|
ESL Forum:
Techniques and methods
in Language Teaching
Games, activities
and teaching ideas
Grammar and
Linguistics
Teaching material
Concerning
worksheets
Concerning
powerpoints
Concerning online
exercises
Make suggestions,
report errors
Ask for help
Message board
|
ESL forum >
Grammar and Linguistics > Grammar.net?
Grammar.net?
|
almaz
|
Grammar.net?
|
|
This has been doing the rounds recently. What do you, as English teachers, think of it?
|
18 May 2011
|
|
|
|
maryse pey�
|
|
hi dear in grammar as in real life there are what we usually call �false friends � or �traitors in meanings �. You are a TRUE friend ! thanks for sharing : this kind of tool is always useful.
Plenty of hugs dear.
Maryse. |
18 May 2011
|
|
|
|
|
yanogator
|
|
Another common one is "disinterested", which doesn �t mean "not interested", as most people think. It means "unbiased" or "objective".
Bruce |
18 May 2011
|
|
|
PhilipR
|
|
Much ado about nothing and not even correct if you ask me.
For some words both definitions apply. BTW, it�s not just about outdated dictionary definition, the makers of this confusing chart should have looked at contemporary usage as well. |
19 May 2011
|
|
|
alien boy
|
Interesting... it shows a real difference between prescriptive & descriptive grammars if you ask me!
|
19 May 2011
|
|
|
johanne23232
|
I have to agree with Philip, that the chart isn �t entirely exact and �overdone �.
|
19 May 2011
|
|
|
almaz
|
|
Absolutely, Philip. Both enormity and fulsome, for example, can have both definitions ( �disputed � in some dictionaries but still accepted). It �s also implied that unique can �t be modified which, of course, is the wrong approach to a word which has also had the meaning of unusual for nearly two centuries (see Merriam-Webster �s Dictionary of English Usage).
Oh, it �s definitely prescriptive, but it �s not grammar, Jim. The chart deals with discrete lexical items and their definitions although the website grammar.net insists "it�s all about grammar." |
19 May 2011
|
|
|
Zora
|
Ahh... Can somebody explain the difference to little ole moi between "to have a lot of something" and a "superabundance"?
My dictionary says quite literally- plethora: a very large amount or number : an amount that is much greater than what is necessary.
And here I �m thinking "semantics" .. "a lot of" could be "a superabundance". Heck, I �d use "a lot of" when trying to explain in layman �s term plethora to my students.
BTW, "literally" could be used as a modifier/intensifier...
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/literally
|
19 May 2011
|
|
|
almaz
|
|
Zora,
Super here means �above �, �beyond �, �over � etc (ie excessive or �greater than what is necessary �).
Of course literally is an intensifier.
|
19 May 2011
|
|
|
Zora
|
Ahh, twas sarcasm my dear Alex. I do know what the prefix "super" means.  I just meant that "a normal person" not us "language experts" (not too serious with that comment) might say "Oh my, I think, well, plethora means to have a lot of something, ya know, lots and lots.."
|
19 May 2011
|
|
1
2
Next >
|
