of the language, and succeeded in getting the committee to come up with standard spellings; unfortunately they members or the committee didn't much agree about what would be right, so much of the content of the standard was determined by horse-trading. The distinction between long open vowels and long closed vowels was dropped from the orthography, which means anyone learning the language as a foreign language can't learn how to pronounce words without hearing them even if they do understand the phonology. The government thought this was great (although every Gaelic scholar with a serious reputation, including the minority of sensible people on the commitee, thought it was a disaster). The result was that children who learn the language at school can read books published since the mid-80s but can't read earlier literature without a lot of effort. Universities in Scotland still insist on teaching the traditional spelling of the 19th century and the first four and a half decades of the twentieth century; so do the few institutions that use Scots Gaelic in Canada. And the committee's successors come out every few years with changes/additions to their rules that mainly serve to demonstrate that their understanding of Scots Gaelic phonology is even poorer than previosuly demonstrated.
The same sort of thing had happened to Irish gaelic some 34 years earlier - the problem with Irish was that it had 3 or 4 dialects significantly different in spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, accidence, and grammar - one might almost say three languages, but I find all three equally comprehensible (I can translate from any of them with recourse to a dictionary) and they wanted as a minimum a standard written language with straightforward spelling. They decided to base the standard on South Connaught Gaelic, and eliminate from teh spelling every consonant group or syllable that was silent in all the main versions of the spoken language. They got it wrong - a lot of final consonant groups that are sounded in the Munster dialect (which is by far the most prestigious dialect, even now, 69 years after the reform) were eliminated. I'm no expert on Irish, but I've heard a lot of moaning about what a mess this was from Irish academics.
What worries me when people say something is "ungrammatical" is that usually it is simply not true. If people say "that is not the preferred usage in such-and-such a context" I am quite prepared to accept that, because mostly when people say that it is true - and if it isn't, at least they aren't making a blanket statement that it could never be accepted in any context.
What I was warning you against is that when talking about what is or isn't correct in English I am quite willing to assert that some things are perfectly acceptable that I thought (judging by what you had written up tho that point) you would find unacceptable and this might result in upsetting you.
Dear Michealt! What I really get upset about is Gaelic. Thank you for explaining how things are now. I love Gaelic and wish it could develop, spread and flourish. But I've failed to learn to read it properly on my own because every new book gave new ideas. Now I understand why. Why don't Gaelic linguists introduce transcription after every word in the dictionary like in English-Russian ones? Many learners would safely get over that period in learning. :)
Have you come across www.faclair.com, Michael Bauer's online Gaelic dictionary? Some of the entries have sound files giving the pronunciation. It's searchable for both English words/phrases and Gaelic words/phrases. He has also produced a very good website with information about Gaelic grammar and syntax and pronunciations and much else useful to learners at www.akerbeltz.com. I wish that stuff had been around back when I was trying to teach Gaelic online, it would have made life much easier. Also, there is a printed (not online) Gaelic to English dictionary compiled by Colin Mark which is really excellent if you can find a copy at a decent price (currently Amazon have it in paperback at 53 pounds and as a kindle e-book at 40 pounds, which is far more than I paid for my paperback copy in 2003; maybe there are second-hand copies at a more reasonable price).
Dear Michealt! Thank you for the helpful tip-off. Now that I have reliable sources I think I'll be able to sort it out with Gaelic reading. Ireland scored such a beautiful goal yesterday! :)
It depends of the context. Maybe 'Answers to the questions are going to be tried' would work.
But how can we ''try an answer''? I think it doesn't work.
But thanks anyway. I said ''answers to the questions are going to be sought.'' And you made me do that.
What idea do you want to express? May be I can help?
The answers to the questions will be given a try. Something like that.
Your solution, "Answers to the questions are going to be sought," really isn't all that bad. To say that "answers will be sought" is a good option for when "answers" is your subject.
However, if the subject is someone answer the questions, then you probably want to use something like this:
"[subject] will try to answer the questions."
But, as per usual with languages, context is pretty important.
The text I'm trying to translate is a course description and no, there is no subject in that sentence. So I'm gonna say ''Answers to the questions are going to be sought''. But ''The answers to the questions will be given a try'' is really a good suggestion, I could think that too. Thank you all.
Course description? What sort of course are we talking about? In that context, the translation may possibly be something along the lines of:
"This course will seek to answer these questions."
"These questions" of course referring to those relevant to the subject matter of said course.
Can something seek anything? I think only people are able to seek whatever or whoever it may be. It sounds really quaint to me. :~
Btw, aren't you talking about a standard objective to a course? Then it goes: This course will try (attempt) to answer these questions. That's a cliche!:)
A lot of times in course descriptions we use pronouns.
"We are going to try and/to answer questions concerning the idea of symbolism in William Blake's poetry."
Attempts will be made to answer questions ... (?)
Bad language creates bad translations. A couple of guys above already suggested using active form instead of passive. But yet, who original sucks, these's nothing actually said.
The course will be trying to answer the questions?
- I would not take this course!
The course will be trying to answer the questions is really bad English.
But the course will try to answer the questions is OK. There's a big difference between these sentences. Besides, active forms are more appealing to readers because they create an effect of personal involvement. Young writers and journalists are encouraged to use active forms rather than passive. It's creative writing and translating basics. :)
Actually, I tried to click the "Like" for sandring, but as a novice [yes, my picture is a real picture of me:-)] I cannot. So here's my like to sandring.
Thank you! You look really nice! Good luck on this site!:)
Well, nobody tries to say ''will be trying''. Nobody tries to make the sentence in continuous tense. You've misunderstood, old man ;)
And this is not for my course. I'm just a translator and now I'm working for a Ph.D instructor.
Sorry, have to but in again. There are verbs and verbs in English. They may roughly be divided into three major groups. Verbs that can be used in any tense (try is among them, "We've been trying to sort it out for a long time"), verbs that can never be used in Continuous Tenses (know, mind etc.) and Stative/Dynamic Group in which a verb may or may not be used in Continuous depending on the meaning. "Can you see anything?" (see=sight- stative i.e. No Continuous ever) but "I'm seeing my dentist next week" (see=have an appointment. Continuous is all right.) The list of all the three groups is in grammar books. But as you have correctly mentioned Continuous forms are emotional and very expressive so I've noticed a tendency to use non-continuous verbs in Continuous tenses. "You won't be needing it, I hope" As for try "to be trying" is applicable only to people. "We'll be trying" is OK. or "The book will try to explain" Sorry, if this explanation sounds a bit messed up but I think that's better than a link to a boring grammar book.
The language doesn't ask linguists, it goes its own way and we have but follow. :)
I completely agree with sandrig. Thx by the way.
And if anyone's wondering, I used ''Answers to the questions are going to be sought'' in the text. Thx everyone for your good ideas.
Sorry, but "Answers to the questions are going to be sought" is any language but English. Can't help saying that. :cry:
It's too late to change it. I already sent :(
But next time, I'm gonna say ''This course aims to try to answer the questions such as...
That's horrible, Shad0w. Leave out that last "the".
As a result of reading sandring's ridiculous statement "(see=sight- stative i.e. No Continuous ever) " I'm seeing red! Use of "see" in continuous aspect in connection with "sight" is less frequent that non-contuinuous use, but still rather common and certainly not forbidden. It realy does hinder learners of English to be faced with a statement like that one.
Sandring's ridiculous statement is called English grammar. What you're talking about is still considered a deviation not a rule yet. Deviations help to develop a language and native speakers may use them as much as they want to but learners should be careful about them. Many of them will have to take English exams and your "I'm seeing red" will bring their score down while their "Michealt said that" won't be accepted as an excuse. Cheers!
If you are such an expert on grammar, perhaps you can tell me exactly how many examples of "see" used continuosly in reference to sight rather than meeting there are in the Oxford corpus?
Or are you just making an assertion with no evidence at all, in the style of the infamous 18th and 19th century English grammar pedants who invented rules like "no split infinitives" and "no using 'healthy' where 'healthful' could be used"?
As Thoreau said when the plague of such presecriptive nonsense was at its worst:
"When I read some of the rules for speaking and writing the English language correctly … I think –
Any fool can make a rule
And every fool will mind it."
Note that the OED says that seeing is "the action (rarely an act") of the verb SEE"; it doesn't say "not an act" and it doesn't say "never an act", it says "rarely an act".
Right now I'm talking about exam requirements which dub I'm hearing nice music as wrong You''ve taken up quite a different subject of theoretical grammar which is exciting in itself. I'd love to share my ideas on that provided we speak in a productive and friendly way
I;d love to hear your ideas on that. But be warned, I'm very much a descriptivist in my attitude to language, and I think it absolutely wonderful that Oxford now has a vast corpus of 21st century English to add to its older corpus of English since the days of Old English and AngloSaxon and the dictionary team are using it in their continuing revision of the dictionary. And I'm a bit of a fan of Jeremy Butterworth, who used to be Collins' top dictionary man and is pretty much on the descriptivist side himself (as are just about all professional linguists).
Dear Michealt! I still can't get what you're trying to warn me about or against. Oxford? - not a new place for me, Collins'? - my favourite dictionary and my students' must-have, you're a descriptivist? - same here. I do believe we should follow the language, not otherwise. But as a teacher I must think of my students' well-being. Beginners, for example, are very easy to get discouraged. You can't pour out your descriptive ideas on them. Whenever I give them another option I hear "And which is right?" Beginners are set on "speaking right" and any choice scares them out of their wits. So I have to measure out info depending on the level and my descriptive ideas don't always work here. For "communicative" students (mainly adults) the plural for "a person" is persons/people - healthy persons/people who eat healthy/healthful food. But for a language college applicant it's only healthy people who eat healthful food because the exam has a descrimination of synonyms task. And that's where the problem lies - exams! Unlike in other languages there's no board or institution that yearly outlines what should be considered an accepted modern norm of English and which serves as a basis for all language exams. "I haven't a visa" - is it right or wrong? A bit outdated, yes, but nothing wrong about it. In some exams it's a grammar mistake to say so. And despite my ideas as a linguist, swearing under my breath, I have to look through previous exam papers only to find out the exam-makers' outlook. I advised ShadOw the safe option because he was applying for an "academic" position and it would have done him good to sound "scholarly", as simple as that. I think I've made myself clear. Anyway, we've done a lot to entertain the reading public so I call it a forum. Good day! :)
I thoroughly understand that examiners can get it hopelessly wrong. This can make it very difficult for teachers. Unfortunately, bodies appointed to decide what is or isn't correct in a language can also get it totally wrong. So can teachers or language, sadly.
An obvious example is the farce that ended up with the current Gaelic Orhographic Coventions rules, which are enforced in the schools and in examinations up to Scottish Highers level, so that students have to learn a whole new set of spelling rules if they study it at University: that arose because people marking pre-University examinations would insist for example that the word traditionally spellt "dorus" with a perfectly acceptable alternative spelling "doras" must be spelled with a "u" while other examiners would insist it had to be spelt with an "a" (and many, perhaps a majority, had the sense to accept either), which is about as stupid as insisting that in English only one of "spelled" and "spellt" and "spelt" is right and both the others are wrong. Even worse, some examiners would insist on the spelling "mór" for the word meaning "big" (spelled with "ó" by all northerners, since that's how it is pronounced in the north) and others on the spelling "mòr" (spelt with "ò" by all southerners, because that's how it is pronounced in the south) - again, most would accept either spelling (but when writing email most of us usually spelled it "mor" which was certainly wrong but much easier to type with the computers of that era). A committee was created with a brief to ensure fair and sensible marking. Unfortunately the majority of its members were spelling reformers who though they could reform spelling without having a basic grasp of the phonology of the language, and succeeded in getting the committee to come up with standard spellings; unfortunately they members or the committee didn't much agree about what would be right, so much of the content of the standard was determined by horse-trading. The distinction between long open vowels and long closed vowels was dropped from the orthography, which means anyone learning the language as a foreign language can't learn how to pronounce words without hearing them even if they do understand the phonology. The government thought this was great (although every Gaelic scholar with a serious reputation, including the minority of sensible people on the commitee, thought it was a disaster). The result was that children who learn the language at school can read books published since the mid-80s but can't read earlier literature without a lot of effort. Universities in Scotland still insist on teaching the traditional spelling of the 19th century and the first four and a half decades of the twentieth century; so do the few institutions that use Scots Gaelic in Canada. And the committee's successors come out every few years with changes/additions to their rules that mainly serve to demonstrate that their understanding of Scots Gaelic phonology is even poorer than previosuly demonstrated.
The same sort of thing had happened to Irish gaelic some 34 years earlier - the problem with Irish was that it had 3 or 4 dialects significantly different in spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, accidence, and grammar - one might almost say three languages, but I find all three equally comprehensible (I can translate from any of them with recourse to a dictionary) and they wanted as a minimum a standard written language with straightforward spelling. They decided to base the standard on South Connaught Gaelic, and eliminate from teh spelling every consonant group or syllable that was silent in all the main versions of the spoken language. They got it wrong - a lot of final consonant groups that are sounded in the Munster dialect (which is by far the most prestigious dialect, even now, 69 years after the reform) were eliminated. I'm no expert on Irish, but I've heard a lot of moaning about what a mess this was from Irish academics.
What worries me when people say something is "ungrammatical" is that usually it is simply not true. If people say "that is not the preferred usage in such-and-such a context" I am quite prepared to accept that, because mostly when people say that it is true - and if it isn't, at least they aren't making a blanket statement that it could never be accepted in any context.
What I was warning you against is that when talking about what is or isn't correct in English I am quite willing to assert that some things are perfectly acceptable that I thought (judging by what you had written up tho that point) you would find unacceptable and this might result in upsetting you.
Dear Michealt! What I really get upset about is Gaelic. Thank you for explaining how things are now. I love Gaelic and wish it could develop, spread and flourish. But I've failed to learn to read it properly on my own because every new book gave new ideas. Now I understand why. Why don't Gaelic linguists introduce transcription after every word in the dictionary like in English-Russian ones? Many learners would safely get over that period in learning. :)
Hi Nadia
Have you come across www.faclair.com, Michael Bauer's online Gaelic dictionary? Some of the entries have sound files giving the pronunciation. It's searchable for both English words/phrases and Gaelic words/phrases. He has also produced a very good website with information about Gaelic grammar and syntax and pronunciations and much else useful to learners at www.akerbeltz.com. I wish that stuff had been around back when I was trying to teach Gaelic online, it would have made life much easier. Also, there is a printed (not online) Gaelic to English dictionary compiled by Colin Mark which is really excellent if you can find a copy at a decent price (currently Amazon have it in paperback at 53 pounds and as a kindle e-book at 40 pounds, which is far more than I paid for my paperback copy in 2003; maybe there are second-hand copies at a more reasonable price).
Dear Michealt! Thank you for the helpful tip-off. Now that I have reliable sources I think I'll be able to sort it out with Gaelic reading. Ireland scored such a beautiful goal yesterday! :)
If you are interested in Irish Gaelic as well as Scots Gaelic, Nadia, take a look at http://www.teanglann.ie/en/fgb/