MikiRei

Should be

"Are you abusing drugs, or are the drugs abusing you?"

Note: DON'T use Google Translate. It'll never be perfect.

請問你學英文的目的是什麼?

是想考好試還是想真的學會與溝通?

如果只是考好試, 哪多練習任何考試都行

想真的學會, 多看, 聽, 說, 寫

考試用的英文跟實際用英文差很多的

考好試並不代表你一定會用英文溝通

GL

Can you teach us about the skill that can make your conversation more smoothly, or share with us your personal experience ^^ ?

Talk more. Do a bit of reverse logic here.

Example:

Q: Why am I able to converse in Chinese so easily?

A: Because I converse in it 24/7. I'm USED to it.

Now reverse this:

Q: How are English speakers able to converse in English so easily?

A: Because they converse in it 24/7. They're USED to it.

Solution: Converse more in English and you'll get used to it.

Good luck!

學拉丁文會讓你的歐語係語言的文法很好

要是想要英文好, 學拉丁文是不賴的

再來你愛學什麼歐語係語言, 隨便你

會比較好上手

Double post. Please delete

我抄在紙上的把中文遮起來

都能知道英文的意思"但好像僅限於那張紙"

That's because you're relying on your visual memory but in reality, you're not actually absorbing the word at all.

我以前背生字的時候會大聲唸

另外, 我媽會考我

醬就會逼頭腦去想

看紙了話, 頭腦會認出單子在紙上的順序而聯想中文意思的順序

沒紙了話, 當然就記不起來

另外要多看書, 才懂得怎麼運用單字

在看句子的時候才容易認出來

背的時候最好造句子來背

eg.

tea: She likes to drink tea more than she likes to drink coffee.

That way, you force yourself to internalise the vocabulary as much as possible.

Another way is instead of using the Chinese meaning, use pictures.

eg. dog = <place picture of a dog>

Vocabulary is only a label to objects (or feelings, whatever). It's arbitrary and we understand vocabulary/words in our mother tongue through our senses.

The problem with learning second languages is we like to translate it to our mother tongue (fair enough) but if you think about it, you're translating the label in your mother tongue to your imagination, your senses, your feelings - whatever.

You have to do the same to the second language - by relating it to your senses, rather than your mother tongue. Else you're doing 2 translations in one go. Slows you down.

如果一個一個找例句

所以我想請教有背大量單字

因為用途是用來考試的~~

哪多練習考試題就好了

How can you find ways to chat with foreigner ?

　Chat-room webside ? or foreign forum ?

You can try reddit.com. It's like Digg only the comments and the user base are a lot more intelligent and you get less flame wars in there.

Either sign up to random subreddit or a subreddit of your topic of interest. Political or philosophical subreddits usually generate a lot of really long (if not overly long sometimes) and insightful responses.

ike any INCECTs....

It's "insects"

At my school, we just say "Class 1", or "Group 1", provided the subject is graded. Or Extension class - but not like we're "gifted" or anything but since we do very well, we have the capacity to learn more things so we "extend" our education by getting into "Extension class". There really isn't a specific term. Completely depends on the country/school itself.

Anyway, I mean, a culture that considers themselves equal or even inferior to nature

doesn't neccessarily go without owning a land.

Well, of course nothing is ABSOLUTE. It's only a theory and observation some scientists had observed which is interesting.

NOMADIC culture do view themselves as part of nature more so than "civilised" culture. However, yes, in a sense, I'm sure they still feel ownership over something. It's just a question of how MUCH of the feeling of ownership they have. Personally, I reckon humans are just naturally selfish and possessive to begin with. It's how we survive.

I own this real estate, but the world---including this real estate---- is still owned by Mother Nature.

The first "own" is not quite the same with the second.

This real estate belongs to Mother Nature, so I shall not use it in an unatural way,

but still, if you come and use this real estate without my permission, I will call the police.

That was what I meant by using the terms of "divine ownership" and "personal ownership"

Yes - I get your point here.....but....that line of thinking.....is when humans started to transition to a more ORGANISED society.

Noone said it happened overnight. Of course it was gradual.

What the documentary was saying that INITIALLY, we just viewed ourselves as part of the order of nature.

Once you start talking about the difference between "personal" ownership and "divine" ownership, that's already transitioned past the point where we no longer see ourselves as PART of nature. Of course, what you've described there is either

1. during the transition period between non-organised to more organised society

2. very modern way of thinking that only started when we got more environmentally conscious

The term "divine" is a concept of a higher order - which also means understanding the concept of religion - which again, then means we've transitioned passed the idea of being just a part of nature rather than above nature.

I think maybe the discrepancy in our understanding is that by knowing we're a part of nature, I meant in an animalistic sense. More like, humans have not even established the concept of "nature", "higher order" and their "place" within nature. It's more like how animals don't even question whether they are above nature or part of nature. It's a concept that doesn't even occur to them.

Possibly, that's where the documentary is getting at.

Defining whether we're part of nature already means we are conscious of the difference, or the individuality of "us" (human) and what's "out there" or around us or "nature".

also, this is why I don't consider it a good idea to think that as long as we started to own things,

we are considering that we own nature.

No, it's not a good idea....but many people DO think that way. Good thing YOU don't think that way but most people do.

Think about mining companies. Do you really think they bother establishing the fact that the land they own still belongs to mother nature? No, they're just thinking about the amount of minerals they can dig and how much profit they'll get out of it.

....I think it's best if you can find that documentary and watch it for yourself. THEN we can discuss. Otherwise, we'll just discuss in circles because we're not coming from the same page. On that note, I should also watch that documentary in full :p. It was just something I managed to come across on TV that I thought was interesting.

Google is your friend

多看書

多寫文章

文法死背可是一輩子也背不熟

要懂得運用

多用才能上手

Well, the point I wish to establish is that chinese culture did not rely on a religion to develop itself. Surely Chinese people invented a lot of gods, but none of them stands a dominent place in the develop of the culture. The dominent ideology of chinese culture is Confusionism, which is not a religion.

Fair,fair. No contest there.

Also, I don't think we should link the presence of the concept of ownership with the thought of being above nature......In UK, THEORETICALLY the queen owns everything, but if the queen take a piece of cake from a civillian on the street by force or whatever, it is still going to be illegal.

That is, even if someone believe him/herself as part of nature, and therefore believe everything to be owned by Mother Nature, he/she will still have something that is not allowed to be taken by anyone else.

or maybe we should say, the concept of "mother nature owns everything" does not actually conflict with the concept of "there is something that belongs to me", divine ownership is different from inter-personnel ownership.

...........errrm...I think you're missing my point again...

By "ownership", I meant personal ownership. The idea of "owning nature". As in, thinking the earth as a property rather than a peer. Something that we are a part of.

In modern culture, we definitely treat "nature" or the Earth as property. We can buy land, we can sell it, we can build things on it. It's something we OWN.

The point you made about the Queen...ummm..yeah. I think you're missing the mark there......

Being "above nature" doesn't mean thinking you're above everyone else as your example there makes (at least that's what I THINK you're saying). All the documentary was saying is we do not think of ourselves EQUAL to nature. Nature is an ASSET to us.

Finally, some corrections:

Well, the point I wish to establish is that Chinese culture did not rely on a religion to develop itself. Of course Chinese people invented a lot of gods, but none of them played a dominant role in the development of our culture. The dominantt ideology of the Chinese culture is Confusionism, which is not a religion.

Also, I don't think we should link the presence of the concept of ownership with the thought of being above nature......In UK, THEORETICALLY the Queen owns everything, but if the Queen takes a piece of cake from a civilian on the street by force or whatever, it is still going to be illegal.

That is, even if someone believes him/herself as part of nature, and therefore believes everything to be owned by Mother Nature, he/she will still have something that is not allowed to be taken by anyone else. Or maybe we should say, the concept of "mother nature owns everything" does not actually conflict with the concept of "there is something that belongs to me", divine ownership is different from personal ownership.

well that is a interesting and pursuasive theory.

but according to that theory, confusionism will be categorized as religion!

because confucious created "Tao" (different one from Taoism) to be above human.

actually they have the concept of god as well, just not as clear as the Abraham religions.

BTW, what about the religions that prey nature as god? they did not invent the religion because they consider themselves above nature.....

I'm quite sure Confucius didn't make Taoism the default religion....

In fact, if you read up on Taoism, Taoism is actually about controlling the mind. That is, control your emotions so that you are able to think rationally at all times. Over time, due to superstition, people started throwing in all these random Gods into it until it became what it is right now where we have THOUSANDS of Gods to pray to and various temples dedicated to each. Adding fusion with Hinduism and Buddhism, the Chinese "religion" (if you may call it) is like some hybrid child of various ancient religion, mashed into one.

Regardless, that still supports the theory. The Chinese culture did start to create religion. In fact, before Confucius came along, the Chinese culture already HAD a religion. Think about it. River Gods? Rain Gods? Sacrificing girls to the River God in hopes he won't flood the land? Religion definitely played a part in Chinese culture. Why else do we have so many temples right now?

Religions that still pray to nature - well, if you think about it, for example, the American Indians and Indigenous Australians, they actually don't think they OWN nature. They still believe they are PART of nature. In the case of American Indian, I think they are in a transition stage. That is, they already have a concept of owning things (hence tribal wars I'm guessing) but since they're still by and large nomadic, they haven't yet think of themselves as being ABOVE nature or that they own it.

Indigenous Australis were even more so when the English came so I think that still supports that theory.

Try and search up for it if you're interested. I only remember in SUMMARY what the entire documentary was about.

我想讀MIT是因為我所景仰的同學已經往那裏發展了

.....意思是你並不是想讀MIT, 而是因為朋友在哪所以才想去讀?

面試時你這樣答, 人家會想收嗎? @_@

那澳洲AMC要不要考呢?

What is AMC may I ask? Google tells me "American Mathematics Contest". Since it's American, then no. Australia won't give a crap. It'll HELP when applying for scholarships, but otherwise, no.

你澳洲是想念那裡? 那一個科系?

澳洲大學很好進的

分數拿到就ok了

我家的經濟狀況算不上富裕僅小康而已

國外的私校學費都不便宜

我覺得還是需要瞭解一下再作評估

我想Sky想'講的是, 有好成績, 那怕你沒講學金可拿

從你這一篇文章可以看出來, 你根本不是很想念MIT吧?

只是想留學, 哪個大學能念就好

能念好的就念好的

大家都問了很多次, 你為什麼想念?

想讀哪一科?

你也沒確實回答

連確實的目摽跟理由都說不出來

別人有怎麼能幫你呢?

(Excuse my less than well-practiced Chinese just by the way)

Anyway, we should agree that Chinese culture based more on Confusionism

instead of Taoism and Buddhism, right?

Well, yes but it certainly isn't RELIGION. We don't pray to Confucious :p

Still, I think it is indeed natural for ancient human to invent religion to

explain those existance that exceeds their range of understanding and ability,

also, religion is quite useful when it comes to building up a social order.

(and reinforce the ruler/dominaror/king/emperor's power as well)

I watched a documentary the other day and it was quite fascinating.

It was analysing how human civilisation is formed throughout history based on ancient artifacts dug up from the ground.

Basically, before humans learned to cultivate the land eg. grow crops, in order to survive, they hunt. While they were hunting, they see themselves as being equal, or part of nature (which they are).

Once they started to cultivate the land and hunting became more advanced through tools, humans no longer see themselves as equal or part of nature, but rather, ABOVE nature. This is when they find evidence of religion (eg. things used in rituals) starting to pop up. The theory is because we no longer feel like we are a part of nature, we have to create another being above ourselves to feel less guilty in "owning" nature.

After religion is formed, the idea of "ownership" began to form and that's when crime starts to happen. Through crime, social order begin to naturally form and that's when laws are created, chiefs are elected etc.etc. - and the rest is history.

The documentary also states that they are looking at current tribes in the world that had yet to be touched by the outer world to see whether this pattern also forms as their culture starts to become "civilised".

That'd be amazing of you to do : )

Hmmm......now that you mention it, I realised something interesting. I like point forms. In all my exams at school, if it's not English, then I write my answer in point form if I can 'cause I just can't weave pretty sentences that well.

But yes...I am verbose here...I think it's because I just type as I think.

By the way, the socceroos... oh dear oh dear, got crushed by us xDDDD

Oh shoosh you.

But then again, Aussies had NEVER been good at soccer :p I was asleep during that game. Those ppl staying up at 4am werecrazzzyyyy

Though we DID beat the Japs last Fifa :p

區分不了

Just describe it in detail if you need to.

I am a chinese canadian

This can sometimes be confused as being half-Chinese, and half-Canadian. Another way of describing this is "Canadian of Chinese descent".

Sorry to be so verbose.

Maybe next time I write in point form? :p

至於聽力...就真的很差很差了，我沒這個天分啊...我先天上聽力就是比別人差

我真的沒這種天分

難道你中文的聽力也差嗎?

這跟天分沒關悉

是靠練習

你天天聽中文, 中文聽力當然好

盡量天天聽英文, 一樣也能練好

Good luck~~~~~

其實英文(或其它外文)好不好跟有沒有出國沒有那麼絕對的關係科科

+1

是你想不想學好

I'm dating one. I guess that's helping him? Lol.

Ok. Fine. I'll stop trolling. It's questions like these that make me come back here.

EVERYTHING'S over-photo shopped these days.

Do you know they can do REAL-TIME airbrushing these days? Yeah, that's right. When you're watching live tv, a computer is touching up on the image you're seeing in front of you.

"bella's lalloby"

Bella's Lullaby

七月可能會回去....

聽說學德文

英文底子好的話會輕鬆很多喔

也沒輕鬆多少

看是大致看的懂

文法可是複雜的要命 (沒日文複雜倒是)