messager/messenger

[Red5]

Re: To RonBee

Your tutor sounds.------Your tutor sounds wonderful.

You can't say only "Your tutor sounds"; on its own it means nothing. Sounds needs something to work on:

"Your tutor sounds wonderful"
"Your tutor sounds intellegent"
"Your tutor sounds great"

;-)

 

[AUTOMOON]

Re: To RonBee

Your tutor sounds.------Your tutor sounds wonderful.

You can't say only "Your tutor sounds"; on its own it means nothing. Sounds needs something to work on:

"Your tutor sounds wonderful"
"Your tutor sounds intellegent"
"Your tutor sounds great"

;-)

Yeah, I think I had better agree with you two. After all, English is your language.

Both of you are wonderful tutors. :multi:

 

[RonBee]

Re: To RonBee

This is difficult to explain, but I will try.

The room smells.------ The room smells bad.

Both sentences, "The room smells" and "The room smells bad" are perfectly good English. Either is used, and they mean essentially the same thing: the room has a bad odor.

Your tutor sounds.------Your tutor sounds wonderful.

The first sentence is impossible. The second sentence is a grammatical sentence but is highly unlikely. You can use sounds that way. Example:

• A: Listen to that engine. What do you think?
  B: It sounds okay to me.

Or:

• A: Jack says we should all go to the movies. What do you think?
  B: That sounds wonderful!

In the first example, sounds is used more or less according to its literal meaning, while in the second example it is used figuratively and much like your sentence. I can see why you think you should be able to use it that way. I might be of the same opinion if I were you. I will try to get a better explanation for why it is not used.

 

[RonBee]

Re: To RonBee

I have decided to start a new discussion about this one. Please, go here: https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12206#12206
I am going to do my best to get some help answering your question. We will succeed!

 

[RonBee]

Re: To RonBee

Yeah, I think I had better agree with you two. After all, English is your language.

It is not really my language. They just let me use it. :wink:

Both of you are wonderful tutors.

Thanks a bunch from Red and me.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Re: To RonBee

Ron, you are correct about this sentence:

<<<Your tutor sounds and is easy to be figured out.>>>

This is a senetnce with a compund verb. In this use, the first verb "sounds" is a linking verb (just like smells in another example), but it is not used without a complement.

The orchestra sounds bad. Bad = predicate adjective
The tutor sounds smart. Smart = predicate adjective

In other uses, the verb can be transitive "he sounded the alarm" or intransitive "the alarm sounded".

One could say "The tutor sounds smart and is easily understood." That would be better than "is easy to be figured out". That is an issue of parallelism and style, more than one of grammar.

 

[RonBee]

Re: To RonBee

Ron, you are correct about this sentence:

<<<Your tutor sounds and is easy to be figured out.>>>

This is a senetnce with a compund verb. In this use, the first verb "sounds" is a linking verb (just like smells in another example), but it is not used without a complement.

The orchestra sounds bad. Bad = predicate adjective
The tutor sounds smart. Smart = predicate adjective

In other uses, the verb can be transitive "he sounded the alarm" or intransitive "the alarm sounded".

One could say "The tutor sounds smart and is easily understood." That would be better than "is easy to be figured out". That is an issue of parallelism and style, more than one of grammar.

I am trying to put myself in the place of the ESL learner who asks himself why one thing works and the other doesn't. I think this is part of the problem:

• The tutor smells = the tutor has a bad smell (OK)
  The tutor sounds = the tutor has a bad sound (not OK)

Maybe I am looking in the right place and maybe I am not, but I think it must be quite difficult at times figuring out what works and what doesn't.

I think your explanation is quite useful. Thanks a bunch!

 

[MikeNewYork]

RonBee

I agree with you, that some of this is quite mysterious from the perspective of a learner.

That's why we need RonBees in the world.

 

[RonBee]

 

[AUTOMOON]

Ronbee, I have nothing to say but " Thank you!".

Again, I wish I could have you tutor me in reality.------Though it is highly
unlikely.

I am not intended to let it go too far, but what does ''Ronbees" mean, as in Mike's post?

 

[AUTOMOON]

When adding you two's posts together, nothing but clearance remains.
To summer up, these two reasons are the undoing of my sentence,
for your refrence:

• the tutor is only a person, not the things he teaches:

"sounds" can't work alone like "smell"


Things like this is probably not new to you, but new to me.
You have taught me a great deal this way, [/quote]

 

[RonBee]

Ronbee, I have nothing to say but " Thank you!".

Again, I wish I could have you tutor me in reality.------Though it is highly
unlikely.

I am not intended to let it go too far, but what does ''Ronbees" mean, as in Mike's post?

Thank you for the kind remarks.

When Mike referred to RonBees he was talking about people like me who do what I do. (Except that there is really only one.) In other words, that word, my name, was used to stand for an entire group of people. Another example of that would be if I were to say about Joe Clark (a school principal), "We need more Joe Clarks in this world," meaning that we need more principals like him.

:robot:

 

[AUTOMOON]

When Mike referred to RonBees he was talking about people like me who do what I do. (Except that there is really only one.) In other words, that word, my name, was used to stand for an entire group of people. Another example of that would be if I were to say about Joe Clark (a school principal), "We need more Joe Clarks in this world," meaning that we need more principals like him.

Your funny practice. :!: