LAST EDITED ON Aug-29-09 AT 08:39 AM (GMT)>Hello Ingrid
>
>Wie geht's dir? 
Gut danke
>Do not fall into the trap
>of yielding yourself to the
>authority of native speakers in
>such an obsequious manner, no
>matter what their background. Take
>everything with a pinch of
>salt. English is a "big"
>language given the vast geographical
>expanse across which it is
>used by millions of natives
>from diverse cultures.
I know what you mean ... and it's true of course. It's just that "tampering" goes against my feeling of the language, that's why I asked my teacher who confirmed it. I agreed with Francesca's opinion, who I think has an excellent feel for the language too.
>
>I have been an active contributor
>to several international grammar forums;
>I have put in over
>10k posts all told over
>the years, and believe me
>I have seen a lot
>of things.
I can imagine! Nevertheless, I do think that if you start arguing in a "scientific" way, it might be that you lose touch with the language and how it is used in everyday life. This is not to say that we shouldn't look things up! It's just the way I'm functioning - I always go with my feeling, and when I need confirmation or have a question, then I ask someone competent.
> have seen
>a fairly large number of
>native teachers wilting like a
>week-old lettuce when confronted with
>quite straightforward grammatical questions.
I agree - to be a native speaker doesn't mean having overall competence. It's the same with my fellow native speakers - some can't get even one sentence straight. So it's good to take everything with a pinch of salt as you are suggesting.
> I
>am not questioning your teacher's
>competence, mind. What I am
>trying to get at is
>that "native teachers said so"
>has hardly any power to
>bring your keen opponent down
>to their knees. You know
>what I mean?
I understand. But the fact that he is teaching at the Cambridge Institute does mean that he is competent enough. In any case, there has to be some overall agreement on the language or else CPE exams wouldn't be possible. Of course, the examples in the past papers are much more straightforward - there's no doubt about which word to fill in and how it's used. I'm sure debates arise even there every now and then, but somehow consent must be reached.
>
>tamper: 1. interfere with and damage
>something: to interfere with something
>in a way that damages
>it or has harmful results
>
>
>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/tamper.html
I know Raptor, thank you - I've read all the discussions and the explanations!
>
>I tampered with the knobs on
>the TV with a screwdriver
>trying to fix the problem,
>but to no avail.
I think here it has a different meaning, and to my feeling, it's okay here (or I'm getting really confused ... ). The original sentence that started the discussion was different, and there, I felt, "fiddling" was the right choice. I'd need to get back to have a look, but in that original sentence, "tamper" didn't work for me at all!
>
>----
>come by sth
>
>to get something, especially something unusual
>
>So how did you manage to
>come by this job?
>
>
>http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=come.by*1+0&dict=P
>
>
>My job here is not to
>convince you who is right
>here. I just want to
>present to you another argument
>and your job is to
>evaluate it - you can
>take it or leave it.
That was my intention too - to present you with something different for you to evaluate, and to take it or leave it. I think I've achieved this goal!
>
>
>Finally, I would like to advise
>you to be more careful
>when you assert yourself. It
>is all too easy to
>state your opinion pertly, but
>can you defend it with
>an argument that has legs?
As I've said before, it's not what I want to do and it's not how I'm functioning, and basically, as I've seen it happen here, very often both sides lose.
Take care!
Ingrid
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
