AureliaeLacrimae

Well, the scientific words were taken from Latin and Greek, so yes, to other languages, they might seem weird, but the spelling is done according to Latin rules, so it really isn´t Colonel is a good example of an oddly spelled word, especially as you don´t hear the "l" sound in the middle of the word. Lieutenant is also a little odd (French, is it? Or not?) I believe the earlier pronunciation was lef´ten.nt before it changed to lu´ten.nt (I couldn´t mark schwa so I put a little dot in its place). But, if you REALLY want to see some odd words, check this out: It´s a poem called "Chaos" by Gerard Nolst Trenité: Dearest creature in creation Studying English pronunciation, I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse. I will keep you, Susy, busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy; Tear in eye, your dress you'll tear; Queer, fair seer, hear my prayer. Pray, console your loving poet, Make my coat look new, dear, sew it! Just compare heart, hear and heard, Dies and diet, lord and word. Sword and sward, retain and Britain (Mind the latter how it's written). Made has not the sound of bade, Say-said, pay-paid, laid but plaid. Now I surely will not plague you With such words as vague and ague, But be careful how you speak, Say: gush, bush, steak, streak, break, bleak , Previous, precious, fuchsia, via Recipe, pipe, studding-sail, choir; Woven, oven, how and low, Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe. Say, expecting fraud and trickery: Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore, Branch, ranch, measles, topsails, aisles, Missiles, similes, reviles. Wholly, holly, signal, signing, Same, examining, but mining, Scholar, vicar, and cigar, Solar, mica, war and far. From "desire": desirable-admirable from "admire", Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier, Topsham, brougham, renown, but known, Knowledge, done, lone, gone, none, tone, One, anemone, Balmoral, Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel. Gertrude, German, wind and wind, Beau, kind, kindred, queue, mankind, Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather, Reading, Reading, heathen, heather. This phonetic labyrinth Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth. Have you ever yet endeavoured To pronounce revered and severed, Demon, lemon, ghoul, foul, soul, Peter, petrol and patrol? Billet does not end like ballet; Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet. Blood and flood are not like food, Nor is mould like should and would. Banquet is not nearly parquet, Which exactly rhymes with khaki. Discount, viscount, load and broad, Toward, to forward, to reward, Ricocheted and crocheting, croquet? Right! Your pronunciation's OK. Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve, Friend and fiend, alive and live. Is your r correct in higher? Keats asserts it rhymes Thalia. Hugh, but hug, and hood, but hoot, Buoyant, minute, but minute. Say abscission with precision, Now: position and transition; Would it tally with my rhyme If I mentioned paradigm? Twopence, threepence, tease are easy, But cease, crease, grease and greasy? Cornice, nice, valise, revise, Rabies, but lullabies. Of such puzzling words as nauseous, Rhyming well with cautious, tortious, You'll envelop lists, I hope, In a linen envelope. Would you like some more? You'll have it! Affidavit, David, davit. To abjure, to perjure. Sheik Does not sound like Czech but ache. Liberty, library, heave and heaven, Rachel, loch, moustache, eleven. We say hallowed, but allowed, People, leopard, towed but vowed. Mark the difference, moreover, Between mover, plover, Dover. Leeches, breeches, wise, precise, Chalice, but police and lice, Camel, constable, unstable, Principle, disciple, label. Petal, penal, and canal, Wait, surmise, plait, promise, pal, Suit, suite, ruin. Circuit, conduit Rhyme with "shirk it" and "beyond it", But it is not hard to tell Why it's pall, mall, but Pall Mall. Muscle, muscular, gaol, iron, Timber, climber, bullion, lion, Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair, Senator, spectator, mayor, Ivy, privy, famous; clamour Has the a of drachm and hammer. Pussy, hussy and possess, Desert, but desert, address. Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants Hoist in lieu of flags left pennants. Courier, courtier, tomb, bomb, comb, Cow, but Cowper, some and home. "Solder, soldier! Blood is thicker", Quoth he, "than liqueur or liquor", Making, it is sad but true, In bravado, much ado. Stranger does not rhyme with anger, Neither does devour with clangour. Pilot, pivot, gaunt, but aunt, Font, front, wont, want, grand and grant. Arsenic, specific, scenic, Relic, rhetoric, hygienic. Gooseberry, goose, and close, but close, Paradise, rise, rose, and dose. Say inveigh, neigh, but inveigle, Make the latter rhyme with eagle. Mind! Meandering but mean, Valentine and magazine. And I bet you, dear, a penny, You say mani-(fold) like many, Which is wrong. Say rapier, pier, Tier (one who ties), but tier. Arch, archangel; pray, does erring Rhyme with herring or with stirring? Prison, bison, treasure trove, Treason, hover, cover, cove, Perseverance, severance. Ribald Rhymes (but piebald doesn't) with nibbled. Phaeton, paean, gnat, ghat, gnaw, Lien, psychic, shone, bone, pshaw. Don't be down, my own, but rough it, And distinguish buffet, buffet; Brood, stood, roof, rook, school, wool, boon, Worcester, Boleyn, to impugn. Say in sounds correct and sterling Hearse, hear, hearken, year and yearling. Evil, devil, mezzotint, Mind the z! (A gentle hint.) Now you need not pay attention To such sounds as I don't mention, Sounds like pores, pause, pours and paws, Rhyming with the pronoun yours; Nor are proper names included, Though I often heard, as you did, Funny rhymes to unicorn, Yes, you know them, Vaughan and Strachan. No, my maiden, coy and comely, I don't want to speak of Cholmondeley. No. Yet Froude compared with proud Is no better than McLeod. But mind trivial and vial, Tripod, menial, denial, Troll and trolley, realm and ream, Schedule, mischief, schism, and scheme. Argil, gill, Argyll, gill. Surely May be made to rhyme with Raleigh, But you're not supposed to say Piquet rhymes with sobriquet. Had this invalid invalid Worthless documents? How pallid, How uncouth he, couchant, looked, When for Portsmouth I had booked! Zeus, Thebes, Thales, Aphrodite, Paramour, enamoured, flighty, Episodes, antipodes, Acquiesce, and obsequies. Please don't monkey with the geyser, Don't peel 'taters with my razor, Rather say in accents pure: Nature, stature and mature. Pious, impious, limb, climb, glumly, Worsted, worsted, crumbly, dumbly, Conquer, conquest, vase, phase, fan, Wan, sedan and artisan. The th will surely trouble you More than r, ch or w. Say then these phonetic gems: Thomas, thyme, Theresa, Thames. Thompson, Chatham, Waltham, Streatham, There are more but I forget 'em- Wait! I've got it: Anthony, Lighten your anxiety. The archaic word albeit Does not rhyme with eight-you see it; With and forthwith, one has voice, One has not, you make your choice. Shoes, goes, does *. Now first say: finger; Then say: singer, ginger, linger. Real, zeal, mauve, gauze and gauge, Marriage, foliage, mirage, age, Hero, heron, query, very, Parry, tarry fury, bury, Dost, lost, post, and doth, cloth, loth, Job, Job, blossom, bosom, oath. Faugh, oppugnant, keen oppugners, Bowing, bowing, banjo-tuners Holm you know, but noes, canoes, Puisne, truism, use, to use? Though the difference seems little, We say actual, but victual, Seat, sweat, chaste, caste, Leigh, eight, height, Put, nut, granite, and unite. Reefer does not rhyme with deafer, Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer. Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late, Hint, pint, senate, but sedate. Gaelic, Arabic, pacific, Science, conscience, scientific; Tour, but our, dour, succour, four, Gas, alas, and Arkansas. Say manoeuvre, yacht and vomit, Next omit, which differs from it Bona fide, alibi Gyrate, dowry and awry. Sea, idea, guinea, area, Psalm, Maria, but malaria. Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean, Doctrine, turpentine, marine. Compare alien with Italian, Dandelion with battalion, Rally with ally; yea, ye, Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay! Say aver, but ever, fever, Neither, leisure, skein, receiver. Never guess-it is not safe, We say calves, valves, half, but Ralf. Starry, granary, canary, Crevice, but device, and eyrie, Face, but preface, then grimace, Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass. Bass, large, target, gin, give, verging, Ought, oust, joust, and scour, but scourging; Ear, but earn; and ere and tear Do not rhyme with here but heir. Mind the o of off and often Which may be pronounced as orphan, With the sound of saw and sauce; Also soft, lost, cloth and cross. Pudding, puddle, putting. Putting? Yes: at golf it rhymes with shutting. Respite, spite, consent, resent. Liable, but Parliament. Seven is right, but so is even, Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen, Monkey, donkey, clerk and jerk, Asp, grasp, wasp, demesne, cork, work. A of valour, vapid vapour, S of news (compare newspaper), G of gibbet, gibbon, gist, I of antichrist and grist, Differ like diverse and divers, Rivers, strivers, shivers, fivers. Once, but nonce, toll, doll, but roll, Polish, Polish, poll and poll. Pronunciation-think of Psyche!- Is a paling, stout and spiky. Won't it make you lose your wits Writing groats and saying "grits"? It's a dark abyss or tunnel Strewn with stones like rowlock, gunwale, Islington, and Isle of Wight, Housewife, verdict and indict. Don't you think so, reader, rather, Saying lather, bather, father? Finally, which rhymes with enough, Though, through, bough, cough, hough, sough, tough?? Hiccough has the sound of sup... My advice is: GIVE IT UP!

So do I! I love these constructions as well. I´d always considered the emphasis as something on the verb (He HAS done his homework). I´d never thought that there are other ways of putting emphasis such as cleft/ pseudo-cleft sentences. They work very well. And they´re neat.

I was thinking about emphasis lately and I thought it would be nice to mention some emphatic structures. Of course, there´s the so called do-emphasis: We do read our books! I do play the piano! If the tense isn´t present/past simple, then the operator takes the emphasis: We have done it. She had gone upstairs. However, there are also structures on the level of the clause (these were phrasal). Three most comnmon are fronting, cleft and pseudo-cleft sentences. CLEFT SENTENCES Simon studied French last year. This is a simple sentence without emphasis. If we wish to put emphasis on one element, then the structure changes. This sentence can have three variants: It was Simon who studied French last year. (not Jane) It was French that Simon studied last year. (not Spanish) It was last year that Simon studied French. (not two years ago) In cleft sentences the original sentence is divided/cleft into two clauses in order to emphasize one element of the original sentence (often as a way of excluding other possibilities). PSEUDO-CLEFT SENTENCES Pseudo-cleft sentences have a similar purpose, but the emphasized part comes at the end: What I want is a good sleep. FRONTING Fronting occurs when we move one of the sentence elements from its usual position to the beginning of the sentence (it gives special emphasis): He wants ice cream becomes Ice cream he wants!

Here are some examples of interchangeable whether/if: The yes-no clause is introduced by the subordintors whether or if: Do you know whether/if the banks are open? The subordinate alternative interrogative clauses are formed with the correlatives whether...or or if...or. The subordinator is repeated only if the second unit is a full clause: I can't find out whether/if the fight has been delayed or whether/if it has been cancelled. HOWEVER, If is more limited that whether. There are three examples in particular when you can use whether and not if: 1. It cannot introduce a subject clause: Whether she likes the present (*If she likes the present) is not clear to me. 2. It cannot introduce a to-infinitive clause: I don't know whether to see my doctor today. *I don't know if to see my doctortoday. 3. And it cannot be followed directly by or not: He didn't say whether or not he'll be staying here. *He didn't say if or not he'll be staying here. But or not can be postposed: He didn't say if he'll be staying here or not. Hope this helps

Well, one of the best translations I´ve seen are done by Loeb. Here are a few links: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/collection.php?cpk=1031 http://www.hup.harvard.edu/features/loeb/translations.html I don´t know whether you can find it online, but they´re really valuable and would be a good investment even if you bought a few of them. I´ve worked with the translation of Vergil´s Aeneid and Eclogae and they´re VERY good. I´ve also worked with Ovid´s Metamorphoseon and a few prose texts and I haven´t been disappointed yet. P.S. I think I´ve already worked with that translation of Catullus and it´s alright. I don´t recall seeing Loeb version, though, but they´d done a lot of translations and I believe most of major works are covered.

You are correct: some Roman Catholic priests do conduct the mass in Latin, but that´s mostly in Vatican. A few centuries back, around 1900 and earlier, Latin was still the official and preferred language of the clergy. I know because my grandmother´s mother (my great grandmother - although I´d never met her) could recall a few words from "Paternoster" as she called it and "Avemaria" - for her, these were prayers learnt by heart - she didn´t understand much. Now there´s a practice of singing Latin songs from time to time. I participated in a Christmas choir, for example, with Adeste Fideles and so on. You can also find the whole Bible in Latin. I googled it a few months back... don´t know where I found it, though. I would have to look. As to what they say exactly... I believe that too can be found, with some patience

I had the opportunity to translate poetry two years ago and I too agree that it´s the most difficult thing to do! Translating texts is so much easier. You watch grammar and syntax... semantics, but that´s it. With poetry, it´s far more difficult: you also have to watch the choice of words, metre and rhyme, the form of the poem (sometimes you will see poems that look like,for example, triangle of words or a flower and so on) and many, many more. Although, I´d say that metre and rhyme aren´t as important as keeping the rhythm. If you succeed in retaining the rhythm of the original work and the feel, I´d say you´d done a good job. In most cases, you have to sacrifice something and it´s usually the metre that goes. It can´t be helped.

So sorry about that! No, S-O is subject-operator. English is a type of language that is referred to as SVO [subject-Verb-Object, that word order] and according to this, you then see how various sentence types are formed. However, if you refer to only S-O, you generally refer to Subject-Operator. Operator is the first auxiliary verb in a complex verb phrase. For example: He would have liked that. would from would have liked that is the operator: it forms questions (Would he have liked that?), negation (He wouldn't have liked that), emphatic structures (He WOULD have liked that). If there is no operator, you introduce "do". (Such as in present or past simple) He likes it. Does he like it? He liked it. Did he like it? However, with exclamatives, there is no S-O inversion. The word order remains the same. Subject first ,then operator.

I've been looking for some good dictionaries online. I know that a lot of us like using Google Translator - it's quick and it's relatively good, but when you do something more important, you need a better, more reliable dictionary. Here are a few which can be good sources: I've used Lexilogos before: http://www.lexilogos.com/english/polish_dictionary.htm It's a very good reference. A lot of different dictionaries are listed and they're most good. You can choose which one you need the most at the moment. I always end up using the same ones, though. Cambridge Learner's Dictionary, English-Polish; http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english-polish/ I'd checked a few entries. The only thing I didn't like was the lack of synonyms. I really love synonyms and I think they're extremely useful. Despite the odd name, Bab.La Dictionary seems like a good one: http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-polish/pendant I'd liked the fact that there are a lot of versions of pronunciation available and various meanings of the same word. Dict also seems like a good choice: http://dict.pl/dict_iso They even have "words of the week" section which is usually from one topic. It's a nice way of learning a few new words without having to search for hours... And then, there's Ectaco: http://www.ectaco.co.uk/English-Polish-Dictionary I liked this one because you could insert only part of the word and it would find all possible references. Sometimes you just can't remember the entire word, so having this option helps. And when you enter one word, I tested it with "kind", you get all possible meanings and parts of speech - adjective, noun... This too is very helpful. I hope you find something you can use. If you have more suggestions, please, do add them!

Yes, pointing can be used... however, I don't really think it should be used in the classroom. I mean, it makes the teacher almost inhuman. That's at least my opinion. Of course, there's always the cultural background to be considered: in some cultures, it's perfectly normal for a teacher to point at something and be silent for the most of the class. I'd simply never seen it done. Maybe I'll change my mind when I see how it's done. Pointing on TV shows for children - sure. Was it Strawberry Shortcake or Dora the Explorer? I'd watched neither, they were popular when I was already too old to watch either, so I don't even know the difference...

Well, I think 2015 (still not used to writing the dates, is it 2015 already? God...) is the year for my German. Since I'd finished high school, I'd simply forgotten about it. With English and Latin at the university... it's a little busy, but I hope I'll manage. It's time to freshen things up. I really miss German. I am also thinking about continuing with Spanish. I haven't yet decided as I'd finished the classes for the Basic course... we'll see. By the way, I don't know whether it's a good idea to learn two new similar languages. Sometimes it happens to our students who study Italian and then come to Spanish that they confuse the words and such, so think about it.

Chinese is so difficult, so is French. I'd actually tried learning French on my own and I'd given up - I lacked motivation. I just couldn't grasp the pronunciation and prepositions... I always messed something up and I didn't have a teacher... but I am thinking about learning French as well. The only thing stopping me right now is the fact that French is dying out in my country - it's no longer taught at schools. When I'd heard this, I was really disappointed. How can you just erase one language from the curriculum? Apparently, you can. Or rather, our ministers of education think so. I believe it's not only disappointing but wrong. I may not be able to speak French, but I love it as a language. It sounds great and exactly because it's difficult, it's all the more admirable when someone masters it enough to make conversation and sound more or less natural. Honestly, sometimes I wonder where our education is going... nowhere good it seems. P.S. I don't speak Chinese, I only wish I do. Maybe one day, I'll get there

All four skills are equally important - reading, listening, speaking, writing and they all contribute to your fluency. You can't say you speak English if you've never read anything in English... or listened to the news or the radio. It seems somehow superficial. Books in English are especially popular. Half of the reading material for college is in English, even if English is not your native tongue, so that speaks a lot. But in general, until you've fought your way through a book... Speaking is good for conversation. It takes time to make it perfect, but you should always bear in mind that speaking can't be made perfect without listening. Somehow these two go hand in hand. After you'd listened to, for example, BBC radio every morning for an hour at 7 or 8 a.m. before work or school, you'll see how phrases simply seem to come to you. Writing is one crucial skill. That's where you really see how much (or little) you know about a language. When you speak, you don't think much, so it's a more or less grammatical sequence of thoughts, but honestly: it's more of an ungrammatical speech... you always forget something. When it comes to writing, you have time to think and not only to think to doubt yourself. What is the right case? What is the right word? Do I use a synonym? How does this sound? Is this the right tense? In any language.

True, but we have to bear in mind that every teacher is like that in the beginning. It takes time to get used to teaching... to make it seem more like a routine than challenge, although I believe it never stops being a challenge. Young teachers usually fit this profile - knowledgeable but doesn't know how to impart knowledge. One year is usually how long it takes them to get over that "first shock" and be both knowledgeable and start to learn how to impart knowledge. Realistically, it's some five to ten years until you can say they're excellent teachers.

That’s exactly how my Spanish classes were for me - complete and utter frustration. I’d chosen for my elective class Spanish for beginners - for BEGINNERS, for God’s sake and then it turned out that the teacher expected us to talk to her in fluent Spanish (she was Spanish). Grammar classes were done... twice in a month. For a group of 20-year-olds, that’s not enough, especially if you consider that the rest was more or less constant “conversation” - I don’t remember a single phrase, it was all Greek to me (In Croatian, this idiom is a little different, literal translation is “It was all a Spanish village to me” - you get the humour). Not one of us could use Spanish in conversation - a teacher speaking our mother tongue would have been a blessing - I believe that one year was a wasted time and I’ll never do it again. Agreed, agreed, agreed! Talking in foreign language isn’t enough! It’s important for the students to hear the new language, but they must be talked to in their own language, L1, explained things in L1 and given, I’ll agree with the textbooks here, various drill exercises for practice. Whereas adults may not like them very much - they’re important, especially because some languages have different sounds! The soft sh in Russian, for example, or ae in English - some can’t tell the difference in between ae and e (cat, bed), simply because their native language, for example, doesn’t distinguish in between these two sounds. Same is with r and l in Japanese - there are numerous examples. These things are difficult to teach and almost impossible, no, I’ll be bold and say, completely impossible, if you’re speaking in L2 to beginners and expecting them to understand you perfectly. Yes, yes, yes! How can a student know which words correspond to their own? If you have a sentence “The cat is listening to music” you have to be aware that translation in L2 will most probably be different even when it comes to the word order, so how can your students know which word in this string corresponds to the image of cat, what’s “the”? Is that an R-expression? You have to start from the assumption they have zero knowledge and work your way up. And never explain articles at the beginning!!! Just tell them to put one - I remember the struggle of students from my German lessons. All those article variations and cases... pointless. Grammar is important, true, but comprehension is more important. Yes, yes - that’s exactly how I see it. English Only is perfect for upper classes. I have all of my literature classes in English. I have grammar sometimes in English, sometimes in L2 (depends on the teacher, really), but we also have mandatory translation classes, which is a blessing. That’s exactly where you learn the language and see the differences in between L1 and L2 - sometimes you can struggle with one phrase for hours, simply because it doesn’t work in your language and it does in English or vice versa. But teaching in L1 alone to beginners, no. No. No.

Alright, don’t get me wrong, but I love this “traditional” way of teaching grammar. I’m studying English language and literature and I’ve always had at least three hours of grammar at once. This year, we’re doing Syntax (Morphosynax last year) and I must admit that I like the lectures (the teacher showing us slides with charts, examples of pro-forms and ellipsis, the theory of usage of coordinators... and what else) more than exercises, which we also have, Mondays, where we have a whole range of different exercises to do - from filling the gaps, to true-false, rewriting sentences, multiple choice, recognising one grammatical function, syntactic features, etc. etc. I don’t mind the exercises, they’re easy and sometimes even “fun”, but I like listening to the lectures more. Which brings me to my point - there are various “types” of students: when it comes to me, I learn the best when the teacher gets straight to the point (with little to none conversation at the beginning of the class) and starts to lecture right away. Creativity is alright, but it often doesn’t help me. I’ve had my share of teachers who presented the lectures creatively and then demanded that we learn from the textbook for the exam... it was exhausting and completely different from what we’d listened to at the lectures - at least be consistent. I’ve also had my share of teachers who are “dull lecturers” - to most. I’d never had problem listening to the lectures, although I always have my book with me, so I follow at the same time... not sure how much this contributes. Still, three hours of grammar lectures about generating trees and x-bar theory, no problem. Drawing trees on the blackboard of various complex sentences for three hours, no problem. Easy exercises and games... please, just an hour. There’s always going to be someone like this. What do we do then? I agree. Age appropriate presentation is always necessary. If you’re teaching small children, you can’t teach fractions without bringing an apple or something similar to the class. It’s too abstract. Just like you can’t teach colours without bringing them into the class with you. Or present perfect tense, for that matter, or something similar. But you also have to explain - I’d had a teacher who wanted us to discover things on our own, but never gave us enough material to work with - I was puzzled. So was the rest of the class. No one dared say anything... I remember one instance. We were 10 and she had us doing reported speech (English is not my native language, and so it was the first time I’d seen reported speech). She wrote several complex sentences on the blackboard, some of them were shifting tense backwards, some weren’t. No one knew why. We just saw sentences where tenses mixed and changed and present perfect became past perfect... and sometimes it didn’t! Where are rules?! With just the sentences on the blackboard and no book to check for the rules (if I’d had that then...) - Only later did I notice that she didn’t write everywhere “she says” but sometimes it was “she said” and that changed everything. I’d never, and I mean, never, been so confused. This had also happened when we were learning passive a few years before then - I may have been... eight or nine? I can’t remember. The teacher had given us simple sentences - shifting present simple active to present simple passive, past simple active to past simple passive. Easy, right? For two weeks, we’d done ONLY present simple and past simple. And then exam came. And I’d seen sentences with present perfect continuous, future continuous, past perfect continuous, present continuous... for a child who’d NEVER seen sentences being shifted to passive in continuous form, it was one of the most difficult tests I’d ever done. I’d figured it out, but it was a miracle. I was so insecure and so puzzled. Even after I’d always been wary of passives. You know when children come home complaining how the teacher didn’t explain things and then gave a difficult test? This time it was true. It didn’t happen again, though. Someone must have complained... It’s possible of course, but teacher can point you in the right direction or help you when you’re struggling. It “speeds” things up.

I’m glad you’ve mentioned Krashen. I’d never really read his works, but he’s constantly mentioned. I’ve just taken Methodology of Teaching this year, but I’ve found that the subject has so many valid points that need to be explored: basically, I’m doing the introduction to methodology this year. Krashen comes in two semesters’ time. I am studying English language and literature and I’ll probably choose Teaching as my second course orientation, so I’ll most definitely be reading some of his works. It is difficult to determine when exactly does the acquisition start, but most of the learning is done at home. I don’t really believe it can be replicated either, especially because your family is where you feel at home, not the school and being with other children... well, young children only want to talk about themselves. The teacher is limited. Someone could always be feeling left out, especially if you have large classrooms (there were 31 students in class when I was 6 years old, for example, but my teacher made everyone feel special). So, the true acquisition happens at home. It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to replicate it. I’ve not mentioned grammar, but I do understand your point (teaching grammar is my... let’s call it favourite). Words like nouns and adjectives have little meaning to children, which is why they don’t bother with abstractions - one of the reasons why we don’t teach physics and chemistry to young children. If you want to work with children, you have to make the classes feel personal to them and you have to make them revolve about things they like and are familiar with. You want to teach adjectives and nouns? Bring four stuffed animals, one white, one black, one yellow, one red and name them White Rabbit, Black Bear, Yellow Lion, Red Parrot and you’ll see how easily they can learn colours. How about some TBL as well? Oh, yes, yes, yes, your point is so valid! Adults have many responsibilities and they consider learning a language as one as well. They end up learning only in class and definitely not at home. I’ve been a part of a language course where I’d seen this way too often - sometimes it’s impossible to make them do their homework and the excuses such as “I’ve had some problems in the office” or “My boy had a parent meeting” are not only accepted, but very common. Their attitude is sometimes very critical as well. “I’m paying, you teach” - but how can you if you have classes twice a week and in the meantime they don’t even go through the material you’d given them? And then they want new lessons every single time. How do you explain to a stubborn adult that practice is just as important as hearing about new things, especially if you keep postponing them (namely, the learning) for some later day and you never do them at home? What also happens is that they can get easily discouraged if they don’t understand something, but they can also be very determined. One of our students can be so focused on one thing that it becomes almost impossible to move the class forward. She just keeps interrupting the teacher, even though she’d explained everything several times - and interrupting at the same thing, too. I think there might a motivation problem here - most teachers “punish” children for not doing their homework, but very few reward them for completing it... I would like to hear your opinion on this. You are very passionate about the subject, I’m glad. I am very passionate about literature, so I understand.

I am so sorry, I didn't even notice until you'd pointed it out. How clumsy. Of course you have to use exclamation point (they'e called "exclamative sentences" for a reason, after all), it's just that I'd been typing for so much that I simply didn't register that. Thank you for pointing it out. So, yes, to clarify: Exclamative sentences have an exclamation mark at the end: 1. What a time we’ve had today! 2. How delightful her manners are! 3. How quickly you ate! 4. How I used to hate geography!

Texas, hmmm. It would be an excellent solution to teach children both languages - both Spanish and English, seeing that Mexico and US are the closest there. That way, everyone would feel welcome and accepted and children can easily pick up languages. I got my first foreign language when I was five. I started learning my second when I was 5th grade (10 years old). It has worked perfectly for me - and a lot of my classmates as well. This only shows it's possible to learn two languages when you're small. Children are great at acquiring the language - sometimes they don't even study, it just happens. We should use this potential! Not only would they be able to help their families - mothers want to be able to help their children with homework, it's an instinct, so that would also urge them; but it would make the children more competent. Some research findings show that children who speak two languages at an early age can do better in overall curriculum because their brains get more stimulus for development and critical thinking. They compare and combine, find similarities and differences, and these cognitive skills are extremely important. So, two languages and voila! P.S. to lushlala: I'd attend any language is it was free, even Chinese, which is extremely difficult! I'd go to a foreign country, just for the sake of learning the language. And Italian is so beautiful. I'm studying Latin now, but as soon as I finish the MA (I still have two years to go, I'm doing my BA thesis this summer), I'll try to work my way with Italian! Makes me really excited just to think about it!

Actually, some schools do teach Latin still. It's "dying out", but it's still struggling: Each grammar school has to have at least two years of obligatory Latin in Bosnia (some even have obligatory Ancient Greek, I did) and medical schools do have it as well. Now, at the university, if you study a Romance language, you have one year of obligatory "Elementary Latin" as they call it, but you can also study Latin itself.

Exclamatives are sentences in which the speaker expresses emotion, usually shock or surprise. They also show how much a speaker is impressed with something. Formation: They’re usually introduced by what (predeterminer in a NP, example 1.) or how (intensifier of an adjective 2. or adverb 3. or a degree adverbial 4.). With what, there is no S-O inversion: 1. What a time we’ve had today. 2. How delightful her manners are. 3. How quickly you ate. 4. How I used to hate geography.

Imperative sentences usually take form of directives, which differs from a declarative sentence in that: i) it generally has no subject and ii) it generally has verb in the base form. Otherwise, the clause patterns of imperatives show the same range and ordering of elements as declaratives: (S) V : Jump. (S) VC: Be reasonable. (S) VOC: Consider yourself lucky. Although they rarely have subject, it can happen: i) You be quiet. / You mind your own business. ii) Somebody open this door. / Nobody move. It can also be introduced with let: i) Let us work hard. / Let me see. ii) Let no one think that a teacher’s life is easy. / Let her do it. This usually shows speaker's frustration or a negative tone: You fix it! (if you're so smart) You be quiet! (you're so loud, I can barely stand listening to you) You mind your own business! A positive imperative can be made more persuasive or insistent (especially in BrE) by adding do before the verb: Do have some more tea. Do sit down. Do come along.

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS The rhetorical question is interrogative in structure, but has the force of a strong assertion. The speaker does not expect an answer. There are two main types of rhetorical questions: I. yes-no questions II. wh-questions I. RHETORICAL YES-NO QUESTIONS 1. A positive rhetorical yes-no question is like a strong negative assertion: Is that a reason for despair? (Surely that is not a reason...), Can anyone doubt the wisdom of this action? (Surely no one can doubt...) 2. while a negative rhetorical yes-no question is like a strong positive one: Isn't the answer obvious? (Surely the answer is obvious.), Haven't you got anything better to do? (Surely you have sth better to do.) II. RHETORICAL WH- QUESTIONS 1. The positive question is equivalent to a statement in which the wh-element is replaced by a negative element: Who knows/cares? (Nobody knows/cares.) or What difference does it make? (It makes no difference.) 2. The less common negative question is equivalent to a statement in which the wh-element is replaced by a positive element: Who doesn't know? (Everybody knows.) ECHO QUESTIONS Echo questions repeat part of all of what has been said. 1. someone seeks confirmation: A: I'll pay for it. B: You'll what? 2. someone ask for clarification: A: Anna fell. B: Who fell? EXCLAMATORY QUESTIONS The exclamatory question is interrogative in structure, but has the force of an exclamation. Typically it's a negative yes-no question with a final falling instead of rising tone: Hasn't she grown!

There are several groups of major questions (and several minor), according to what type of answer they expect: 1. Those that expect affirmation of negation: Have you finished the book? – yes-no questions. 2. Those that typically expect a reply from an open range of replies, as in 'What is your name'- wh-quesions. 3. Those that expect as the reply one of two or more options presented in the question: Would you like to go for a walk or stay at home? – alternative questions. Minor groups: 1. Exclamatory 2. Rhetorical 3. Echo Yes-no questions are formed in a similar way to negation: -by placing the operator before the subject and giving the sentence a rising intonation. The train has left. – Has the train left? If there is no operator, dummy DO is introduced as with negation. They live in Paris. – Do they live in Paris? OPERATORS: In American English, only be and do can function as operators. In British English, have may function as one as well: She has a cold. Typically AmE: Does she have a cold? Typically BrE: Has she (got) a cold? She has two brothers. Typically AmE: Does she have two brothers? Typically BrE: Has she (got) two brother? Yes-no questions contain non-assertive items such as any and ever; the question containing such forms is generally neutral, with no bias in expectation towards a positive or negative response. However, that's not the case with assertive items. Observe these two questions: 'Did anyone call last night?' vs. 'Did someone call last night?' There are no expectations of the speaker in the first example. However, in the second, the speaker expects the answer to be positive (Is it true that someone called last night?). Maybe he'd heard the phone ringing last night? Or is expecting a call? The declarative question has the form of a declarative, except for the final rising intonation: You've got the money? (intonation rise on 'money' indicates it's a question and not a statement) The wh-questions are formed by using wh- element. It comes first in the sentence and the wh-word itself takes first position in the wh-element (who/whom/whose, what, which, when, where, how, why) Wh-element can have several syntactic roles: 1. SUBJECT: Who loves Mary? 2. OBJECT DIRECT: Whom does he love? 3. SUBJECT COMPLEMENT: Whose antiques are these? 4. OBJECT COMPLEMENT: How wide did they make the stairs? 5. ADVERBIAL: Where shall I put this? Except in formal style, ''who'' rather than ''whom'' is used as object (Who did you want?) or complement of preposition (Who did you give it to?) An alternative question presents two or more possible answers and presupposes that only one is true. There are two major types: 1) Would you like chocolate, vanilla or strawberry (ice-cream)? – alternative which resembles a yes-no question 2) Which ice-cream would you like? Chocolate, vanilla or strawberry? – alternative which resembles a wh-question.

A positive clause can be negated by inserting 'not' between the operator and the predication: I have finished -> I have not finished. If no operator is present in the positive clause, the dummy operator DO is introduced: She works hard. –> She does not work hard. Syntactic features of clause negation: • Negative clauses differ syntactically from positive clauses: the can typically be followed by positive tag questions: They aren't ready, ARE they?; They are ready, AREN'T they? • They can be followed by negative tag clauses, with additive meaning: They aren't ready, and NEITHER are you. • They can be followed by negative agreement responses: A. He doesn't know Russian. B: No, he DOESN'T. • They can be followed by non-assertive items: He won't notice ANY change in you, EITHER. Negative words can be negative in: - both form and meaning: not, never, no -negative in meaning but not in form: seldom, rarely, hardly, barely, little, few In formal style, negation can be at the beginning of the sentence: He didn't say a word: Not a word did he say. Non assertive items can be determiners, pronouns, or adverbs. For example: any, anybody, at all, ever. -We haven't had ANY lunch. A negative item may be said to govern (or determine the occurence of) a nonassertive item only if the latter is within the SCOPE of the negative, ie within the stretch of language over which the negative item has a semantic influence. The scope of negation normaly extends from the negative item itself to the end of the clause. If an assertive form is used, it must lie outside the scope: I didn't listen to some of the speakers (I listened to some.); I didn't listen to any of the speakers (I listened to none.) Local negation negates a word or phrase, without making the clause negative. One common type involves the combination of NOT with a morphologically negated gradable adjective/adverb: She's not unintelligent woman. (She's fairly intelligent woman.) The scope of negation may or may not include the meaning of the modal auxiliaries. The contrast is shown in the following sentences with 'may not', where the paraphrases indicate the scope of negation: • Auxiliary negation: You may not smoke in here. (You are not allowed to smoke here.) • Main verb negation: They may not like the party. (Is is possible that they do not like the party.)