Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Jagat

English lessons for Kailasa

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

As an act of special mercy, I will take a few sentences from Kailasa's posts and try to help him rephrase them in correct English. Anyone wishing to contribute may post here.

 

Kailasaji's desire to express himself exceeds his ability. Hopefully, he will try to work on this and make a bit of progress. Then we can find out what he really means to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice, Kailasa, that you often use the word "am" in an unusual way. I have never been able to figure out what you mean. Here I finally got a clue:

 

 

**Dear Kailash, I do have a guru."

 

OK. Am too. Paramahamsa guru, rasika too.

 

 

It appears that you think "am" means "I". I don't know any Russian, so I cannot translate. Here are a few equivalents.

 

I = ja = ego = ich = je = aham

am = jestem = sum = bin = suis = asmi

 

So had you said "I too," you would have written good, concise English. But for practice, I advise writing complete sentences.

 

"I too have a guru. He is a paramahamsa and a rasika, too."

 

So Lesson ONE, Kailasa. Conjugate the verb "to be"

 

I am

you are

he is

we are

you are

they are

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Kailasa,

 

Now that you have learned the conjugation of the verb to be, I would like you to master English word order.

 

English is not free like Russian and other inflected languages. You must put words in the proper order.

 

"I am a devotee." GOOD.

 

"Devotee am I a." NOT GOOD.

 

"Am devotee a I." NOT GOOD.

 

There is really only one option:

 

"I am a devotee."

 

The same with other verbs. Subject, verb, object.

 

"I have a guru." GOOD

 

"I a guru have.Guru I have." etc. NOT GOOD.

 

I will admit that occasionally in poems, English authors will play around with word order. But beginners in the language should definitily stick to SUBJECT, VERB, OBJECT.

 

Furthermore, you are not allowed to just drop words whimsically. Include ALL the words, even the little ones.

 

"I devotee." NO GOOD

"Am devotee." NO GOOD.

"Devotee am." NO GOOD.

"I am a devotee." VERY GOOD. /ubbthreads/images/icons/tongue.gif

 

Any questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to overload you, Kailasaji, but here is more stuff.

 

You wrote:<hr>If you follow YOU understanding sastra it is YOU coise(?). Sastra writes for understanding. Whit out guru nobody not understand sastra. Needs guru. <hr>

 

If you follow YOU understanding sastra it is YOU coise(?).

 

Unfortunately, if you don't look in a dictionary from time to time, you will use words like "coise" which mean nothing to anyone. This entire sentence is turned into a guessing game. I think you mean "choice."

 

The sentence actually begins properly: "If you follow"

 

By "YOU" it is evident you mean "your".

 

This is what you meant: "If you follow YOUR understanding OF sastra, it is YOUR choice."

 

Sastra writes for understanding.

 

Sastra does not write. Someone writes sastra.

 

You perhaps mean "Sastra is written to be understood."

"The Sastras were written for our understanding."<hr>

Whit out guru nobody not understand sastra. Needs guru.

 

"Without guru, nobody understands sastra."

 

"Without a guru, nobody can understand the sastra. Everyone needs a guru."<hr>Like Polish, Hindi and Bengali, Russian has no articles ("the, a, an"). This will always be a problem for you, Kailasji. Try to understand how these are used, but you probably never will master it, try as you might.<hr>Avoid double negatives: "Nobody not understands." You probably use double negatives like in Polish: "Nic nie wiem." This is not allowed in English. Two negatives cancel each other out (in theory). Of course, some Americans do say things like "I don't know nothing" or "I ain't going nowhere." But this is not good English.

<hr>Now the question is, if the sastras were written in order to be understood, why can they not be understood without a guru? Certainly it is my choice to follow my own understanding, but I assume it is also a choice to follow the understanding of a guru. But I seriously doubt that anyone can follow anyone else absolutely. No one can BE his guru, so no one can understand exactly like his guru.

 

I eat a mango. My guru eats a mango. Do we both taste the same thing? Yes, but no. Anyway, I don't mean to get into a side issue. Let's stick to learning English here, Kailasa. Let's go. Three months. We can do it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last post for today:

 

snake have skin?

 

The verb have conjugates as follows:

 

I have

you have

he, she, it has

we have

you have

they have

 

Thus "The snake has skin."

"A snake has skin."

"All snakes have skin."

"I have skin, you have skin, we all have skin."

 

Asking questions.

 

In English, when writing a question, the word order changes. We don't use "question marker words" to indicate a question, like "czy" in Polish or "kim" in Sanskrit. A question is announced by changing the word order. Unfortunately, we have to use the auxiliary verb "to do" in this case.

 

The correct form of your question was:

 

"Do snakes have skin?"

"Do I have skin?"

"Do you have skin?"

"Do we all have skin?"

"Does Krishna have skin?"

"Does the snake have skin?"

"Do you have a guru?"

"Does the jiva fall from the spiritual sky?"

"Do you understand?"

 

"Do snakes have skin?" (Assuming this was your question)

 

"Yes, snakes do indeed have skin."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jagat Prabhu now me guru. I am take good fortune. My all past reactions will destroyed.

 

Ok, am stady (?) in houme. Dont angri Jagat Prabhu. Other hand am take some lessions for russian. /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Now the question is, if the sastras were written in order to be understood, why can they not be understood without a guru? Certainly it is my choice to follow my own understanding, but I assume it is also a choice to follow the understanding of a guru. But I seriously doubt that anyone can follow anyone else absolutely. No one can BE his guru, so no one can understand exactly like his guru.

 

I eat a mango. My guru eats a mango. Do we both taste the same thing? Yes, but no. Anyway, I don't mean to get into a side issue. Let's stick to learning English here, Kailasa. Let's go. Three months. We can do it!! ********

 

Dear Jagat Prabhu.

 

You probably very well understand English. Your remark in definition guru as is interesting. Your remark speaks about your good intelligence. But the situation guru means another.

 

a) Situation guru Absolutely

b) Guru this display of Supersoul.

c) the Person can become guru, when she realizes guru. (when she will understand who works.)

 

In spiritual science you can not eat mango. Why.

 

- Because at you it is not have mango.

- As you do not know as it(him) to eat

- because even thinking about mango during many life, mango to not appear.

 

Guru - gives you mango. In the beginning he eat him FOR YOU (because you are not able eat) and in due course we begin to understand:

 

1) That such mango

2) who has given me mango

3) as have given me mango

 

After that you can be guru. (3 categories)

 

You can try take off mango. But it grows too highly. It is possible try to shake a tree (studying sastra for example), but falling fruits will be broken. Therefore understanding ours unfortunate situation the GOD (!!) all has arranged. And as the God is the CLEVEREST person, therefore for this purpose what to rise on turn for mango it would be necessary -

 

1) Humility

2) humility

 

The humility does not mean silently itself. The humility means -

 

- To show reason

- to suffer(titiksa)

- to follow the instructions guru

- to hope for the God

- to work for the God (not important where - at work, in ISKCON, in GM, outside of organization.) - to trust in the spiritual teacher

- to worship an altar guru and gauranga

- to not think that our tiny brains are though what that value

 

Sastra can be clear without guru, if is not present guru, the supersoul will speak in this case. But guru is. Sastra speaks about necessity guru. Though sastra it as the form guru.

 

How mine English, Jagat Prabhu?

 

**Thus "The snake has skin."

"A snake has skin."

"All snakes have skin."

"I have skin, you have skin, we all have skin."

 

It so is difficult. Three months will seems to me a little.

 

O Govinda! I have fallen such deep. (fallen?)

 

I while have remembered only it - I am disciple. " I am ". Though it is necessary to notice with what that a pulse to study has appeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am give to you translation too. Knowlege sanskrit it is no knowlege spiritual life.

 

These two short sentences contain at least six or seven mistakes.

 

Though you have apparently understood something about "am", there is still more:

 

The verb "to be" is used as an auxiliary verb in what are called the "continuous" tenses. These tenses are not universal -- Polish doesn't have one, so I'll bet Russian doesn't either. French doesn't have one, so it takes a while for the French to get a hang of using it in English.

 

Whenever you are engaged in some action at a particular moment, you use the continous tense to describe it.

 

"I do something." This means I do it all the time, or regularly. "I eat tofu." This means that I eat tofu from time to time. But if I say "I AM EATING TOFU." It means that right now, in this very moment, I am engaged in the act of eating tofu.

 

The continuous tenses are formed of the verb "to be" PLUS the verb in its present participle form, i.e., you add "-ing" to the verb stem.

 

Thus "I am give to you translation" should be: I am giving you a translation.

 

From the look of it, however, you really meant to use a past tense here. The English tenses are tricky--there are more of them than in any language I know except Hindi.

 

Are you giving a translation right now? No.

Did you give a translation earlier? It seems that you did.

So you should have said:

 

I also gave you a translation.

 

But we will look at past tenses later. For the time being, try to master the present continuous tense:

 

I am eating. I am sleeping. I am mating. I am defending.

You are eating. You are sleeping. You are mating. You are defending.

He is eating. He is sleeping. He is mating. He is defending.

She is eating. She is sleeping. She is mating. She is defending.

It is eating. It is sleeping. It is mating. It is defending.

We are eating, sleeping, mating or defending.

You are eating. You are sleeping. You are mating. You are defending.

They are eating. They are sleeping. They are mating. They are defending.

 

Please observe the interrogative form:

 

Am I eating? Am I sleeping? Am I mating? Am I defending?

Are you eating? Are you sleeping? Are you mating? Are you defending?

Is he eating? Is he sleeping? Is he mating? Is he defending?

Is she eating? Is she sleeping? Is she mating? Is she defending?

Is it eating? Is it sleeping? Is it mating? Is it defending?

Are we eating? Are we sleeping? Are we mating? Are we defending?

Are you eating? Are you sleeping? Are you mating? Are you defending?

Are they eating? Are they sleeping? Are they mating? Are they defending?

 

Observe also the negative form. "not" goes after the auxiliary verb.

 

I am not eating.

You are not sleeping.

He is not mating.

She is not defending.

It is not walking.

We are not chanting.

You are not arguing.

The jivas are not falling from the spiritual world.

<hr>

Your first sentence contains other errors also. They are not as important as the verb tense, but betray an ignorance of English syntax.

 

I am give to you translation too.

 

When using the verb "to give", the indirect object (dative case) does not need the preposition "to."

 

Thus, "I give you my heart."

"I am giving you a translation, too."

 

The words "too" and "also.".

 

This is a bit subtle, so I will just say that you really want to use "also" here. It is an adverb and so should sit near the verb.

 

"I am also giving you a translation."

"I too am giving you a translation."

 

You need an article in front of "translation".

 

Now the question is which one, "a" or "the"?

 

Is it a specific translation that you gave? Or was it another translation out of many possible translations?

 

In this case, the answer is clearly the latter, because someone else gave a translation, you gave a translation, everyone is giving a translation. If you say, "I am giving you the translation, it (1) makes it seem as though you think that this is the only translation, or (2) you are refering to a specific translation from a specific context.

 

"I gave you the translation." I.e. This is what the Sanskrit means in English; there are no other possibilities.

 

OR, "I gave you the (specific) translation" that was found in Prabhupada's (or another) book, not another translation.

 

As I said earlier, mastering the use of articles is one of the most difficult things for non-English speakers, unless they have something similar in their own language (and even then there are often subtle differences, as with French and English.)

<hr>

That is already a big chunk, but your second sentence also cries out for comment.

 

Knowlege sanskrit it is no knowlege spiritual life.

 

There are at least three things that need to be pointed out in this sentence, my dear Kailasa. Here is the correct version:

 

Knowlege of Sanskrit is not knowlege of spiritual life.

 

You need "of" before "Sanskrit". Knowledge of what? Knowledge of Sanskrit. You might say Sanskrit knowledge, but that is an inferior choice in this sentence.

 

"It" is redundant, i.e., not necessary. "Knowledge of Sanskrit" is the subject of the sentence. "is" is the verb. What is "it" doing in this sentence? Nothing. It is a pronoun refering to "knowledge of Sanskrit", but it is not necessary until we start a new phrase or sentence.

 

Example: Knowledge of Sanskrit is good, but it is not the same as knowledge of spiritual life.

 

"No" is used in various ways, but when we want to negate a verb, we use "not". See the above negations of the present continuous tense.

 

"No" usually modifies a noun. "Sir, you are no John F. Kennedy.She is no spring chicken."

 

This is not quite the same as saying: "You are not John F. Kennedy.She is not a spring chicken."

 

It means something more like, "You really are nothing like John F. Kennedy.She really is nothing like a spring chicken."

 

Anyway that's all I have time for.

 

Kailasa, I expect you to take these lessons seriously. Take out your dictionary and look up any words you don't know. Practice repeating the corrected sentences. Practice using the verbs. Keep your answers short. You haven't got the time for philosophical discussions. You are now in a philosophical moratorium. You are learning English. You want to learn English. You need to learn English. When you know how to say what you mean in English, you can talk of other things.

 

I will deal with some things in your other post tomorrow, if I find the time. There is enough in there for three months all by itself.

 

Your servant,

 

Jagat

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Main Entry: mor·a·to·ri·um

Pronunciation: "mor-&-'tOr-E-&m, "mär-, -'tor-

Function: noun

 

1 a : a legally authorized period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation or the payment of a debt b : a waiting period set by an authority

2 : a suspension of activity

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kailasaji,

 

You really have to respect the moratorium, otherwise I will stop. I just saw a post on x--a very long one indeed.

 

Let me ask you a question: Are you trying to serve the devotees, or are you trying to make them suffer? Your brilliant realizations are clouded by your utter incapacity to express yourself in English. No doubt you are lighting up the Novgorod Vaishnava community with your insights, but trying to read your posts is like listening to the radio with a lot of static.

 

The first two sentences are almost incomprehensible. But let me say to you that this is the last time I will do this if I see that you are not taking it seriously. I know that you don't want to learn from an old Sahajiya like me, but I think that if you are smart you will take this chance to learn something useful. There is an 80% chance that five years from now you will be loading fish onto trucks in the Novgorod railway station and spitting on anyone that chants Hare Krishna. Then you will be able to say that at least you learned to speak English.

 

 

1. By him you simply have increased pride - " great, " rasika "( some GM ).”

 

What does this mean, “By him you simply have increased pride”?

 

By “him” are you refering to a person? It is not clear. Never use a pronoun without making clear the reference.

 

What does this mean “you simply have increased pride.” Is “increased” an adjective or a verb? If it is an adjective, “You have (possess) increased pride.” If a verb “you have increased”, then this is an indication that the “you” in question has been busily increasing his pride. Is this something that people do?

 

Now what is this “by him”? “You have been increasing your pride by him.” What can this possibly mean. Are you saying, “You are using him to increase your pride”?

 

Perhaps you mean, I suspect, “Through [saying, believing, doing] this, your pride in being a great rasika has simply increased, as we see in some Gaudiya Maths.”

 

This is still far from being a coherent sentence. And though there are several flaws in the latter part of the sentence, the worst flaw is “by him”, by far.

 

2. After the man has felt that he is great, he can be used.

 

This sentence actually almost makes grammatical sense. It is an interesting thought, therefore I don’t trust that it is what you meant. “After a man has (once) felt that he is great, he can be used. (by whom?)” This is perhaps true—when one becomes proud, he can be manipulated. It sounds much like what goes on in cults—people are inflated with the idea that they have the “one way to God, the one truth” and are then used and manipulated by the cult leaders. Is this what you meant to say? If not, please try to clarify the thought in concise clear English. Ask a friend to help you. I do not want to wade through six paragraphs.

 

I have now been analyzing two sentences you wrote for 45 minutes. My time is valuable, Kailasa. I am giving it to you free of charge. Use it, don’t abuse it. It may take you an entire day to understand what I have written here. Find books on English. Look up these points. Open your dictionary. Learn the vocubulary that you don’t know. Let’s go. Work hard on your English. No wasting time cutting and pasting and trying to explain things when you have no tools to do so. You are like a car with maple syrup in the tank. How can you go anywhere?

 

 

3. These low you high.

 

This is another enigmatic sentence. Are you paraphrasing the prideful thoughts of a puffed up devotee?

 

“These” is again a pronoun with no clear antecedent. It takes perfect knowledge of English to be concise, Kailasa. Spell out what you mean. Think carefully about what you are saying and say each part of it.

 

===> Do you mean: “The prideful person thinks, ‘All these people are low, while I am high.”?

 

SPELL IT OUT.

 

Of course, “I am high” in English does not mean what you want. Standing alone it can only mean “high on drugs.” You need another adjective: “great, something special, the bee’s knees, a fugleman, a Cadillac and a Rolls-Royce, number one, a standout, a record-breaker, one in a million, a whizbang, a whizkid, a world beater and a tough act to follow, a mover and shaker.”

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use of the citation by a wrong image have leaded into error, as though the purpose of spiritual life is their pleasure.

 

A longer, more complex sentence. Good effort. Some positive things here.

 

Lesson. Verb past tenses.

 

Like German, English has a lot of irregular past tense forms. This is not unusual, but it is a pain in the neck. If you have a German-English dictionary, it probably has a list of these verbs. A quick search on the Internet turns up a gazillion sites with irregular verbs. Here is the first one: http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/jones.htm. There is a self-test on there that would probably be helpful.

 

All that to say “leaded” should be “led”. “Leaded” means “with the metal lead” like leaded gasoline.

 

Still many problems: “Use of the citation” What citation? “wrong image” What wrong image? What do you mean? Do you mean “Even the Devil can quote scripture to his own ends.”?

 

There is also a deeper, more fundamental problem with this sentence. The subject in the first half doesn't seem to match the second half of the sentence. The key is the pronoun "their." Who is it refering to?

 

“Use of the citation by a wrong image have leaded into error, as though the purpose of spiritual life is their pleasure.”

 

“Using quotations with an incorrect understanding leads one into error, that is, that the purpose of spiritual life is one’s own pleasure.”

 

The problem here is – how does using quotations incorrectly lead one into error. Obviously one is already in error if he is misquoting scripture. Is this malicious person using scriptures with a wrong understanding to induce others into error? Is he using scripture to convince people that they can please their senses in the name of serving God?

 

So today's lesson, had I thought about it more carefully and patiently, would have been PRONOUNS. Make sure that you are clearly refering to an well-established antecedent when you use a pronoun. Know the difference between "he, she, it, they," and use them appropriately.

 

Hour's up. That'll be 500 roubles. Jagat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Kailasa,

 

I am sorry if I sound a bit impatient. I am rather busy and evidently this is not my prefered activity.

 

I ask that you read my posts on this thread carefully. Study them. Use them to direct your research into English. Rewrite the sentences that are under the microscope and try to improve them so they say exactly what you want them to say.

 

Language is a precise instrument. If you use it imprecisely, you will not achieve your goal of communication. Even those who have mastered the use of a language are constantly misunderstood, what to speak of those who use it imprecisely.

 

If there is anyone else out there reading this thread----one contributor on another thread said he was an English teacher--I have two requests.

 

Contribute comments and better explanations where I have rushed through. It is obvious that I sometimes bite off more than I can chew. It looks like one Kailasa sentence provides ample fodder for a day's lesson. If I take two or three, I am overextending myself.

 

Secondly, if you see Kailas post another one of his labyrinthine messages on another thread or forum, DO NOT ENGAGE WITH HIM, but simply give him the URL of this thread and tell him to pay attention to his English lessons instead of wasting his time.

 

I don't know what you do all day, Kailasa, but time is precious. Learn English and Srila Prabhupada may one day send you to the USA to preach the Holy Name. Just think that Prabhupada has inspired me to do this service just for you. This is not me who is doing this, but Krishna and Srila Prabhupada who are doing it through me.

 

Thank you,

 

Jagat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<font color=darkblue>I am seriously sceptical whether Kailasa will take the lesson from you. I have tried to express a very clear thought to him dozens of times, but he persistently avoids registering it. In a very lucid language I have expressed general guidelines which would be helpful in improving the quality of the dialogue, advices such as "don't quote translations without the original Sanskrit in philosophical debates". Then Kailasa goes on to quote texts without the original Sanskrit again. What I mean to say is that in addition to shaping up the linguistic side of his persona, he may need to pay serious attention to carefully reading and registering input from others. Would that be out of question, Kailasa?</font>

 

<hr>

I have translated the above text to a language I hope Kailasa will understand. The translation has been produced by first translating the sentence into Russian with Translate.Ru's online translator ( http://www.translate.ru/eng/erre.asp?directions=131073 ) and then back into English with Altavista's Babelfish ( http://babelfish.altavista.com ).

 

<hr>

<font color=darkred>Seriously skeptical will, take Kailasa lesson from you. I tried to express very clear thought to it the sets of times, but it constantly avoids to record this. In the very clear language I expressed the general leading principles, which would be useful in an improvement in the quality of dialogue, councils of the type "do not indicate the translations without the original Sanskrit in the philosophical debates". Then Kailasa continues to indicate texts without the original Sanskrit again. What I want to speak - that that in addition to formation linguistic side its persona, it can was it must turn serious attention to thoroughly reading and registration of entrance from others. This would be excluded, Kailasa?</font>

 

<hr>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kailasa, I implore you to take Jagat's English lessons as seriously as he has. They're not here as a joke or to make fun of you. He offers them as a service to you and other members of this board, and they require considerable patience to compose. I teach English for a living. and I freely admit that I've never had the patience or humility to offer you the instruction you need.

 

Language, as Jagat says, is a precise instrument; therefore, it must be used carefully. Don Murray, a former English professor at the University of New Hampshire and a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, offers this definition of a writer: ". . . an individual who uses language to discover meaning in experience and communicate it." We must have something worth saying, and we must say it in a way our readers can easily apprehend. Your reluctance to take this seriously may make some readers suspect you hold them in contempt.

 

It has previously been suggested that Kailasa may be writing in Russian, then running his stuff through a translation program. raga's latest experiment suggests further that this may be so. Kailasa, if that's the case, please stop doing so. It doesn't work. To prove it to yourself, try running your Russian writing through the English translation program, then translate that back to Russian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, come clean, Kailasa. Are you using an automated translator? If that is the case, then we may have to do things completely differently.

 

Thank you, Stonehearted, for your support.

 

I translate for a living and have a degree in translation from McGill University. The professors in the programme often gave demonstrations of translation software to instill confidence in the students that their job prospects were not in immediate danger of being taken away by machines.

 

I tried once or twice to use such software, thinking that perhaps it would give me a little headstart on a job. But in the end I found out that the time it takes to get the first draft of a translation on my own followed by editing my own version was less than that needed to edit the automated translation. Misunderstood terms, corrupted idioms, etc., send you scurrying back to the original to unravel strange mysteries so often that in the end there is no point in using it for anything more complex than "The book is good."

 

I hope that international relations never depends on automated translations. We'd have a war the very next day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I got it, I've been browsing though different online translators to figure out whether Kailasa is using one. I have processed my post above in a couple of processors. Here are the results.

<font color=darkblue>

http://translation2.paralink.com/

 

I seriously skeptical will be whether to take Kailasa a lesson from you. I tried to express very clear idea to it(him) sets of times, but it(he) constantly avoids to register it. In very clear language I have expressed the general(common) managing principles which would be useful in improvement of quality of dialogue, councils(on advice of) of this type " do not quote translations without the original the Sanskrit in philosophical debate ". Then Kailasa pursues to quote texts without the original the Sanskrit once again. That I want to speak - that in addition to formation a linguistic side(on the part of) his(its) person, it(he) should turn a close attention on carefully reading and registration of an input(entrance) from others. It would be excluded, Kailasa?</font>

 

<font color=darkred>http://www.rustran.com/socrat.php4

 

I shall seriously be sceptical independently Kailasa will take the section from You. I tried to express same clear thought him dozens of time, but he persistently avoids to register this. On same clear language, which I have expressed the general managing principles, which will be useful on improvement quality dialogue, advice such as, "not to refer to translations without original Sanskrit in philosophical debate". Then Kailasa continues to refer to texts without original Sanskrit once again. That I want to speak, - that in addition to shaping up linguistical sides of his(its) persona, him possible it is necessary to turn serious attention to carefully reading and registerring contribution from others. There was that to be from question, Kailasa?</font>

 

Note the "it(he)" etc. expressions which are often found in his posts.

 

Sample: "By and large soul does not fall from the spiritual world, because she(it) here by nothing Influences." (text here)

 

Note how there is no space between she and (it). Don't forget the occasional /'s in the middle of sentences, leftovers from deleting multiple entries from the translator. Add the fact that you often see sophisticated words in the midst of very poorly structured sentences, and I think we have the answer.

 

In concluding, I'll present a masterpiece of online translation.

 

<font color=darkgreen>http://www.tranexp.com:2000/

 

I am deep sceptical if Kail pleasure finger the lection against thou. I had assay near convey a anxiously articulate idea near him dicker against fardel, alone he churlish aback cartulary he. At a anxiously articulate bat I had convey aggregate guidelines which pleasure am of avail at susceptible, the character against the colloquy, advice such as "do not cite rendering minus the initial Sanscrit at philosophic agitate". Now Kail goes against near cite book minus the initial Sanscrit afresh. As I mean near breathe am such in addition to build up the linguistic half against his face, he may need near disburse after as - in fond remembrance of deep attention near carefully peruse ampersand cartulary inlet against another. Pleasure such be out against enquiry, Kail?</font>

 

Pretty sophisticated. I'm glad he doesn't use this one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this coming up when he first began posting.He does use a translator, or at least did then.

 

I hope someone comes up with a better one soon, so we can communicate well with this prabhu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am studi. I am needs print posts with translator.

 

 

And you say you understand very well.

 

 

 

I am not raganuga Eanglana, I am sadhana Eangland.

 

 

Raganuga is also a part of sadhana. At any rate, you should get a guru for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dear Kailasa ji,

First of all let me say that nobody should criticize you just because you do not know English well. I know English, but you do not know it well. So what? You know Russian but I do not. In fact, you know English far more than I know Russian. I really appreciate it that, in spite of your problems with English, you take pains to post here to the best of your ability.

But, if you can improve your knowledge of English a little bit, then it will help all those who read your post. It will help you also to understands the posts of others better.

Jagat ji has started this thread for your benefit. So, why not avail this facility? Just think. You will learn a new language! Then you can tell me, "Avinash, I know both English and Russian, but you know only English." /ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif Then I will not be able to say anything other than just keeping my mouth shut. /ubbthreads/images/icons/frown.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...