Nice to meet you, all.
I've been studying English on my own.
I have a question about the use of relative pronoun 'what.'
I came across this sentence in the drama script on the Internet.
［I'll tell them exactly what I told you the truth!］
Is the sentence grammatically correct and understandable?
I think the last word ‘the truth’ is redundant.
What do you think?
I'd appreciate any help.
I've been studying English on my own.
I have a question about the use of relative pronoun 'what.'
I came across this sentence in the drama script on the Internet.
［I'll tell them exactly what I told you the truth!］
Is the sentence grammatically correct and understandable?
I think the last word ‘the truth’ is redundant.
What do you think?
I'd appreciate any help.
|
|
|
|
コメント(25)
I agree about the punctuation.
To help you understand the use of "what", think of "what I told you" as a noun-phrase. It has 4 words, but you can use this phrase the same way you use an ordinary noun. For example:
I'll tell them a story.
I'll tell them something.
I'll tell them the result.
I'll tell them what I told you.
Does that help?
To help you understand the use of "what", think of "what I told you" as a noun-phrase. It has 4 words, but you can use this phrase the same way you use an ordinary noun. For example:
I'll tell them a story.
I'll tell them something.
I'll tell them the result.
I'll tell them what I told you.
Does that help?
［the research and development on the solar power generation that can be an alternative to oil and an important energy source in the future and its effective use］
Could anybody check this and correct it to make it easier to be understood?
I want to say in this phrase:
the research and development on the solar power generation and that on its effective use ; the solar power generation is an important future energy source; it can replace oil.
Any help would be appreciated.
Could anybody check this and correct it to make it easier to be understood?
I want to say in this phrase:
the research and development on the solar power generation and that on its effective use ; the solar power generation is an important future energy source; it can replace oil.
Any help would be appreciated.
I had trouble understanding your sentence.
Is what you're trying to say the title of something?
It sounds like it would be the title of a dissertation or thesis paper or something...
If so, then I believe the statement below works grammatically.
Otherwise, you'll need to break this up into a couple different sentences to say what you want.
The research and developement of solar power generation, an important energy source of the future which may replace oil, and its effective use.
Is what you're trying to say the title of something?
It sounds like it would be the title of a dissertation or thesis paper or something...
If so, then I believe the statement below works grammatically.
Otherwise, you'll need to break this up into a couple different sentences to say what you want.
The research and developement of solar power generation, an important energy source of the future which may replace oil, and its effective use.
>>the research and development on the solar power generation and that on its effective use ; the solar power generation is an important future energy source; it can replace oil.
I think that R&D implies that it will be a good future energy source, so no need to explicitly state so. In fact, I also think that R&D doesn't necessarily need to be included in the title, although I have included it in some ideas below. Here are some possibilities:
Solar Power Research & Development: A Future Oil Replacement?
When the Well Runs Dry: Solar Power Research & Development
Solar Power: Research and Development of the New Black Gold
Notes:
Well runs dry = oil well that no longer produces oil
black gold = oil
the new black gold implies that it is a replacement for oil.
I think that R&D implies that it will be a good future energy source, so no need to explicitly state so. In fact, I also think that R&D doesn't necessarily need to be included in the title, although I have included it in some ideas below. Here are some possibilities:
Solar Power Research & Development: A Future Oil Replacement?
When the Well Runs Dry: Solar Power Research & Development
Solar Power: Research and Development of the New Black Gold
Notes:
Well runs dry = oil well that no longer produces oil
black gold = oil
the new black gold implies that it is a replacement for oil.
Jeese 酢七面鳥, why don't you just write her thesis for her? :)
Daisy,
Well if you were to say just one or the other, it would be...
research on solar power....
or
developement of solar power...
I'm not sure if there is a general rule for that sort of thing, but I would use the preposition that goes with the latter, or else it will sound funny.
But that's just MY expert opinion.
Anyone else?
Daisy,
Well if you were to say just one or the other, it would be...
research on solar power....
or
developement of solar power...
I'm not sure if there is a general rule for that sort of thing, but I would use the preposition that goes with the latter, or else it will sound funny.
But that's just MY expert opinion.
Anyone else?
Thank you for the information, 酢七面鳥.
Your examples are simple and clear, and “black gold” is a new idea to me.
That’s really helpful.
Undaveable, thank you for the reply again.
So, I should write ‘development of something’ not ‘development on something’, right?
I have one more question as to the use of preposition.
What is difference between ‘in the future’ and ‘of the future’?
Your examples are simple and clear, and “black gold” is a new idea to me.
That’s really helpful.
Undaveable, thank you for the reply again.
So, I should write ‘development of something’ not ‘development on something’, right?
I have one more question as to the use of preposition.
What is difference between ‘in the future’ and ‘of the future’?
［the research and development on the solar power generation that can be an alternative to oil and an important energy source in the future and its effective use］
This is a pretty long sentence! Probably breaking it with some punctuation and trimming extra words might help it sound better as a title of thesis.
I'd probably phrase it as:
"Research and Development on the Effective Generation of Solar Power: An Alternative to Oil and Its Importance As Future Energy Source"
酢七面鳥's suggestions are good too, though. Sometimes having a smaller and more compact sentence makes for a better title.
This is a pretty long sentence! Probably breaking it with some punctuation and trimming extra words might help it sound better as a title of thesis.
I'd probably phrase it as:
"Research and Development on the Effective Generation of Solar Power: An Alternative to Oil and Its Importance As Future Energy Source"
酢七面鳥's suggestions are good too, though. Sometimes having a smaller and more compact sentence makes for a better title.
Tricky question Daisy! The meaning is basically the same, but the usage is different. In this case:
"In" is used to indicate the time that the speaker/writer is talking about
"Of" means "belonging to"
For example:
Solar power is the energy source of the future.
In the future, solar power will become the World's most important energy source."
"In" is used to indicate the time that the speaker/writer is talking about
"Of" means "belonging to"
For example:
Solar power is the energy source of the future.
In the future, solar power will become the World's most important energy source."
Thank you for you suggestion, Pr0digalS0n.
I’m going to study punctuation.
Gordy, thank you for helping me clarify the difference between them.
I get it.
Thank you everyone!! I study English in the other community outside mixi.
There are a lot of questions there, so I may come to ask some of them again soon.
I’m going to study punctuation.
Gordy, thank you for helping me clarify the difference between them.
I get it.
Thank you everyone!! I study English in the other community outside mixi.
There are a lot of questions there, so I may come to ask some of them again soon.
Hello. I have a question about the exact meaning of “so…that〜.”
For example: a) He worked so hard that he injured his health.
In Japan, we are mostly taught that “so…that〜” can be translated as
「あまりに…なので(reason)、 〜だ(result)」
So, the whole sentence would be translated as
「彼はあまりに働きすぎたので、健康を害してしまった」
But I don’t think the Japanese translation reflects the meaning of
the original English sentence correctly.
(I’m sorry for writing Japanese here but it’s difficult to avoid it for this question.)
In my understanding, in the English sentence, the speaker is focusing on how hard he worked. On the other hand, Japanese translation is focusing on the fact that he injured his health.
My question is: which do you native English speakers think is more important information in the sentence a), “he worked so hard”, or the result that “he injured his health”?
Please tell me if my question is not understandable.
Any suggestion would be appreciated.
For example: a) He worked so hard that he injured his health.
In Japan, we are mostly taught that “so…that〜” can be translated as
「あまりに…なので(reason)、 〜だ(result)」
So, the whole sentence would be translated as
「彼はあまりに働きすぎたので、健康を害してしまった」
But I don’t think the Japanese translation reflects the meaning of
the original English sentence correctly.
(I’m sorry for writing Japanese here but it’s difficult to avoid it for this question.)
In my understanding, in the English sentence, the speaker is focusing on how hard he worked. On the other hand, Japanese translation is focusing on the fact that he injured his health.
My question is: which do you native English speakers think is more important information in the sentence a), “he worked so hard”, or the result that “he injured his health”?
Please tell me if my question is not understandable.
Any suggestion would be appreciated.
In the example sentence "he worked so hard that he injured his health," it doesn't really make sense to say that one part of the sentence is more important than the other, because both are essential. The first part of the sentence is the cause ("he worked so hard"), and the second part of the sentence is the effect ("that he injured his health."). If you merely say "He worked so hard" or "he injured his health" then it becomes more of a declarative statement without the connection of the two.
"I'll tell them exactly what I told you the truth!" as it is sounds a little weird.
Consider the following:
"I'll tell them. Exactly! What? I told you the truth!"
"I'll tell them, exactly. What? I told you! The Truth!"
"I'll tell them exactly what I told you: the truth!"
"I'll tell them. Exactly what? I told you, the truth!"
This is why punctuation is important.
Judging from context (although there is very little of it), it sounds like the best (most typical) answer to this would be "I'll tell them exactly what I told you: the truth!" If we assume that this is the best answer, then "the truth" is certainly NOT redundant, because the person could easily tell a lie or some other information instead. "The truth" was most likely added for emphasis, to prove a point.
Consider the following:
"I'll tell them. Exactly! What? I told you the truth!"
"I'll tell them, exactly. What? I told you! The Truth!"
"I'll tell them exactly what I told you: the truth!"
"I'll tell them. Exactly what? I told you, the truth!"
This is why punctuation is important.
Judging from context (although there is very little of it), it sounds like the best (most typical) answer to this would be "I'll tell them exactly what I told you: the truth!" If we assume that this is the best answer, then "the truth" is certainly NOT redundant, because the person could easily tell a lie or some other information instead. "The truth" was most likely added for emphasis, to prove a point.
Hello Daisy,
About "He worked so hard that he injured his health.",
you are correct.
The emphasis is on the fact that "he worked so hard". The latter part, "that he injured his health." is more of a supporting idea rather than a main point, because it just describes "how hard he worked".
So the Japanese translation, when translated back to English, would become the following:
"Because he worked so hard, he injured his health."
It describes a similar situation, but now, the emphasis is on the fact that he injured his health.
Maybe you can do a better translation.
The line of thought is just the following:
1. He worked so hard.
2. How hard did he work? (no need to translate this)
3. That he injured his health.
Note that you do not really want to point out a "cause and effect relationship", but just to describe the degree of hard work. So to keep the idea intact, you should just describe the degree.
Good luck!
About "He worked so hard that he injured his health.",
you are correct.
The emphasis is on the fact that "he worked so hard". The latter part, "that he injured his health." is more of a supporting idea rather than a main point, because it just describes "how hard he worked".
So the Japanese translation, when translated back to English, would become the following:
"Because he worked so hard, he injured his health."
It describes a similar situation, but now, the emphasis is on the fact that he injured his health.
Maybe you can do a better translation.
The line of thought is just the following:
1. He worked so hard.
2. How hard did he work? (no need to translate this)
3. That he injured his health.
Note that you do not really want to point out a "cause and effect relationship", but just to describe the degree of hard work. So to keep the idea intact, you should just describe the degree.
Good luck!
Actually, I agree with ルーク. I got caught up with thinking that that particular example sounded like a cause and effect relationship, maybe because I had read the Japanese, too. Thanks for pointing that out.
Generally speaking, the second part would just support the first part, like ルーク said, explaining the degree to which the first happened. Personally, though, I still wouldn't think one part is "more important" than the other. It depends on what you're trying to emphasize. In that case, both parts are still important.
Generally speaking, the second part would just support the first part, like ルーク said, explaining the degree to which the first happened. Personally, though, I still wouldn't think one part is "more important" than the other. It depends on what you're trying to emphasize. In that case, both parts are still important.
Here are some random examples off the top of my head... maybe you can get a feel for how it is used.
Today is so hot that I started sweating from the moment I woke up.
President Bush is so stupid that a third grader speaks with better English than him.
This forum is so full of postings that it is hard to read them all.
I was so bored today that I ended up cleaning out my closet.
His room was so messy that even the cat wouldn't go inside.
His grades were so bad that his parents made him stay home and study every night.
Your Enlglish is so good that I forget you are not a native English speaker sometimes.
---
Then there is the "so" sentece where the "that" part is implied (not said aloud), so you really don't care what the result is -- you are just emphasizing the idea of "VERY".
He is so slow!
That movie was so good!
Today is so hot!
You could take any one of my original examples and chop off the sentence before "that..." and they would still make sense: "Your Enlglish is so good that I forget you are not a native English speaker sometimes" -> "Your English is so good!"
--
I think "so" has a bit more feeling to it than using very.
Jason is very slow.
Sounds like a factual observation. Doesn't really have a feeling of judgement to it.
Jason is so slow.
Sounds like the person saying it is annoyed. The person saying it seems bothered that Jason is slow.
The painting is very beautiful.
Sounds like an observation. Sounds kind of proper.
The painting is so beautiful.
Sounds more emotional. The person seems very happy/surprised/moved by the painting.
--
For extra emphasis, you can draw out (lengthen) the so when you speak or writing informally (chat, emails to friends, etc.).
Japan is soooooo cool.
This emphasizes just how cool japan is.
OK, this post is getting sooooo long that I've got to go now.
Today is so hot that I started sweating from the moment I woke up.
President Bush is so stupid that a third grader speaks with better English than him.
This forum is so full of postings that it is hard to read them all.
I was so bored today that I ended up cleaning out my closet.
His room was so messy that even the cat wouldn't go inside.
His grades were so bad that his parents made him stay home and study every night.
Your Enlglish is so good that I forget you are not a native English speaker sometimes.
---
Then there is the "so" sentece where the "that" part is implied (not said aloud), so you really don't care what the result is -- you are just emphasizing the idea of "VERY".
He is so slow!
That movie was so good!
Today is so hot!
You could take any one of my original examples and chop off the sentence before "that..." and they would still make sense: "Your Enlglish is so good that I forget you are not a native English speaker sometimes" -> "Your English is so good!"
--
I think "so" has a bit more feeling to it than using very.
Jason is very slow.
Sounds like a factual observation. Doesn't really have a feeling of judgement to it.
Jason is so slow.
Sounds like the person saying it is annoyed. The person saying it seems bothered that Jason is slow.
The painting is very beautiful.
Sounds like an observation. Sounds kind of proper.
The painting is so beautiful.
Sounds more emotional. The person seems very happy/surprised/moved by the painting.
--
For extra emphasis, you can draw out (lengthen) the so when you speak or writing informally (chat, emails to friends, etc.).
Japan is soooooo cool.
This emphasizes just how cool japan is.
OK, this post is getting sooooo long that I've got to go now.
Oh, and as to the emphasis on the so...that construction, if we compare it to food...
The "so" clause is the dinner.
The "that" clause is the dessert.
He is so sick that he had to be hospitalized.
He is so sick - still makes sense alone.
That he had to be hospitalized - doesn't make sense alone.
Thus, the "so" clause is the main clause, the "that" clause is supportive.
-----
In reality, though, I don't know if I break it up in my mind that way:
He is very sick and had to be hospitalized.
He is so sick that he had to be hospitalized.
He had to be hospitalized because he is so sick.
He had to be hospitalized because he is very sick.
Thse all mean about the same thing to me. It might be easier to put emphasis on just how sick he is with the "so" sentences (e.g. he is sooo sick), but this is really pretty minor.
I guess that the biggest difference is that in the sentence "He is so sick that he had to be hospitalized." when I hear "He is so sick that...", it gets my brain ready to hear something interesting about how sick he is. My brain starts anticipating what the result of him being sick will be, in a split second...
Could it be that he stayed home today? That he died? That we need to visit him?
In other words, it lets me know that something is coming that is probably interesting. In the other sentences, I don't have any idea what is coming.
I am rabling so much that I have to stop now. I'm sorry, language fascinates me so much that I should have been an English teacher.
But we haven't even gotten into the more slang uses of so... I'm so going right now.
The "so" clause is the dinner.
The "that" clause is the dessert.
He is so sick that he had to be hospitalized.
He is so sick - still makes sense alone.
That he had to be hospitalized - doesn't make sense alone.
Thus, the "so" clause is the main clause, the "that" clause is supportive.
-----
In reality, though, I don't know if I break it up in my mind that way:
He is very sick and had to be hospitalized.
He is so sick that he had to be hospitalized.
He had to be hospitalized because he is so sick.
He had to be hospitalized because he is very sick.
Thse all mean about the same thing to me. It might be easier to put emphasis on just how sick he is with the "so" sentences (e.g. he is sooo sick), but this is really pretty minor.
I guess that the biggest difference is that in the sentence "He is so sick that he had to be hospitalized." when I hear "He is so sick that...", it gets my brain ready to hear something interesting about how sick he is. My brain starts anticipating what the result of him being sick will be, in a split second...
Could it be that he stayed home today? That he died? That we need to visit him?
In other words, it lets me know that something is coming that is probably interesting. In the other sentences, I don't have any idea what is coming.
I am rabling so much that I have to stop now. I'm sorry, language fascinates me so much that I should have been an English teacher.
But we haven't even gotten into the more slang uses of so... I'm so going right now.
Thank you for the explanation with a lot of examples, 酢七面鳥.
They are interesting and helpful.
I understand what process English speakers go through when you read
‘so…that’ sentences.
So, ‘so…that’ construction stimulates the reader’s imagination, doesn’t it?
On the other hand, sentences that use ‘because’ seem to have more logical
relationship between the main clause and the second clause rather than
emotional aspect. The Japanese translation, 「あまりに…なので(reason)、〜だ(result)」is a cause-effect relationship. That’s why I felt something strange with the Japanese as the translation for ‘so…that’ sentences. But this concept is used very often in English-Japanese translation because, I think, it’s easier for Japanese to understand.
They are interesting and helpful.
I understand what process English speakers go through when you read
‘so…that’ sentences.
So, ‘so…that’ construction stimulates the reader’s imagination, doesn’t it?
On the other hand, sentences that use ‘because’ seem to have more logical
relationship between the main clause and the second clause rather than
emotional aspect. The Japanese translation, 「あまりに…なので(reason)、〜だ(result)」is a cause-effect relationship. That’s why I felt something strange with the Japanese as the translation for ‘so…that’ sentences. But this concept is used very often in English-Japanese translation because, I think, it’s easier for Japanese to understand.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
