User Comments - Grambers
Grambers
Posted on: Legalize It?
December 19, 2012 at 11:14 AM作为一个在青少年时期吸了挺多大麻的人，我绝对可以证实大麻很少产生’幻觉‘和’快感‘这些效果。我从来没有体验了这种的感觉。或者，是不是毒品贩子骗我了，买给我仿品吗？：）
Posted on: A Qing Wen to Our Listeners
December 19, 2012 at 10:55 AMI've totally forgotten where I should submit QW lesson ideas. I hope this gets picked up...somehow, somewhen...
How about a QW on the 化 or 性 suffices? These have puzzled me for a long time. I was reminded of this when looking at the 'Legalize It' Upper Intermediate lesson where 合法化 was translated as 'legalization', but also meant to legalise. One of the first bits of Chinese I really began to look at was a neon-sign in a small Guangdong city which declared the city to be a place of 生态化 and 现代化，which didn't seem to make any sense when translated directly.
性 is similarly enigmatic, proving very useful in turning a noun into an adjective 政治 into 政治性 but appearing to have lots of rules as to when and where it can be used.
Can you help?!?
Posted on: The Chinese Experience
December 19, 2012 at 10:41 AMReally helpful QW. Thanks team:)
Posted on: Legalize It?
December 17, 2012 at 2:17 PMThe reefer in the lesson pic looks about six yards long! Rather reminds me of the 'Camberwell Carrot' in Withnail and I. Was 'reefer' in the vocab list, btw?
Posted on: Class Elections
December 17, 2012 at 1:03 PMOooh, love this line from the expansion....I feel its resonance very deeply indeed!
学语言要是不开口说的话，学了也白学
Posted on: Interviews: Obama or Romney?
December 13, 2012 at 11:32 AMBut your focus on the fact that many people 'guessed' seven names correctly proves my point, I think. Yes, it's harder for facts - basic, cold, hard facts - to be kept out of the public domain thanks to changes in communications over the last 30 years or so. But this does not mean that those same people understand completely WHY those seven names were what they were, and what this means for China's future direction. So - back to my point number 1 - the inner workings remain ENTIRELY OPAQUE, even if the occasional morsel of 'information' leaks out. 'Inner workings' are less about 'output' than they are about 'process', and the process is still anyone's guess.
Posted on: The Glorious 了(le): Part 2
November 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM不要 is probably slightly more likely to make sense in the context of a friend/relative offering you tea or food, and may sound a little bit more polite (more so if you add 谢谢, I guess). 不用 will also work too. However, it seems to me that 不用 connotes a feeling of someone providing you with a 'service'. You might well say '不用' to someone peddling you some thing or other on the street. It's for that reason that I'd probably prefer 不要 but others may well say that, actually, they're pretty much the same. Again, I defer to a native speaker....any natives out there who want to chip in? - See more at: http://chinesepod.com/lessons/the-glorious-%E4%BA%86le-part-2#comment-245611
Posted on: The Glorious 了(le): Part 2
November 28, 2012 at 4:18 PM不要 is probably slightly more likely to make sense in the context of a friend/relative offering you tea or food, and may sound a little bit more polite (more so if you add 谢谢, I guess). 不用 will also work too. However, it seems to me that 不用 connotes a feeling of someone providing you with a 'service'. You might well say '不用' to someone peddling you some thing or other on the street. It's for that reason that I'd probably prefer 不要 but others may well say that, actually, they're pretty much the same. Again, I defer to a native speaker....any natives out there who want to chip in?
Posted on: American Chinese Food
November 28, 2012 at 10:45 AMAbsolutely. Haven't listened yet (so a bit presumptuous of me to comment, perhaps), but this seems like a cracking lesson topic. Like John, I can't quite believe that it's taken so long to tackle. I'm looking forward to finding out whether the general US view on Chinese food is similar to the UK's (ie. whether most people reckon it's all about the chicken chow meen and sweet and sour pork balls)
Posted on: Legalize It?
December 19, 2012 at 11:21 AMI think this phrase - 我这个人最开明了 - is such a strange one to the English speaking ear...refering to yourself both in the first person AND the third person within the same sentence. It just can't possibly work in English, yet is such a common construction in Chinese. That said, this is the first time I've heard it applied to speaker him/herself. I think I've started to get used to it being used in the second person - '你这个人怎么这么固执' - but, first person...wow, conceptually very tricky!