--

--

コメント

スポンサーサイト

上記の広告は1ヶ月以上更新のないブログに表示されています。
新しい記事を書く事で広告が消せます。
管理者にだけ表示を許可する

12

12

コメント

Quick Write 121211 "Learning from Mark & David 8”

The beauty of following discussions by educated English native speakers that an English learner can benefit is to be exposed the language by which they successfully take turns and relate their statement to what was previously spoken. I usually focus on words and phrases that these two intellectuals, Mark and David, used in their discussions, but today, I’ll shift my focus onto how they successfully and naturally take turns while maintaining the flow of discussions.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec11/sandb_12-09.html

David goes: (Mark: I think we're looking for a certain trumpet, and I think he [= the president] sounded it.) Yes, he did sound one. And Mark alluded to it.

I’ve never used “allude to” in speech myself, but it looks like a good phrasal verb to refer to what a person said indirectly or implicitly, and/or to add on what was spoken in such a way. I’ve found an example sentence with “allude to” in “The Kenkyusha English Dictionary of Collocations” in my SII electric dictionary - “What were you alluding to just now?” means “What are you hinting at?”. This phrase seems to be the one I can casually use in my speech, supposedly with a little sarcastic tone.

David goes: (Mark: I just think it's indefensible. Judy: How do you see it?) I think it's defensible. I think he's [=Richard Cordray] completely qualified. I think that, as Mark says, there's no question about that. But the question is, why should this agency not report to the normal congressional oversight process, some sort of democratic accountability?

Here in the beginning, David disagrees with what Mark said previously by stating “it’s defensible”, but follows up with his assertion by adding that he agrees with Mark’s remark that Richard Cordray is completely qualified, but he thinks there remains a question in that the agency shouldn’t report to the normal congressional oversight process. I think David implies the situation in question is indefensible not because Cordray is unqualified, but because the process has some flaws. I view it as a very smart way to add what was previously stated without being disrespectful to the person involved in the discussions.

(30 minutes / 354 words)

Allude20Mode201.jpg


スポンサーサイト
管理者にだけ表示を許可する

プロフィール

Aya

Author:Aya
English learner

検索フォーム

Designed by

Ad

上記広告は1ヶ月以上更新のないブログに表示されています。新しい記事を書くことで広告を消せます。