Sometimes things may be grammatically correct yet sound wrong. I would rewrite it till it sounds correct as well being correct.
Ok, then… do it!
You might use a little help:
Yesterday, when I was going home, I saw a boy and a girl arguing badly in the street.
How’s that?
“there were boys and girls in the street” Sounds fine
The singular version doesn’t please just accept it and lets move on Mons.(Without beating a dead horse to death with a frozen dish cloth :-))
Typo there, IL? You might be adding to the confusion.
“There’s a boy and a girl in the street.” - one of each gender
“There were boys and girls in the street.” - more than one of each gender
“There were boys and a girl in the street.” - more than one boy, one girl.
“There were girls and a boy in the street.” - more than one girl, one boy
“There was a boy and some girls in the street.” - even this is possible, though not the best option.
Thank you, Beeesneees!
Kind regards,
Monica
Oh Yeah Mons!! -
Like Bees cutting & pasting that really made the difference -
Ooh! You’re such a Crawler “:-)”
I didn’t cut and paste. If I had, I’d have replicated your error. ;-p
Watch out Jamie! His name is Fang and if he bites you …
Poor Fang, he can’t see the liaison, why he’s here and why you put him in chain.
So he’s outraged now: GRRRR
Seriously, Beees’ message is very clear, the examples cover all situations and I’m happy that I got it eventually, once and forever. I really didn’t know.
Not less imporrant, you discovered my mistake and started the discussion, so I’m thankful to you as well. Forever!
I think I could also have finished the discussion Mons. However I didn’t want to
go up another cul de sac like the idioms/hyperbole etc at which time I briefly
considered posting stuff from another page before realizing it’s wasn’t what the
thread was about? I had assumed someone at your level could easily analyse their
own minor grammar mistakes once someone had highlighted them. I just wanted to
move on. 
Jamie, it’s very good that you highlight my mistakes, please continue!
I don’t say anything when I know you’re right, but it happens that sometimes I’m not convinced that you’re right, in fact I’m sure that my version is Ok and then I need you or someone else to explain why it’s not correct, because I’m a little stubborn as I am a Taurus (born in April).
Then I give up and store what I have just learnt.
You know we never stop learning.
This is all.
See you!
Define “OK” Mons?
There are obvious rules for Grammar but there is also grey area’s were certain phrases etc just don’t sound right even though they don’t seem to break any rules??
OK? Acceptable.
Grey areas? obviously, phrases may sound bad although Grammarly they don’t break any rules. This is my specialty There must be something that I know better than you
I suppose you understood why they argued.
Except for a few words, I didn’t understand anything.
They speek too fast. So, what was their problem?
If you follow the link below and scroll down Mons - you will find the script.
just click and they will enlarge relevant text. Read and repeat until you
understand before providing a written synopsis of at least a Journalistic standard.
Your importance and relevance to Western Civilisation as a Human bean on this planet
known as Earth will be graded on your account of said flick.
Dar-Zentrale Zkrutinizer
The script is not very helpful. It gave me some ideas, but I’m sure they’re as wrong as possible.
I don’t know how they speak - fast, but not only. Some dialect maybe?
I don’t know if I should, but with all the risks, I’ll tell you briefly my version; you don’t have to read it, because it’s totally wrong :
They start eating a salad made after a new recipe and speak of what they did that day.
The man had met a guy whom she doesn’t like (gay, maybe); he says that he will join that guy in a porn movie.
She doesn’t agree, she’s getting angry because of that, she suddenly feels repulsion and doesn’t let him even touch her hand.
He reproaches her that she had done something similar before so she shouldn’t make a new scene or start another fight because of that (rat the bird again?). Anyway, he’s not going to change his decision.
You may ROFL, you may say that I fell down on Earth from another planet, I don’t mind.
Je ne sais pas que vous voulez dire Monsarelli??
[size=200]Does French Stand a Chance Against a Global English-language Tsunami?[/size]
French, once the language of high culture, kings and queens, and pin-striped diplomats, is drowning in a global tsunami of English usage in commerce, science, education – and even at the multilingual United Nations.
The United Nations has six official languages but English and French are considered the “working” languages. Yet without fluent English, journalists can’t understand press conferences, diplomats can’t negotiate resolutions and officials in the field can’t file reports.
Still many of the U.N. peacekeeping missions are in Africa – and in French-speaking lands, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Mali. Too often senior U.N. officials heading these operations, while fluent in French, are not native French speakers.
At a recent session at the Consulate General of France in New York, Stephane Dujarric, director of the U.N.'s News and Media Division, said:
"So my simple answer is: learn English!
“It’s not abdicating in the face of an English tsunami. It’s about making sure you know how to swim.”
If you don't speak and especially write English fluently you will not be hired in an international organization or you will not be able to prosper in it. Let's recognize that in this very point in human history, English is the dominant language. Nothing lasts forever.
huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-le … 83183.html
[size=150]English words and nuances that don’t exist in French[/size]
Introduction
There are about 7 times more words in the English language than in French (500,000 against 70,000). The majority of the people only know from 15,000 to 30,000 words, and even good writers rarely know more than 50,000 words (in a same language). This gives an idea of the huge diversity of vocabulary and nuances available to users of English.
Languages lacking such a diversity convey the same meanings by using words with a broader sense. The drawback with words having a too broad meaning or too many completely different meanings is that the language can become ambiguous. Imagine a language that did not distinguish bored from annoyed, or a leg from a foot. Well, such languages do exist. Being bored or annoyed are both ennuyé in French, and Japanese has no different word for leg and foot (ashi). Besides, Japanese notoriously possess countless homophones, that is words that sound the same phonetically but are spelt differently and have different meanings. English only has a few of them (e.g. dear vs deer), but most of the time they have a different function (noun, verb, adjective), therefore avoiding confusion.
French language also has numerous homophones (e.g. vert, vers, ver, verre, vair) because of the silent last consonant and the different ways to write the same vowel sound. Spelling is the key to distinguishing meanings in French. However, like for Chinese characters in Japanese, this only works in writing, leaving oral language ambiguous.
Being bilingual in French and English, I have often had arguments about which of the two languages was “better” than the other. Native French speakers will always always plead the superiority of the French language, while native English speakers will do the eulogy of their language. It’s only natural. People want to believe that the language of their upbringing and culture is the best in the world. Although I grew up with French as my first language, it has long been clear to me that English was richer, more flexible, more nuanced and less ambiguous than French. It hasn’t been easy to convince my fellow French speakers of this claim. Their first reaction is usually to deny it or ask me for “proofs”. It is in this spirit that I thought of making a list illustrating how English typically has several words, sometimes adding nuances, sometimes affecting the formality level, when French only had one word.
eupedia.com/europe/missing_w … ench.shtml
Je savais!
C’est parce-que ce n’est rien vrai…
Je vous l’avais dit!
I lost a couple of posts last night?
I couldn’t work out what was happening? I thought I was going nuts?
“So what” Says Monsarelli!!
SO wrong!
Why John Humphrys is in a rage at such a little word after it invades everyday speech
•The Today programme presenter John Humphreys declared war on the use of the word ‘so’
By Sam Creighton Showbiz Reporter For The Daily Mail
Published: 01:09, 20 June 2015 | Updated: 13:09, 20 June 2015
John Humphrys is seeking to ban the word ‘so’ from being used at the beginning of a sentence, branding it ‘irritating’, ‘absurd’ and a ‘noxious weed’ that has invaded everyday speech
John Humphrys is seeking to ban the word ‘so’ from being used at the beginning of a sentence, branding it ‘irritating’, ‘absurd’ and a ‘noxious weed’ that has invaded everyday speech
With the task of informing the nation from his seat on the Today programme, John Humphrys’ language has reason to be precise.
It may therefore be little surprise that the Radio 4 presenter, 71, is determined to hold the rest of the population to the same exacting standards.
He is seeking to ban the word ‘so’ from being used at the beginning of a sentence, branding it ‘irritating’, ‘absurd’ and a ‘noxious weed’ that has invaded everyday speech.
Writing in his column in Waitrose Weekend magazine, he said: ‘So I am beginning this sentence with a word that is so irritating when it’s used at the start of a sentence that I would understand if you were to rip out this column, screw it into a tight ball and hurl it at the radio the next time you hear my voice coming from it.
'But better to horde your anger and unleash it against the growing band of linguistic vandals, who use this absurd construction routinely – especially when they are asked a question’.
He blamed the rise of ‘so’ on bumbling academics who use it ‘perhaps to buy a bit of time when they’re not quite sure how to answer the question’. However, he lamented that: ‘Now the misplaced “so” has invaded everyday speech like some noxious weed in an untended garden’.
Mr Humphrys has earned a reputation for being a pedant when it comes to the use of English. Last year, he threw down a gauntlet to fellow broadcaster Melvyn Bragg, 75, accusing him of ‘speaking like newspaper headlines’ in history show In Our Time.
On Radio 4 show Broadcasting House he criticised Mr Bragg’s use of the historic present tense, claiming: ‘It gives a bogus, an entirely bogus, sense of immediacy; it is irritating, it is pretentious’.
.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … peech.html
Yesterday I was accused of hitting these three Mons!!
Please tell everyone the truth Mons…