# Eindhoven está lleno de trabajos que sólo requieren inglés



## loureed4

Hello,

   I am trying to translate that sentence, the one, entitling my thread.

   My attempt is this one: "Eindhoven is fill with/full of *English-requiring jobs*" , it sounds a bit weird to me, I would try this other way too: "Eindhoven is fill with jobs *only requiring English*" , and by the way, the nuance of "only" doesn´t appear in the first one, which makes me think it is not a very accurate translation. But I wanted to try with adjetives, like "the black-haired girl" , that´s why I tried with "...English-requiring jobs."

Thanks a lot in advance!


----------



## Wandering JJ

Sorry, Loureed - you can't apply black-haired girl logic to this one! 

Eindhoven is full of jobs requiring only English speakers
Eindhoven is full of vacancies for English speakers only
Eindhoven has lots of vacancies, but only for English-speaking people


----------



## loureed4

Thanks Wandering JJ, 

   1.Couldn´t I use "filled with" instead of "full of" ? .
   2.And....then, is this incorrect too: "Eindhoven is fill with jobs only requiring English". ?

Once more, thanks a lot!


----------



## St. Nick

I'm probably wrong, but your original sentence seems to say, "... that only require English," in the sense of "whose only requirement is fluency in English."

 And before anybody gets pedagogic on me, yes, "whose" is acceptable as a possessive pronoun with respect to inanimate objects.


----------



## loureed4

St Nick, exactly , you are absolutely right, that´s the sense of the sentence. "..that only require English, no Dutch".


----------



## Mawliette

I think the reason you used "filled with" is because you're translating "lleno de" literally from Spanish:
*Lleno de* = *Filled with/Full of*

But in this case, you can only use 'full of'.


----------



## loureed4

Thanks Mawliette. The thing is I often see in movies: "The room is filled with dust" or something like that. An example doesn´t come out now but I see it too often in movies "fill with" instead of "full of".

Many thanks Mawliette!


----------



## ajmf

How about: There are plenty of jobs in Eindoven for English (Native) speakers


----------



## loureed4

Thanks ajmf for your reply! 

One of my main concerns was: " *English-requiring jobs" .* I mean, trying to make "English-requiring" an adjetive, but I think I failed in doing so.

My other concern was "filled with" or "full of" , but I guess that, for this, I´ll have to write another question, for I don´t see it clear.

 Nevertheless, as usual, I learned a lot from your responses ajmf, therefore: thanks a lot for helping me out!!


----------



## St. Nick

Along with Emerson, Charlie Brown of Peanuts, and the King James Bible, I use _"filled with"_ [note the past participle, Lou, 'filled'] and _"full of"_ nearly synonymously and wouldn't hesitate to use either one in this sentence.  I do reserve _"full of"_ for a couple of everyday expressions, such as _"You're full of baloney"_ and _"You're full of shit."_


----------



## loureed4

heheheh, I´m laughing St. Nick beacuse of your last expressions "....baloney" and the other one, hehe.

I feel quite reassured after your answer, because I was a bit worried, for in movies they always said "filled with" but not "full of", therefore, I wondered if there was sort of a rule or something. I can use them interchangeably, can´t I? ...Thanks a lot St. Nick.

P.S: I didn´t get the "Emerson, Charlie Brown and King James" stuff St. Nick, that´s too advance for me 

Many thanks!


----------



## Mawliette

St. Nick said:


> Along with Emerson, Charlie Brown of Peanuts, and the King James Bible, I use _"filled with"_ [note the past participle, Lou, 'filled'] and _"full of"_ nearly synonymously and wouldn't hesitate to use either one in this sentence.  I do reserve _"full of"_ for a couple of everyday expressions, such as _"You're full of baloney"_ and _"You're full of shit."_



As a non-native English speaker but an actual resident in London, I've never heard my English mates using "filled with" in this kind of situations. Besides, "Eindhoven is filled with English-requiring jobs" sounds weird and unnatural to me. Would/Could you really use it in this phrase? If so I'd be learning something new myself!


----------



## St. Nick

Hi Lou

I chose the serious writer Emerson, the Peanuts comic strip character Charlie Brown, and the British translation of the Bible as sources where _"filled with"_ can be found.


----------



## mirx

Mawliette said:


> As a non-native English speaker but an actual resident in London, I've never heard my English mates using "filled with" in this kind of situations. Besides, "Eindhoven is filled with English-requiring jobs" sounds weird and unnatural to me. Would/Could you really use it in this phrase? If so I'd be learning something new myself!



It's not the same to be full of shit than to be filled with shit. I am perhaps a bit of the first one but would hope never to suffer the latter.


----------



## Mawliette

mirx said:


> It's not the same to be full of shit than to be filled with shit. I am perhaps a bit of the first one but would hope never to suffer the latter.



Well, I personally wouldn't like to be filled with shit!


----------



## abuelito

Eindhoven está lleno de trabajos que sólo requieren inglés

Eindhoven is full of jobs that only require English.

Seems pretty straight forward. Don't make it harder than it is.

A bucket is filled with something.
A bucket is full of something.


----------



## duvija

_From StNick: I'm probably wrong, but your original sentence seems to say, "... that only require English," in the sense of "whose only requirement is fluency in English."
_
I think it's really not clear. One of my pet peeves. The placement of that damned 'only' can really screw up a sentence.
What do you want to say? that there are jobs for perfect morons, as long as they are Eng. speakers? They don't need to know anything else?
(Doesn't it make sense then, to say '... that require only English'?)


----------



## loureed4

Thanks all for your replies,

-Mawliette: Very good to know you´ve never heard "filled with" in London. I was refering to Hollywood movies, so, it may be an American way to say it ?.

 -abuelito. As you point out, your translation is very straight forward, but, it happens that I like to make/compose/draw up sentences in different ways, to enrich my vocabulary. Of course yours is plain, good, normal English, but I like learning, as I have just remearked, different ways of a sentence.

  -duvija. I didn´t make myself clear maybe, sorry.  I meant that the jobs didn´t requiere Swedish or Dutch to suceed in the application.

Thanks all again!


----------



## Wandering JJ

Mawliette is right - 'filled with' and 'full of' are not always interchangeable. It's difficult for native Sp. speakers because both are 'lleno de'.

This may help: 'full' is an adjective; 'filled' is a past participle. 

'The room was full of dust' = description of a situation.
'The room was 'filled with' = se llenó de... ' describing an action.

However, often you can use them interchangeably:

- My office is full of papers
- My office is filled with papers

Difficult one.


----------



## loureed4

Thanks Wandering JJ. 

As many times, I am realizing there are many nuances, still beyond my knowledge, but I´ll keep up because I´d like to master English, or at least, be a good English speaker and writer.

I truly enjoy and appreciate your help Wandering JJ.


----------



## St. Nick

Participles spend a major part of their time employed as modifiers, and in the two sentences we're working with, both _"full"_ and _"filled"_ are adjectives. Los dos sirven de atributo dentro del predicado adjetival [_subject adjective complement_], y la palabra "filled" no describe acción, sino estado:

"The air was filled with phantoms, wandering hither and thither in restless haste, and moaning as they went."  Charles Dickens. _A Christmas Carol.

*
_


----------



## loureed4

So, according to that St. Nick, the Dicken´s sentence could have been put like "...full of phantoms..." , if I didn´t understand wronly.

Thanks!


----------



## St. Nick

Yes, Lou, fixed phrases aside, the two are virtually interchangeable.  The question with respect to which of the two sounds better in a given sentence is subjective, a matter of style.

As long as we're at it, your noun phrase _"English-requiring jobs"_ is perfectly acceptable.  Whether or not it's stylistically appealing is a matter of taste.  If I were to find it within the context of a paragraph in which, for instance, the structures _"jobs that require German"_ and _"jobs that require English"_ had already been used, I'd simply accept your compound adjective without giving it a second thought.


----------



## k-in-sc

"English-requiring jobs"


----------



## Wandering JJ

Coincido con k-in-sc.


----------



## k-in-sc

Full: emphasis on state
Filled: emphasis on action or change in state


----------



## St. Nick

k-in-sc said:


> "English-requiring jobs"





Wandering JJ said:


> Coincido con k-in-sc.


Lou, your questions seems to be attracting a lot of rules, explanations, and personal preferences that arrive unaccompanied by references to precedent in literature or even with logical reasoning based on rules of grammar.


----------



## k-in-sc

You don't have to check literary references or grammar books to know when something sounds awful.


----------



## St. Nick

k-in-sc said:


> Full: emphasis on state
> Filled: emphasis on action or change in state


Wrong.  In _A Christmas Carol,_ did somebody fill Dickens' _"air"_ with _"phantoms"_?

_"Streets filled with people"_; _"Stores filled with shoppers."_

Who's doing the stocking?


----------



## k-in-sc

St. Nick said:


> Wrong.  In _A Christmas Carol,_ did somebody fill Dickens' _"air"_ with _"phantoms"_?
> 
> _"Streets filled with people"_; _"Stores filled with shoppers."_
> 
> Who's doing the stocking?





k-in-sc said:


> Full: emphasis on state
> Filled: emphasis on action or *change in state*


----------



## loureed4

St. Nick said:


> Lou, your questions seems to be attracting a lot of rules, explanations, and personal preferences that arrive unaccompanied by references to precedent in literature or even with logical reasoning based on rules of grammar.



Thanks St. Nick, I like your explanation.

So it seems (that, as you point out, it is all being a bit controversial) . Anyway, no big deal, I just wanted to know if "English-requiring jobs" was acceptable, and, to my amazement, even you native people don´t agree, which makes me think I am not going to fuck it up in a job interview saying, or at least, it will not be big deal as long as they can see my English is kind of..."acceptable" again.

Thanks all.

P.S: It would be great , if possible, that when someone put those faces of surprise, tried to explain that big surprise, mainly so that non-native speakers could know, because , when someone says "it sounds awful" ...there no much information in that little sentence, I shoud think.


----------



## k-in-sc

They're not surprised faces, they're "yuck" faces. The expression sounds bad to people other than St. Nick, as so often seems to be the case. 
If you want your English to be acceptable in polite company, I strongly suggest avoiding casual use of the F-word.


----------



## Mawliette

Well, even if I don't agree with everything St. Nick has said, I find his point of view and his arguments to be very interesting.
And probably something loureed4 should take into account.


----------



## St. Nick

k-in-sc said:


> Full: emphasis on state
> Filled: emphasis on action or *change in state*


Sorry, you're wrong again.  The phrases _"air filled with phantoms," "streets filled with people,"_ and _"stores filled with shoppers"_  describe a state of being, not a change of state.


----------



## k-in-sc

St. Nick said:


> Sorry, you're wrong again.  The phrases _"air filled with phantoms," "streets filled with people,"_ and _"stores filled with shoppers"_  describe a state of being, not a change of state.


Were they filled with those things before? Is being filled with those things their usual state?


----------



## Jim2996

Lou,

I take it that you are considering applying for English-requiring jobs that you now feel qualified for.  Of course, I could write that you are applying for jobs that require English that you now feel qualified for. 

I don't think that there is any doubt that "English-requiring" is not the common, usual way to state this. Unless there is some reason, I would avoid it.

I did use it though.  I don't like to stack my "that"s.  Putting "that require English" as a compound adjective gets rid of one.  This is one benefit to using compound adjectives.  

It can also be done to draw special emphasis to the English-requiringness of the job.  If there is no need for this special emphasis, this can easily sound odd, or even yucky. 

Compound adjectives can also be used for elegant variation. If you want to avoid using some sequence of words over and over again, change them into a compound adjective.  

Of course, these benefits of compound adjectives can also be achieved by other means. Don't overdo it.

And please, don't force things so much that you leave out the _sólo_​.

I hope this helps.

BTW: If you're interested in the full/filled question, use the search box at the top of the page.  There are already seven threads.


----------



## k-in-sc

Yes, "English-requiring jobs jobs requiring English" is not the same as "jobs for which English is the only language required."


----------



## St. Nick

k-in-sc said:


> Were they filled with those things before? Is being filled with those things their usual state?





k-in-sc said:


> Were they filled with those things before? Is being filled with those things their usual state?


_"The air was filled with phantoms ...."_ Charles Dickens

A subject adjective complement describes an ongoing state within a delimited time frame. If an author wants us to concern ourselves with the past or the future, he or she will let us know.


----------



## k-in-sc

Like I said, it's a matter of emphasis.


----------



## loureed4

Interesting, but far too complicated for me, by now. 

James2996, I began to miss your accurate replies, hehe. Thanks for it. I sometimes have to read your replies twice because they are long but mostly becaust its vocabulary is new (sometimes) for me, so I learn double.

Btw (By the way?) : You were the one who explained about compound adjectives, and it seems to me a very common way you put things, and I was trying to do it with "English-requiring jobs" , but I failed to do it right, well, I´ll go on trying anyway, at least I learn many, many things from this forums thanks to people like you, St Nick, Wandering JJ, fromPA, and so on. I feel really grateful that you people from the UK, US, Canada, etc, help me with my questions.

¿Puedo dar una vuelta de rosca más? (Esta es una expresión común en España, y quiere decir..."complicar un poco más las cosas") . Ok, I will, since I can´t hear your replies yet:  

Could I say "There a lot of Only-English-requiring jobs in Amsterdam, so, Dutch is not a requierment" , or would it be better: "There are a lot of jobs only requiring English, and no Dutch, in Amsterdam" ?

Thanks all!


----------



## Mawliette

They both sound a little forced/unnatural to me.
How about '*There are a lot of jobs that require knowing English in Amsterdam*'?
I just don't like how '_only_' sounds in any of the phrases I've seen in this post so far.


----------



## loureed4

Mawliette, thanks!

   The point about "only" is this:

    A. Did you hear that in Holland Dutch is required for 90% of the job offers ?
    B. Yes, but there are a lot of jobs ONLY requiring English too! 

   By yhe way, it is all from experience, hehe, I went to Holland in April and it was like that.

Thanks for your assistance Mawliette!


----------



## k-in-sc

"Only-English-requiring jobs," quadruple  (that's "eek").
There are a lot of jobs in Amsterdam that require no other language than English.


----------



## Mawliette

k-in-sc said:


> "Only-English-requiring jobs," quadruple  (that's "eek").
> There are a lot of jobs in Amsterdam that require no other language than English.



I think I like '*There are a lot of jobs in Amsterdam that require no other language than English*', indeed.


----------



## inib

k-in-sc said:


> "Only-English-requiring jobs," quadruple  (that's "eek").
> There are a lot of jobs in Amsterdam that require no other language than English.


I like that too.
Lou, mine's just another unqualified opinion, but "(Only-)English-requiring jobs" sounds awful to me too, and I'd happily multiply the "eeks".
I do understand your dilemma, because sometimes, in order to sound natural you are required to replace a relative clause with one of these compound adjectives, and other times it just doesn't work. I'm not even going to *attempt*  to explain why on this thread, because there is enough disagreement already, but I hope my "vote" will be useful for you to make your own judgement.
Regards, 
Inib


----------



## loureed4

I see,

   I really appreciate all the help given, indeed! 

Thanks a lot for all the suggestions, I´ve learnt a lot from this thread, as always!


----------



## Jim2996

Lou, your original, self-generated exercise was to translate your sentence using a compound adjective.  There has been a lot of yuckiness expressed.  I think the main reason is not bad grammar but an awful vagueness about what "English-requiring" means.  It's a very unusual/odd/weird thing to say.  

I'll do your exercise.  The straightforward, word-by-word translation of your Spanish is:
*Eindhoven is full of jobs that only require English*.
Now, just drop the "that" and stick the words that describe the job ahead of it:
*Eindhoven is full of  only-require-English jobs.*
If people want to tell you that this is yucky, odd, weird, strange, etc, they are right.  It's only because I know you, and your great quest to learn, that I'm not asking, "Why in the world would anyone want to do this??????" 

When you did it, you came close to:
*Eindhoven is full of only-requiring-English jobs.* You changed "require" to "requiring." I think that your instincts were right; this is what it should be.  Indeed, if I started with 
*Eindhoven is a city that looks beautiful.* I would change it into
*Eindhoven is a beautiful-looking city*. I don't think anyone would have a problem with this. In contrast,
"Eindhoven is a looks-beautiful city" is weird or even wrong. My sense is that it is wrong, but I can't explain why.  I'm sure everyone will say that it is weird, yucky, whatever.

If you want my best compound adjective, I would say:
*Eindhoven is full of only-English-required jobs.
* For some reason, I want to use "required."  All I can offer is that I would more freely translate your Spanish sentence as
"Eindhoven is full of jobs where only English is required.

I'll also mention that if I start with
*Boston is a city that many people consider beautiful.* I get
*Boston is a considered-beautiful-by-many-people city.*​ with the "-ed" and a change in word order.

I want to restate: You shouldn't do this unless you have some good reason.  The hurdle that you need to overcome is that "only-English-required" is so uncommon that many people will not know what you mean, or, at least, they will have to stop and figure it out.  In contrast "beautiful-looking" is instantaneously understandable. The goal of a good writer is to be easily understandable.

Hope this helps.  Keep on learning.


----------



## loureed4

Jim2996,

    As always: Thanks for the explanation, I love reading your posts, they do help, they help INDEED. You write in an excellent way , and I mean how you separate sentences, put some in bold letters, and so on, not everybody does/do that, I like that too very much, it makes easier to read your great posts.

    Well, it is just that, as you know, I question many things, I am so eager to learn that I want to know many nuances and ways of saying things. It came to me naturally "English-requiring jobs", and, as it sounded a bit weird to me, I only wanted to feel reassured about whether if that was right or wrong.

I eventually understood it, though I´m loving compound verbs and don´t know how to use them yet, but that´ll come up naturally when I read much more, in some moment, it´ll just appear to me as natural as for you (hopefully, I wish).

Thanks a lot Jim2996.


----------

