# sein naturlich



## kari

*Es ist moglich sagen :"sein naturlich"?*
*bye*


----------



## Whodunit

kari said:
			
		

> *Ist es möglich "sein natürlich" zu sagen?*
> *bye*



Well, I'm sure you could say that, BUT it doesn't make much sense as you wrote it here. Let me give you some examples:

"sein natürlich ausdrucksvolles Englisch macht ihm zu einem großen Linguisten."
= his naturally expressive English makes him be a great linguist.

But I'm sure that's not what you wanted to have. Could you please provide SOME context. Otherwise it's very hard to claim if it exists or not.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Well, I'm sure you could say that, BUT it doesn't make much sense as you wrote it here. Let me give you some examples:
> 
> "sein natürlich ausdrucksvolles Englisch macht ihm zu einem großen Linguisten."
> = his naturally expressive English makes him (no be)  a great linguist.
> 
> But I'm sure that's not what you wanted to have. Could you please provide SOME context. Otherwise it's very hard to claim if it exists or not.



I think he meant "natürlich zu sein." (being natural)

Otherwise it's not a self-standing expression.


----------



## Jade

Hallo!

Ich hoffe das mein Beitrag von Nutzen ist und befürchte, dass es 
*natürlich zu sein* heissen sollte.

Beispiele:

Nach der Auseinandersetzung, ist es nicht einfach für mich natürlich zu sein.
Nach der Auseinandersetzung ist es nicht einfach natürlich aufzutreten

Jade


----------



## Whodunit

Jade said:
			
		

> Hallo!
> 
> Ich hoffe das mein Beitrag von Nutzen ist und befürchte, dass es
> *natürlich zu sein* heissen sollte.
> 
> Beispiele:
> 
> Nach der Auseinandersetzung, ist es nicht einfach für mich*,* natürlich zu sein.
> Nach der Auseinandersetzung ist es nicht einfach*,* natürlich aufzutreten
> 
> Jade



I'm pretty sure, I would have understood your sentences, if you had said them to me orally, but in written text, you have to use commas, definitely. Let's wait for Kari's reply.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure, I would have understood your sentences, if you had said them to me orally, but in written text, you have to use commas, definitely. Let's wait for Kari's reply.



Too many commas in your English text!   

*I'm pretty sure I would have understood your sentences if you had said them orally to me, but in a written text you definitely have to use commas.*

Eins reicht!


----------



## elroy

Jade said:
			
		

> Hallo!
> 
> Ich hoffe das mein Beitrag von Nutzen ist und befürchte, dass es
> *natürlich zu sein* heissen sollte.
> 
> Beispiele:
> 
> Nach der Auseinandersetzung, ist es nicht einfach für mich natürlich zu sein.
> Nach der Auseinandersetzung ist es nicht einfach natürlich aufzutreten
> 
> Jade



Ja genau, ich bin mir fast ganz sicher, dass er/sie "natürlich zu sein" sagen wollte.


----------



## Jana337

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure, I would have understood your sentences, if you had said them to me orally, but in written text, you have to use commas, definitely. Let's wait for Kari's reply.



But not here!



> Nach der Auseinandersetzung *no comma here* ist es nicht einfach für mich*,* natürlich zu sein.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Too many commas in your English text!



Haha, thank you for correcting me. It's sometimes a shame to be corrected while correcting.


----------



## Whodunit

Jana337 said:
			
		

> But not here!



Correct, I'm very sorry.


----------



## gaer

kari said:
			
		

> *Es ist moglich sagen :"sein naturlich"?*
> *bye*


I'm almost sure the question is:

Is it possible to say: "be natural".

I think Kari wanted to know how to say that in German. Will Jade's suggestion work, with your comma, Who?

_Nach der Auseinandersetzung ist es nicht einfach für mich*,* natürlich zu sein._

That looks fine to me. But it may not be smooth German. I can't judge that.

Gaer


----------



## kari

ich wille "to be natural" in deutsch schreiben!
Thanks a lot guys!


----------



## Jana337

kari said:
			
		

> ich  wille will/wollte  "to be natural"  in deutsch auf Deutsch schreiben!
> Thanks a lot guys!



_Wille _does not exist as a verb.

Jana


----------



## elroy

kari said:
			
		

> ich wille "to be natural" in deutsch schreiben!
> Thanks a lot guys!



The correct translation, in most cases, will be "natürlich zu sein."

Some examples:

It is not easy to be natural.
Es ist nicht einfach, *natürlich zu sein*.

To be natural is not easy.
*Natürlich zu sein * ist nicht einfach.

BUT:

I want to be natural.
I will *natürlich sein*. (in this case your suggestion works)

To sum up:

*It is very very important for you to provide context and/or examples because otherwise we can go and on with endless possibilities regarding how to translate the obscure "to be natural."*​


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Will Jade's suggestion work, with your comma, Who?
> 
> _Nach der Auseinandersetzung ist es nicht einfach für mich*,* natürlich zu sein._



Yes, it is completely correct. But the comma is very imposrtant here. Actually, a comma before "an infinitive with 'zu'" is optional; however you should put one in order to get a better understanding of the sentence.

What about this one?

"Nach der Auseinandersetzung ist es nicht einfach, für mich natürlich, zu sein."

That's the way I read the sentence first, but it didn't make sense to me. So I had to read it again, and again. Then I could figure out the meaning.


----------



## MrMagoo

whodunit said:
			
		

> _I'm pretty sure, I would have understood your sentences, if you had said them to me orally, but in written text, you have to use commas, definitely. Let's wait for Kari's reply._








			
				elroy said:
			
		

> Too many commas in your English text!
> 
> *I'm pretty sure I would have understood your sentences if you had said them orally to me, but in a written text you definitely have to use commas.*
> 
> Eins reicht!


 

Ehm... *lol*?!
Ihr seid ja echte Komma-Freaks!! 

Problem: Im Deutschen werden generell viel mehr Kommata (<-- so der _eigentlich_ korrekte Plural) gesetzt, als im Englischen - ihr könntet also noch ewig so weitermachen....


----------



## Jade

Mit Whod, dem Komma Freak, wird es uns nie langweilig werden, vorallem werden unsere Threads unendlich werden.

Hoch lebe Whod und seine Kommas!

Jade


----------



## MrMagoo

Dann wird unser Komma-Forum weltberühmt!! (Obwohl... das _ist_ es ja schon...)

-MrMagoo


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, it is completely correct. But the comma is very imposrtant here. Actually, a comma before "an infinitive with 'zu'" is optional; however you should put one in order to get a better understanding of the sentence.
> 
> What about this one?
> 
> "Nach der Auseinandersetzung ist es nicht einfach, für mich natürlich, zu sein."
> 
> That's the way I read the sentence first, but it didn't make sense to me. So I had to read it again, and again. Then I could figure out the meaning.


THIS time, Who, I also IMMEDIATELY saw the missing comma. I would have mentioned it myself if you hadn't.

In short, if I see something wrong in German, it's usually pretty basic.  

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

Jade said:
			
		

> Mit Whod, dem Komma Freak, wird es uns nie langweilig werden, vorallem werden unsere Threads unendlich werden.
> 
> Hoch lebe Whod und seine Kommas!
> 
> Jade



Hahaha, sehr witzig. Soll ich deine paar Sätzchen auch ncoh korrigieren?


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> In short, if I see something wrong in German, it's usually pretty basic.



Hey, that was everything but not basic, that comma.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Hey, that was everything but not basic, that comma.


Well, it seemed pretty basic to me.

Do you mean: "That was anything but basic"? I THINK that was the idiom you had in mind. This is one of those strange English phrases that starts to seem very strange to me if I think about it. "Anything but" means "not at all". 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> Well, it seemed pretty basic to me.
> 
> Do you mean: "That was anything but basic"? I THINK that was the idiom you had in mind. This is one of those strange English phrases that starts to seem very strange to me if I think about it. "Anything but" means "not at all".
> 
> Gaer



Yes, that is what I meant. Oh my God, my English is falling off.


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Yes, that is what I meant. Oh my God, my English is falling off.


Not really. That's the way it goes with languages. One minute things work, the next they go haywire. 

Remember, the important thing is communication. "Don't sweat the small stuff".

Gaer


----------



## elroy

MrMagoo said:
			
		

> Ehm... *lol*?!
> Ihr seid ja echte Komma-Freaks!!
> 
> Problem: Im Deutschen werden generell viel mehr Kommata (<-- so der _eigentlich_ korrekte Plural) gesetzt, als im Englischen - ihr könntet also noch ewig so weitermachen....



Das stimmt auf jeden Fall.  Im Engslischen hängt's eher vom Gefühl ab, im Deutschen aber eher von bestimmen Regeln.  Deswegen ist es oft der Fall, das Deutschen zu viele Kommata (da hast du eben Recht!   ) beim Englisch Schreiben stellen.

Bei Who gab es nämlich wirklich zu viele.  Darauf wollte ich nur hinweisen.


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Das stimmt auf jeden Fall.  Im Engslischen hängt's eher vom Gefühl ab, im Deutschen aber eher von bestimmen Regeln.  Deswegen ist es oft der Fall, das*s*   Deutschen zu viele Kommata (da hast du eben Recht!   ) beim Englisch*s*chreiben stellen.
> 
> Bei Who gab es nämlich wirklich zu viele.  Darauf wollte ich nur hinweisen.



Ach so. Also, ich werde mich demnächst zusammenreißen, kaum noch Kommas --- ups, Kommata --- zu verwenden.

EDIT: ... im Englischen ...


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Das stimmt auf jeden Fall. Im Engslischen hängt's eher vom Gefühl ab, im Deutschen aber eher von bestimmen Regeln. Deswegen ist es oft der Fall, das Deutschen zu viele Kommata (da hast du eben Recht!  ) beim Englisch Schreiben stellen.
> 
> Bei Who gab es nämlich wirklich zu viele. Darauf wollte ich nur hinweisen.


It was obvious to me (Who correct me if I'm wrong) that he stuck in a second comma, incorrect comma in German because he was stuck midway between German and English. The first (wrong) comma was a possible comma in English.

I like the fact that English allows tremendous freedom, but have you also found a surprising number of sentences in good books that you had to read twice, in English, because a comma was left out?

In addition, it appears that German is now adopting a more liberal attitude about using or not using commas according to feel and context. It's nowhere near as free as English, but there is a trend now that is interesting.

Gaer


----------



## Jana337

gaer said:
			
		

> I like the fact that English allows tremendous freedom, but have you also found a surprising number of sentences in good books that you had to read twice, in English, because a comma was left out?



Far from sure that it was due to missing commas, I had both fun and hard time reading F. A. Hayek in English (he was an Austrian who for political reasons started a new existence in the Aglosaxon world in his mid-thirties, and wrote his major works in English). He reached an admirable proficiency in English and I am positive he switched to that language completely when thinking. But the way he built sentences remained faithful to German.  Reading his early works written in German is far easier to me.

Jana


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> Far from sure that it was due to missing commas, I had both fun and hard time reading F. A. Hayek in English (he was an Austrian who for political reasons started a new existence in the Aglosaxon world in his mid-thirties, and wrote his major works in English). He reached an admirable proficiency in English and I am positive he switched to that language completely when thinking. But the way he built sentences remained faithful to German.  Reading his early works written in German is far easier to me.
> 
> Jana


Jana,

I probably should not write today. It's been a s--- day. But blast it anyway, if you read a sentence, and the sentence can have two meanings, then if you mentally inserta a comma and the problem goes away, the SENTENCE is missing a COMMA.

If you disagree with that, I don't know what to say. I don't see how anything can be more self-evident. 

G


----------



## Jana337

gaer said:
			
		

> Jana,
> 
> I probably should not write today. It's been a s--- day. But blast it anyway, if you read a sentence, and the sentence can have two meanings, then if you mentally inserta a comma and the problem goes away, the SENTENCE is missing a COMMA.
> 
> If you disagree with that, I don't know what to say. I don't see how anything can be more self-evident.
> 
> G



I was not referring to double meanings. The sentences were as long as German sentences written by a very educated person. English sentences written by smart people tend to be shorter. I should have chosen a different thread for this because it has nothing to do with commas. 

Jana


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> It was obvious to me (Who correct me if I'm wrong) that he stuck in a second comma, incorrect comma in German because he was stuck midway between German and English. The first (wrong) comma was a possible comma in English.
> 
> I like the fact that English allows tremendous freedom, but have you also found a surprising number of sentences in good books that you had to read twice, in English, because a comma was left out?
> 
> In addition, it appears that German is now adopting a more liberal attitude about using or not using commas according to feel and context. It's nowhere near as free as English, but there is a trend now that is interesting.
> 
> Gaer



There were more than 2 unnecessary commas, so I'm not exactly sure which ones you're referring to.  I just thought they interrupted the flow of the sentence, and it seemed to me that he put them in there because he thought he had to - either because he may have had to in a corresponding situation in German or because as you said he was stuck in between.  When I was first learning German (a year ago next week!   ), I would frequently find myself in the opposite situation - not putting in commas because I thought that they interrupted the flow.  I had to force myself to put them in places I wouldn't put them in English, and it has gradually become second nature...


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> It was obvious to me (Who correct me if I'm wrong) that he stuck in a second comma, incorrect comma in German because he was stuck midway between German and English. The first (wrong) comma was a possible comma in English.
> 
> I like the fact that English allows tremendous freedom, but have you also found a surprising number of sentences in good books that you had to read twice, in English, because a comma was left out?
> 
> In addition, it appears that German is now adopting a more liberal attitude about using or not using commas according to feel and context. It's nowhere near as free as English, but there is a trend now that is interesting.
> 
> Gaer



By the way, I definitely agree with you about missing commas in works of literature.

It all goes back to the classical down-to-earth rule of English grammar: *Use a comma anytime to avoid a possible misreading. *


----------



## Whodunit

gaer said:
			
		

> It was obvious to me (Who correct me if I'm wrong) that he stuck in a second comma, incorrect comma in German because he was stuck midway between German and English. The first (wrong) comma was a possible comma in English.



I'm positive I lost you there. What sentence are you referring to? Please copy my wrong (according to the commas) sentence once again(,) or tell me the number of post. I don't use commas to interrupt the flow of a beautiful sentence at all, but I just want to seperate things that don't belong together or that are depending on the previous one; examples:

Diesen Mann, der mich dauernd ärgert, erkenne ich wieder. (two commas - dependent claus)
I can recognize this man annyoing/spiting me always. (no comma, non-defining relative clause)


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm positive I lost you there. What sentence are you referring to? Please copy my wrong (according to the commas) sentence once again(,) or tell me the number of post. I don't use commas to interrupt the flow of a beautiful sentence at all, but I just want to seperate things that don't belong together or that are depending on the previous one; examples:
> 
> Diesen Mann, der mich dauernd ärgert, erkenne ich wieder. (two commas - dependent claus)
> I can recognize this man annyoing/spiting me always. (no comma, non-defining relative clause)



That sentence would translate as "I recognize the man who/that always annoys me.

In German you separate them even though they do belong together.  You need to know which man you're talking about.  The bottom line: the rules are different in the two languages.


----------



## gaer

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I was not referring to double meanings. The sentences were as long as German sentences written by a very educated person. English sentences written by smart people tend to be shorter. I should have chosen a different thread for this because it has nothing to do with commas.
> 
> Jana


OK, Jana. I misunderstood you. Sorry.  

I have a personal view about very long, involved sentences, and you probably will not agree. But I think most of them could easily be broken up into two (and sometimes three) sentences without losing any meaning. Not always, of course.

I'm not suggesting a "Hemmingway" style of writing, because I think that's the other extreme. Certainly you can find many long and complicated sentences in writers such as Dickens, for instance, but his sentences are not hard to read or understand—at leat for me.

So maybe we can talk about commas another time, in another thread. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I'm positive I lost you there. What sentence are you referring to? Please copy my wrong (according to the commas) sentence once again(,) or tell me the number of post. I don't use commas to interrupt the flow of a beautiful sentence at all, but I just want to seperate things that don't belong together or that are depending on the previous one; examples:
> 
> Diesen Mann, der mich dauernd ärgert, erkenne ich wieder. (two commas - dependent claus)
> I can recognize this man annyoing/spiting me always. (no comma, non-defining relative clause)





> Jade suggested:
> 
> Nach der Auseinandersetzung, ist es nicht einfach für mich natürlich zu sein.
> Nach der Auseinandersetzung ist es nicht einfach natürlich aufzutreten


Your correction:


> Nach der Auseinandersetzung*,* ist es nicht einfach für mich*,* natürlich zu sein.


Unless I'm incorrect, the second comma must be there. We were discussing that. I thought that one of two things happened. Either you negelected to remove the first comma, which does not belong (correct?), a pure oversight, or you might have been thinking also in English. The first comma IS possible although not necessary in English, while the second would be wrong: After the conflict (argument, etc.)*, *it is not easy for me to be [act] natural[ly].

In other words, I don't think you would have added the blue comma IF you had written such a sentence yourself. Many times sentences or thoughts end up sounding rather weird when we start with the constructions of other people, attempting to fix or correct them.

As you can see, when there are more than 30 answers, it's very hard to follow the "thread" of logic sometimes.

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Who said:
			
		

> Diesen Mann, der mich dauernd ärgert, erkenne ich wieder. (two commas - dependent claus)
> I can recognize this man annyoing/spiting me always. (no comma, non-defining relative clause)


First of all, you need two commas in German because you've used inverted word-order and split the main clause. The same construction would also require two commas in English, but it would be unusual.

_"This_ man, who constantly annoys me, I recognize!"

You would write or say such a sentence to emphasize that you don't recognize anyone else, and it would show suprise.

"I don't recognize any of the those other men, but _this_ man, who constantly annoys me, I recogize!"

Otherwise, as Elroy already pointed out, German demands an extra comma (using normal word order): 

"Ich erkenne diesen Mann wieder, der mich dauernd ärgert."

In English the puncutation is more flexible:

1) "I recognize this man who constantly annoys me. "
OR
2) I recognize this man, who constantly annoys me. 
OR
3) I recognize this man—who constantly annoys me. 

In English you have the option of suggesting a greater pause, and its up to the writer to determine in his own mind whether or not the final clause needs a comma. Consider this:

"I recognize this man, who constantly annoys me, because he has a strange German accent."

(That's not a very good sentence, but perhaps you get the idea.)

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> First of all, you need two commas in German because you've used inverted word-order and split the main clause. The same construction would also require two commas in English, but it would be unusual.
> 
> _"This_ man, who constantly annoys me, I recognize!"
> 
> You would write or say such a sentence to emphasize that you don't recognize anyone else, and it would show suprise.
> 
> "I don't recognize any of the those other men, but _this_ man, who constantly annoys me, I recogize!"
> 
> Otherwise, as Elroy already pointed out, German demands an extra comma (using normal word order):
> 
> "Ich erkenne diesen Mann wieder, der mich dauernd ärgert."
> 
> In English the puncutation is more flexible:
> 
> 1) "I recognize this man who constantly annoys me. "
> OR
> 2) I recognize this man, who constantly annoys me.
> OR
> 3) I recognize this man—who constantly annoys me.
> 
> In English you have the option of suggesting a greater pause, and its up to the writer to determine in his own mind whether or not the final clause needs a comma. Consider this:
> 
> "I recognize this man, who constantly annoys me, because he has a strange German accent."
> 
> (That's not a very good sentence, but perhaps you get the idea.)
> 
> Gaer



You're absolutely right.  In English it depends on whether the clause is essential or not to convey the desired meaning.

I'm looking for the pen that I gave you last week.  (I need this clause to specify which pen I'm talking about.)

I'm looking for my pen, which I gave you last week.  (Here it is assumed that we know which pen I'm talking about, and I'm just adding - for whatever reason - that I gave it to you last week.)


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right. In English it depends on whether the clause is essential or not to convey the desired meaning.
> 
> I'm looking for the pen that I gave you last week. (I need this clause to specify which pen I'm talking about.)
> 
> I'm looking for my pen, which I gave you last week. (Here it is assumed that we know which pen I'm talking about, and I'm just adding - for whatever reason - that I gave it to you last week.)


Exactly. When we use "who", we have to decide whether we are thinking in terms of "which" or "that". 

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

I totally understood you, Gaer and Elroy. I appreciate your explanation very much. But I still have a question to you two.



			
				gaer said:
			
		

> "I don't recognize any of the those other men, but _this_ man, who constantly annoys me, I recogize!"



Well, Gaer, let me ask _you_, since you wrote that sentence above. I'm referring to the underlined part. I would definitely have written "I do recognize", because first you negate the sentence with "do not" and then you specify the man. Wouldn't it sound better with the emphasis particle "do"?


----------



## gaer

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I totally understood you, Gaer and Elroy. I appreciate your explanation very much. But I still have a question to you two.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Gaer, let me ask _you_, since you wrote that sentence above. I'm referring to the underlined part. I would definitely have written "I do recognize", because first you negate the sentence with "do not" and then you specify the man. Wouldn't it sound better with the emphasis particle "do"?


"I don't recognize any of the those other men, but _this_ man, who constantly annoys me, I recogize!"

OR

"I don't recognize any of the those other men, but _this_ man, who constantly annoys me, I do recogize!"

Either way. It is a matter of voice emphasis. Think about it.

I don't like carrots, but I like peas.
I don't like carrots, but I do like peas.
I don't like carrots, but I really like peas.

In writing, PERHAPS the second way is better. Perhaps, but I would not assume that there is any strong rule. When speaking, tone of voice or emphasis is much more noticeable, so wording might change more.

Let's see if we can get an opinion from Elroy. He's pretty conservative, so he might agree with you. 

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> "I don't recognize any of the those other men, but _this_ man, who constantly annoys me, I recogize!"
> 
> OR
> 
> "I don't recognize any of the those other men, but _this_ man, who constantly annoys me, I do recogize!"
> 
> Either way. It is a matter of voice emphasis. Think about it.
> 
> I don't like carrots, but I like peas.
> I don't like carrots, but I do like peas.
> I don't like carrots, but I really like peas.
> 
> In writing, PERHAPS the second way is better. Perhaps, but I would not assume that there is any strong rule. When speaking, tone of voice or emphasis is much more noticeable, so wording might change more.
> 
> Let's see if we can get an opinion from Elroy. He's pretty conservative, so he might agree with you.
> 
> Gaer



Haha, Gaer - you can read my mind!

In writing, I would definitely use "do."  I feel that it's needed to emphasize the contrast.

I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I do recognize! 

However, I would use an intensifier - to best express the flow of my juxtaposition.

I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I definitely do recognize!

I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I do by all means recognize!

I might even use just "do" and the intensifer (without repeating the verb).

I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I definitely do!

I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I by all means do!

As you can see, there are various possibilities, but in any case I would write "do."

However, in speech, tone of voice and intonation are instrumental in expressing the desired intention.  That said, I could say 

I don't recognize any of those other men, but THIS MAN, who constantly annoys me, I RECOGNIZE. (The latter would have to be said emphatically and deliberately, to achieve the desired effect.)

My two cents.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Haha, Gaer - you can read my mind!
> 
> In writing, I would definitely use "do." I feel that it's needed to emphasize the contrast.
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I do recognize!
> 
> However, I would use an intensifier - to best express the flow of my juxtaposition.
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I definitely do recognize!
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I do by all means recognize!
> 
> I might even use just "do" and the intensifer (without repeating the verb).
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I definitely do!
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I by all means do!
> 
> As you can see, there are various possibilities, but in any case I would write "do."
> 
> However, in speech, tone of voice and intonation are instrumental in expressing the desired intention. That said, I could say
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but THIS MAN, who constantly annoys me, I RECOGNIZE. (The latter would have to be said emphatically and deliberately, to achieve the desired effect.)
> 
> My two cents.


That agrees totally with what I was thinking. So I don't even have to give "any cents".  

Gaer


----------



## Whodunit

elroy said:
			
		

> Haha, Gaer - you can read my mind!
> 
> In writing, I would definitely use "do."  I feel that it's needed to emphasize the contrast.
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I do recognize!
> 
> However, I would use an intensifier - to best express the flow of my juxtaposition.
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I definitely do recognize!
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I do by all means recognize!
> 
> I might even use just "do" and the intensifer (without repeating the verb).
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I definitely do!
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but this man, who constantly annoys me, I by all means do!
> 
> As you can see, there are various possibilities, but in any case I would write "do."
> 
> However, in speech, tone of voice and intonation are instrumental in expressing the desired intention.  That said, I could say
> 
> I don't recognize any of those other men, but THIS MAN, who constantly annoys me, I RECOGNIZE. (The latter would have to be said emphatically and deliberately, to achieve the desired effect.)
> 
> My two cents.



Okay Elroy,

So I think I'm more comfortable in writing, since I would definitely have said "do" in speech. Thank you both very much for clarifying that.


----------



## elroy

Whodunit said:
			
		

> Okay Elroy,
> 
> So I think I'm more comfortable in writing, since I would definitely have said "do" in speech. Thank you both very much for clarifying that.



"Do" is okay in speech as well.  In fact, I'd more than likely use it.  I was just saying that the construction without "do" is also allowed in speech - provided the tone of voice is appropriate - whereas the "do" is almost necessary in writing because you can't detect the "tone of voice" of the writer.


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> "Do" is okay in speech as well. In fact, I'd more than likely use it. I was just saying that the construction without "do" is also allowed in speech - provided the tone of voice is appropriate - whereas the "do" is almost necessary in writing because you can't detect the "tone of voice" as the writer.


Exactly. In speech there is more flexibility, but I *do* use "do" frequently when talking to emphasize an idea. 

Gaer


----------

