Profile
Learning
English
German
Language Skills
KoreanNative
Interests
Tech
Reading
Legal Services
Writing
History
Lesson Feedback
Lesson history
| Last month | Last 3 months | All time | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completed lessons | 0 | 0 | 97 |
| Attendance rate | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Activities
- Should a relative pronoun be positioned right after a word it modifies? Always? Hi, I've seen (as I remember) many cases where relative pronouns are used for modifying a phrase and even a clause. In some cases, I've seen a relative pronoun modifying a word not immediately preceding it. It was written by a native speaker. Is this correct? I can't remember the exact sentence, but it was something like this: "a conference at the hotel, which deals with..." I'm encountering this situation over and over. That is, when I need to use a relative pronoun (mostly which or that), there are also some words I want to write between the modified word and the relative pronoun, like "at the hotel" above. Should I avoid this? Here are two sentences I've just written for my thesis. Since the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, all UN Member States have ratified at least one, out of nine core international human rights treaties. North Korea is a part of the 80 percent of all Member States, who have ratified four or more treaties. The "who" in the second sentence modifies the "80 percent", not the all states. Is the position of "who" grammatically correct? If not, is there any workaround way? I've changed that sentence like this: "80 percent among them have ratified four or more treaties, with North Korea being a part of it." But I'd prefer to stick to the first sentence, if correct.May 29, 2019120
- 'For' or 'to' someone? (when introducing someone's opinion or argument) Hi, As far as I know, "to" is the right choice for introducing someone's argument. But what about my second example below? It sounds better (to me) when I use "for" instead, and Google search suggests there are many similar sentences starting with "For". Could anyone clarify this? 1) To him, characterizing civil society merely as a ‘realm of solidarity’ (Alexander, 1997; Amoore & Langley, 2004, p. 92) in which collective actors are coherently oriented toward ‘progressive transformation’ omits a key part of the contemporary transnational activism, that is, the “rival activism,” and thus, loses sight of the larger political dynamics of global issues (Bob, 2012). 2) For social constructivists, reality is shaped by human knowledge which has been “historically produced and culturally bound,” and in turn, this socially shared knowledge—which comprised of symbols, rules, concepts, and categories—shapes how individuals construct and give meanings to reality (Barnett, 2014, p. 158).May 28, 201960
- 'and' or 'but'? Hi wonderful teachers, I'm not sure how many grammatical mistakes I've made, but it will be very much appreciated if you could read my sentences below and let me know any issues. My specific question is related to the last sentence. Should it be "less sensitive 'and' mutually beneficial" or "less sensitive 'but' mutually beneficial"? Alternatively, the engagement discourse assumes that without trust and mutual recognition among relevant actors, human rights pressures can only worsen the relationship with, and increase the perceived threat of, the repressive state, reducing political space for both the domestic opposition groups and the international actors. For this reason, it is emphasized that the entry point should be non-political matters such as economic development—which can be less sensitive and mutually beneficial—so that a 'spillover effect' can occur from economic to security cooperation, not the other way around.May 18, 201940
- 'as' clause Is there any grammatical issue in my sentence below? I'm not quite sure about the usage of 'as' (the second one, particularly), wondering that it could confuse with the preceding one. Indeed, the recent decade saw a reemergence of subsistence rights as equally valid legal rights, as increasing numbers of NGOs have incorporated economic and social rights agendas into their campaigns.May 16, 201940
- "which" grammar Hi, 'Which' grammar is one of the most difficult issue for me when writing thesis. So here are some of my sentences of which I have little confidence. 1) One compelling contribution of constructivism is that it has established activist networks as relevant players, which had remained outside the traditional categories in IR. (my intention is to refer to 'activist networks' by using 'which') 2) For these scholars, principle ideas such as human rights have inherent value and power, which ‘generate campaigns by defining certain social conditions as unacceptable’ (the 'which' refers to 'principle ideas') 3) However, this fixed view on the political positions, which is derived from the long-held ideological beliefs within the society, hardly adds values to our knowledge. (the word 'which' refers to 'fixed view')November 23, 201870
- thesis Although traditional security concerns regarding North Korea still dominate negotiations at diplomatic level, non-traditional security challenges have started to draw public attention since the mid-1990s, when the so-called “Arduous March” was at its peak. Is this gramatically correct? "Although ...dominate (present tense) ... have started (past perfect)..."June 7, 201621
00:00
00:00