puupia: LOL, it's fun indeed. I typed “What the hell are you talking about, moron?” and it ended up with “Do you like silly stories?”

fukuhara: Translation Party is a quite amusing application. It translates english phrases into japanese and then back to english. It continues translating between those two languages until it gets same english phrase two times in a row. Phrase in this link is from the description of this board. Experiment with different phrases and you might get some amazing results.

I have very limited knowledge of japanese but i still find this site very good fun. It should be even better if you're fluent in both languages. It really shows how automated translation still has a long way to go.

Milioi, Gouwe gozer: In my opinion, bad translation is always worse than no translation (and the translation of “príjemnú hru” as “enjoyable game” is as bad a translation as one can be). If people want to use Google Translator, so be it, but they should be aware of the fact that they will rarely get a translation of the original sentence, especially in the case of linguistically distant languages.

Milioi: I agree with you but I started the same discussion a few months ago too and is hopeless in my opinion Some people here just accept ONLY the most perfect translation and all other translations are wrong, bull or worse so I didn't reply anymore
I use " http://imtranslator.com/ " and it gives another different translation. But it gives me the idea what way I have to think about a translation, that's important and enough in my opinion I didn't ask for a perfect line, I asked for a translation, and that's what I receive It is usefull for me

Pedro Martínez: I agree that Google Translate is not perfect, but it is much better to have translation from there, when you do not understand a word. You can at least find out what the sentence could be about. And anyway the translation wasn't so bad this time, was it?

fukuhara: Thanks, but I'll keep using google translator for now. Let me know if you found another links worth checking on.

h657: Software translation has its limits particularly between Japanese and English is just terrible it still needs help from human experts.

Pedro Martínez:

Pedro Martínez: Thanks Pedro! Yea, you're right, google translator sucks.

h657: Hey, today I decided to try this chess variant. Enjoy the game. Štefan.

Google Translator sucks.

aaru: this translate.google.com will help me enjoy not only playing but communicate with everyone around the world. Thanks again aaru. :)

h657: http://translate.google.com/#

aaru: thank you so much for your help :)

Hello, today I took courage, and try variations of this type of chess, enjoyable game. Stephen. - google translator ;)

Can anyone tranlate this for me, please. Ahoj dnes som nabral odvahu a skúsim tento druh šachovej variacie, príjemnú hru. Štefan.

rod03801: Interesting. So native speakers might have different ideas on the same subject. Thanks for your comment, and looking forward to seeing more replies from native speakers. You and your friends may not realize it, but you're of great help to me. I appreciate that.

King Reza: Personally, I agree with you, in the post where you expanded upon your question. To me, each time, #1 is the only one that sounds correct to me.

GTCharlie: Ahh, I see. Thanks.

King Reza: 2 sounds best when making a veiled accusation, 3 would work if the speaker showed doubt about his statement,like after a pause "... didn't she?"

fukuhara: Perhaps it's wiser to state what I really have in mind rather than try to implicitly make native speakers confirm or reject it:

The tag question must be based on the main verb in the statement and must agree with the subject of the main verb as well, right?

In 1, there's no problem. I know that. But 3, grammatically speaking, is quite parallel with 1. So, again, grammatically speaking, 3 should be well-formed. However, it seems semantically speaking, it sounds odd.

2, on the other hand, seems to be grammatically wrong, at least as far as my knowledge of grammar says. But it seems to be OK to native speakers despite the fact that the tag question is based not on the main verb and its subject, but on the verb used in the embedded clause and its subject.

In other words, I want native speakers to tell me if a tag question can be based on the embedded clauses or not. Here are more examples which may help:


(For the sake of semantic problems, I won't use 'I' to start my sentences)

Statement: He knows you know she went out last night,....?


Possible tag questions:

1) doesn't he?
2) don't you?
3) didn't she?

(My knowledge says only number 1 is OK)

But, if I change the 'he' at the beginning of my statement with 'I', it seems things change:

Statement: I know you know she went out out last night, ...?

1) don't I?
2) don't you?
3) didn't she?

Here, it seems, based on the replies I got, that strikingly number 2 is OK, while nothing has really changed compared with the previous example.

I want natives to comment on my assumptions, please. Just tell me if they sound OK or not. Thanks in advance.

King Reza:
3) Sounds strange because the speaker ask what he think to himself. It is only possible in thought. But strange as a question.

King Reza: I would go with #1........ #2 and especially #3 do not work

Could a native speaker of English (as well as anyone who's not a native, but good at it) tell me if the following tag questions are right or not?

1) You think I have two brothers, don't you?
2) I think you have two brothers, don't you?
3) I think you have two brothers, don't I?

fukuhara: Thank you. I appreciate it.

King Reza:
In general :
I was running very fast after seeing the dog
is enough.
But if you have already known the dog or if the dog has bad reputation for attacking someone. On that case, your original sentense makes sense to me.

rod03801: Thank you very much.

King Reza: Yes, to me, it sounds fine.

rod03801: Suppose you're saying that sentence as if you're telling a personal story for someone:

"One day, as I was walking in the forest, I saw a really big dog. After some minutes it ran towards me and I started to run away. Usually, I am not a fast runner. But, I was running very fast after I had seen that huge dog. ..."

Do you think it sounds OK in this context?

And thanks for your help. I really appreciate it.

King Reza: I personally would have said "I ran very fast after I saw the huge dog", but I imagine technically your sentence is fine.

Honestly though, I forget all those rules I learned in Junior High English with diagramming sentences. I know some were pretty strict.

Is the following sentence OK?

I was running very fast after I had seen the huge dog.

Pedro Martínez: Thanks a lot. You're really helpful.

Pedro Martínez:

King Reza: I may be wrong, but I think that there is no difference between those sentences in terms of their meaning and effect. However, “by” implies some tiresome activity having been performed for some time before the end of the day and emphasizes the end of the day as the time when we were all tired as the result. On the contrary, the sentence with “at” merely states that we were all tired and when we were all tired, irrespective of what caused our tiredness and in particular when the cause of our tiredness occurred. (It was extremely hard to convince the Greenpeace people that the global warming is a hoax and we were all tired by the end of the day. vs We were all tired at the end of the day and none of us wanted to go to the movie theater.)

But I would definitely wait for a native speaker to comment on this. Who am I to interpret the English language? :)

Is there any difference between the following sentences?

1) We were all tired BY the end of the day.
2) We were all tired AT the end of the day.

Brainking has Chinese localization already. But as some of Asians know very well, there are two types of Mandarin Chinese, the style based on Chinese Character styles.

1 Simplified Character: Current BrainKing localization. Used in Mainland China.
2 Large-stroke Character: Used mainly in Taiwan and Hong Kong. And lots of Asian Chinese understand this version.

There are many softwares for converting simplified to large-stroke. But as a matter of integrity I propose that human translators of large-stroke version are necessary. Taiwanese may best fit for this job. And it is not so difficult because simplified Chinese is already there. (And new Chinese translator from Shanghai will fill the rest soon.)

fukuhara: I've heard opposite usage.

I've read of a movie as being set in modern day China and conversely as taking place during the time when Genghis Khan was making trouble.

King Reza:
As far as your original example says, "set in" is used as based in "the history and culture" and takes place suggests it is currently ongoing.
take place is often used as "happen" or "occur" and the its usage is limited to intransitive verb phrases. That means someone cannot "take place" anything. While someone can "make it happen".
SET IN is used as transitive phrase so someone can "set in" anything. As movie itself cannot take transitive verb form passive form can be used here.

King Reza: That sounds good to me and the answer is: No, there is not. :)

Bwild: Of course. Sorry if I've caused any trouble :D

Pedro Martínez: How about this: Is there any difference between when a movie is SET IN China and when it TAKES PLACE there?

Pedro Martínez: lol

Bwild: Sure. You're definitely more qualified than I am, after all.

Pedro Martínez: since it doesnt make any sense, might I add my two cents?

King Reza: This doesn't make any sense to me. Your original question did though.

Bwild: I reread my sentences and I got how I had written them poorly.

I should have written: Is there a difference between a movie's being set in China and ITS ( not it's) taking place there.

Bwild: being comes form is, doesn't it. I just used it in a different sentence and naturally I used being instead of is. I couldn't say " Is there any difference between a movie's IS set in China and it's taking place in China."

Anyway, now, is there any difference between these two sentences?


The movie takes place in China.

The movie is set in China.

King Reza: "It's a new action movie that is set in ancient China. Michelle Yeoh is in it."
"is set" in this instance ....
"being set" was your 1st example. "Hi. Is there any difference between a movie's being set in China and it's taking place in China?"

Rose:" being" is the difference imo

Is there any difference between a movie's being set in China and it's taking place in China?


If it had said the 'movie set' is in china
then it would have a different meaning..

but being set in means the same as taking place in china

The story is set in or taking place in China