IELTS Book 9... SPEAKING TEST 1


Game

1. What games are popular in your country?
Well, if we can consider sports as games, then football is definitely the most popular game in my country, but we also love board games like chess.

2. Do you play any games?
Not regularly these days. I play the occasional game of tennis with my brother-in-law, and I recently played a bowling game on the Nintendo Wii with my nephew. I wasn't very good at it.

3. How do people learn to play games in your country?
I think children teach each other to play games. I remember a friend at primary school teaching me to play chess, for example.

4. Do you think it's important for people to play games?
Yes, it's really important, especially for children. I think research has shown that play can improve brain development, intelligence, creativity, and the ability to cooperate with others.



Describe an open-air or street market which you enjoyed visiting.

  • where the market was
  • what the market sells
  • how big the market was
and explain why you enjoyed visiting this market.

I think nowadays small local markets are disappearing for many different reasons. I can remember my parents selling junk and other household things they didn't want anymore at a garage sale, but I know people now who do the same thing but on eBay and other internet sites like that. I think internet auction sites are more popular than traditional markets especially for young people.

Yes, markets can be a good option depending on the kind of items you want to sell. I think that if you're selling food then it's a good idea to try and sell it at a local market if you can. After all, it's a little difficult to taste food on an internet auction site, so it's much easier at a market. A lot has to do with the local culture, I think produce markets are more popular in agricultural areas of the country, but not so common in cities and town nowadays. I suppose another item might be furniture which is handmade or antique, you know, the type made by local crafstmen, that still seems to be popular at some markets.

No, I don't. Most young people aren't really interested in going to markets and places like that. Most of my friends buy things on the internet and rarely go shopping like our parents used to. It's just so much easier, maybe it's not as interesting as meeting people in a market, but it's certainly more convenient and it doesn't depend on the weather, and you can also get a better choice when you look on the internet. I think the future of traditional markets might be somewhat limited to certain items which are very specialized.


Part 3 – Two-way discussion:

Shopping at markets:
Q. Do people in your country enjoy going to open-air markets that sell things like food or clothes or old objects? Which type of market is more popular? Why?
Q. Do you think markets are more suitable places for selling certain types of things? Which ones? Why do you think this is?
Q. Do you think young people feel the same about shopping at markets as older people? Why is that?
Shopping in general:
Q. What do you think are the advantages of buying things from shops rather than markets?
Q. How does advertising influence what people choose to buy? Is this true for everyone?
Q. Do you think that any recent changes in the way people live have affected general shopping trends?




Category: 0 comments

the History of the English Language




A little while ago a link to this list of 23 maps and charts on language went around on Twitter. It’s full of interesting stuff on linguistic diversity and the genetic relationships among languages, but there was one chart that bothered me: this one on the history of the English language........................

The Origins of English

The first and largest problem is that the timeline makes it look as though English began with the Celts and then received later contributions from the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and so on. While this is a decent account of the migrations and conquests that have occurred in the last two thousand years, it’s not an accurate account of the history of the English language. (To be fair, the bar on the bottom gets it right, but it leaves out all the contributions from other languages.)
English began with the Anglo-Saxons. They were a group of Germanic tribes originating in the area of the Netherlands, northern Germany, and Denmark, and they spoke dialects of what might be called common West Germanic. There was no distinct English language at the time, just a group of dialects that would later evolve into English, Dutch, German, Low German, and Frisian. (Frisian, for the record, is English’s closest relative on the continent, and it’s close enough that you can buy a cow in Friesland by speaking Old English.)
The inhabitants of Great Britain when the Anglo-Saxons arrived were mostly romanized Celts who spoke Latin and a Celtic language that was the ancestor of modern-day Welsh and Cornish. (In what is now Scotland, the inhabitants spoke a different Celtic language, Gaelic, and perhaps also Pictish, but not much is known about Pictish.) But while there were Latin- and Celtic-speaking people in Great Britain before the Anglo-Saxons arrived, those languages probably had very little influence on Old English and should not be considered ancestors of English. English began as a distinct language when the Anglo-Saxons split off from their Germanic cousins and left mainland Europe beginning around 450 AD.
For years it was assumed that the Anglo-Saxons wiped out most of the Celts and forced the survivors to the edges of the island—Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland. But archaeological and genetic evidence has shown that this isn’t exactly the case. The Anglo-Saxons more likely conquered the Celts and intermarried with them. Old English became the language of government and education, but Celtic languages may have survived in Anglo-Saxon–occupied areas for quite some time.

From Old to Middle English

Old English continues until about 1066, when the Normans invaded and conquered England. At that point, the language of government became Old French—or at least the version of it spoken by the Normans—or Medieval Latin. Though peasants still spoke English, nobody was writing much in the language anymore. And when English made a comeback in the 1300s, it had changed quite radically. The complex system of declensions and other inflections from Old English were gone, and the language had borrowed considerably from French and Latin. Though there isn’t a firm line, by the end of the eleventh century Old English is considered to have ended and Middle English to have begun.
The differences between Old English and Middle English are quite stark. Just compare the Lord’s Prayer in each language:
Old English:
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele soþlice
(source)
(The character that looks like a p with an ascender is called a thorn, and it is pronounced like the modern th. It could be either voiceless or voiced depending on its position in a word. The character that looks like an uncial d with a stroke through it is also pronounced just like a thorn, and the two symbols were used interchangeably. Don’t ask me why.)
Middle English:
Oure fadir that art in heuenes,
halewid be thi name;
thi kyngdoom come to;
be thi wille don,
in erthe as in heuene.
Yyue to vs this dai oure breed ouer othir substaunce,
and foryyue to vs oure dettis,
as we foryyuen to oure dettouris;
and lede vs not in to temptacioun,
but delyuere vs fro yuel. Amen.
(source)
(Note that u and v could both represent either /u/ or /v/. V was used at the beginnings of words and u in the middle. Thus vs is “us” and yuel is “evil”.)
While you can probably muddle your way through some of the Lord’s Prayer in Old English, there are a lot of words that are unfamiliar, such as gewurþe and soþlice. And this is probably one of the easiest short passages to read in Old English. Not only is it a familiar text, but it dates to the late Old English period. Older Old English text can be much more difficult. The Middle English, on the other hand, is quite readable if you know a little bit about Middle English spelling conventions.
And even where the Old English is readable, it shows grammatical inflections that are stripped away in Middle English. For example, ure, urne, and urum are all forms of “our” based on their grammatical case. In Middle English, though, they’re all oure, much like Modern English. As I said above, the change from Old English to Middle English was quite radical, and it was also quite sudden. My professor of Old English and Middle English said that there are cases where town chronicles essentially change from Old to Middle English in a generation.
But here’s where things get a little murky. Some have argued that the vernacular language didn’t really change that quickly—it was only the codified written form that did. That is, people were taught to write a sort of standard Old English that didn’t match what they spoke, just as people continued to write Latin even as they were speaking the evolving Romance dialects such as Old French and Old Spanish.
So perhaps the complex inflectional system of Old English didn’t disappear suddenly when the Normans invaded; perhaps it was disappearing gradually throughout the Old English period, but those few who were literate learned the old forms and retained them in writing. Then, when the Normans invaded and people mostly stopped writing in English, they also stopped learning how to write standard Old English. When they started writing English again a couple of centuries later, they simply wrote the language as it was spoken, free of the grammatical forms that had been artificially retained in Old English for so long. This also explains why there was so much dialectal variation in Middle English; because there was no standard form, people wrote their own local variety. It wasn’t until the end of the Middle English period that a new standard started to coalesce and Early Modern English was born.


Supposed Celtic Syntax in English

And with that history established, I can finally get to my second problem with that graphic above: the supposed Celtic remnants in English. English may be a Germanic language, but it differs from its Germanic cousins in several notable ways. In addition to the glut of French, Latin, Greek, and other borrowings that occurred in the Middle and Early Modern English periods, English has some striking syntactic differences from other Germanic languages.

English has what is known as the continuous or progressive aspect, which is formed with a form of be and a present participle. So we usually say I’m going to the store rather than just I go to the store. It’s rather unusual to use a periphrastic—that is, wordy—construction as the default when there’s a shorter option available. Many languages do not have progressive forms at all, and if they do, they’re used to specifically emphasize that an action is happening right now or is ongoing. English, on the other hand, uses it as the default form for many types of verbs. But in German, for example, you simply say Ich gehe in den Laden (“I go to the store”), not Ich bin gehende in den Laden (“I am going to the store”).
English also makes extensive use of a feature known as do support, wherein we insert do into certain kinds of constructions, mostly questions and negatives. So while German would have Magst du Eis? (“Like you ice cream?”), English inserts a dummy do: Do you like ice cream? These constructions are rare cross-linguistically and are very un-Germanic.

And some people have come up with a very interesting explanation for this unusual syntax: it comes from a Celtic substrate. That is, they believe that the Celtic population of Britain adopted Old English from their Anglo-Saxon conquerors but remained bilingual for some time. As they learned Old English, they carried over some of their native syntax. The Celtic languages have some rather unusual syntax themselves, highly favoring periphrastic constructions over inflected ones. Some of these constructions are roughly analogous to the English use of do support and progressive forms. For instance, in Welsh you might say Dwi yn mynd i’r siop (“I am in going to the shop”). (Disclaimer: I took all of one semester in Welsh, so I’m relying on what little I remember plus some help from various websites on Welsh grammar and a smattering of Google Translate.)
While this isn’t exactly like the English equivalent, it looks close. Welsh doesn’t have present participial forms but instead uses something called a verbal noun, which is a sort of cross between an infinitive and gerund. Welsh also uses the particle yn (“in”) to connect the verbal noun to the rest of the sentence, which is actually quite similar to constructions from late Middle and Early Modern English such as He was a-going to the store, where a- is just a worn-down version of the preposition on.

But Welsh uses this construction in all kinds of places where English doesn’t. To say I speak Welsh, for example, you say Dw’i’n siarad Cymraeg, which literally translated means I am in speaking Welsh. In English the progressive stresses that you are doing something right now, while the simple present is used for things that are done habitually or that are generally true. In Welsh, though, it’s unmarked—it’s simply a wordier way of stating something without any special progressive meaning. Despite its superficial similarities to the English progressive, it’s quite far from English in both use and meaning. Additionally, the English construction may have much more mundane origins in the conflation of gerunds and present participles in late Middle English, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Welsh’s use of do support—or, I should say, gwneud support—even less closely parallels that of English. In English, do is used in interrogatives (Do you like ice cream?), negatives (I don’t like ice cream), and emphatic statements (I do like ice cream), and it also appears as a stand-in for whole verb phrases (He thinks I don’t like ice cream, but I do). In Welsh, however, gwneud is not obligatory, and it can be used in simple affirmative statements without any emphasis.

Nor is it always used where it would be in English. Many questions and negatives are formed with a form of the be verb, bod, rather than gwneud. For example, Do you speak Welsh? is Wyt ti’n siarad Cymraeg? (“Are you in speaking Welsh?”), and I don’t understand is Dw i ddim yn deall (“I am not in understanding”). (This is probably simply because Welsh uses the pseudo-progressive in the affirmative form, so it uses the same construction in interrogatives and negatives, much like how English would turn “He is going to the store” into “Is he going to the store?” or “He isn’t going to the store.” Do is only used when there isn’t another auxiliary verb that could be used.)

But there’s perhaps an even bigger problem with the theory that English borrowed these constructions from Celtic: time. Both the progressive and do support start to appear in late Middle English (the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), but they don’t really take off until the sixteenth century and beyond, over a thousand years after the Anglo-Saxons began colonizing Great Britain. So if the Celtic inhabitants of Britain adopted English but carried over some Celtic syntax, and if the reason why that Celtic syntax never appeared in Old English is that the written language was a standardized form that didn’t match the vernacular, and if the reason why Middle English looks so different from Old English is that people were now writing the way they spoke, then why don’t we see these Celticisms until the end of the Middle English period, and then only rarely?

Proponents of the Celtic substrate theory argue that these features are so unusual that they could only have been borrowed into English from Celtic languages. They ask why English is the only Germanic language to develop them, but it’s easy to flip this sort of question around. Why did English wait for more than a thousand years to borrow these constructions? Why didn’t English borrow the verb-subject-object sentence order from the Celtic languages? Why didn’t it borrow the after-perfect, which uses after plus a gerund instead of have plus a past participle (She is after coming rather than She has come), or any other number of Celtic constructions? And maybe most importantly, why are there almost no lexical borrowings from Celtic languages into English? Words are the first things to be borrowed, while more structural grammatical features like syntax and morphology are among the last. And just to beat a dead horse, just because something developed in English doesn’t mean you should expect to see the same thing develop in related languages.

The best thing that the Celtic substrate theory has going for it, I think, is that it’s appealing. It neatly explains something that makes English unique and celebrates the Celtic heritage of the island. But there’s a danger whenever a theory is too attractive on an emotional level. You tend to overlook its weaknesses and play up its strengths, as John McWhorter does when he breathlessly explains the theory in Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue. He stresses again and again how unique English is, how odd these constructions are, and how therefore they must have come from the Celtic languages.
I’m not a historical linguist and certainly not an expert in Celtic languages, but alarm bells started going off in my head when I read McWhorter’s book. There were just too many things that didn’t add up, too many pieces that didn’t quite fit. I wanted to believe it because it sounded so cool, but wanting to believe something doesn’t make it so. Of course, none of this is to say that it isn’t so. Maybe it’s all true but there just isn’t enough evidence to prove it yet. Maybe I’m being overly skeptical for nothing.
But in linguistics, as in other sciences, a good dose of skepticism is healthy. A crazy theory requires some crazy-good proof, and right now, all I see is a theory with enough holes in it to sink a fleet of Viking longboats.


Category: 0 comments

There are 12 mistakes about Grammar






12 Mistakes Nearly Everyone Who Writes About Grammar Mistakes Makes

There are a lot of bad grammar posts in the world. These days, anyone with a blog and a bunch of pet peeves can crank out a click-bait listicle of supposed grammar errors. There’s just one problem—these articles are often full of mistakes of one sort or another themselves. Once you’ve read a few, you start noticing some patterns. Inspired by a recent post titled “Grammar Police: Twelve Mistakes Nearly Everyone Makes”, I decided to make a list of my own.

1. Confusing grammar with spelling, punctuation, and usage. Many people who write about grammar seem to think that grammar means “any sort of rule of language, especially writing”. But strictly speaking, grammar refers to the structural rules of language, namely morphology (basically the way words are formed from roots and affixes), phonology (the system of sounds in a language), and syntax (the way phrases and clauses are formed from words). Most complaints about grammar are really about punctuation, spelling (such as problems with you’re/your and other homophone confusion) or usage (which is often about semantics). This post, for instance, spends two of its twelve points on commas and a third on quotation marks.

2. Treating style choices as rules. This article says that you should always use an Oxford (or serial) comma (the comma before and or or in a list) and that quotation marks should always follow commas and periods, but the latter is true only in most American styles (linguists often put the commas and periods outside quotes, and so do many non-American styles), and the former is only true of some American styles. I may prefer serial commas, but I’m not going to insist that everyone who doesn’t use them is making a mistake. It’s simply a matter of style, and style varies from one publisher to the next.

3. Ignoring register. There’s a time and a place for following the rules, but the writers of these lists typically treat English as though it had only one register: formal writing. They ignore the fact that following the rules in the wrong setting often sounds stuffy and stilted. Formal written English is not the only legitimate form of the language, and the rules of formal written English don’t apply in all situations. Sure, it’s useful to know when to use who and whom, but it’s probably more useful to know that saying To whom did you give the book? in casual conversation will make you sound like a pompous twit.

4. Saying that a disliked word isn’t a word. 
 You may hate irregardless (I do), but that doesn’t mean it’s not a word. If it has its own meaning and you can use it in a sentence, guess what—it’s a word. Flirgle, on the other hand, is not a word—it’s just a bunch of sounds that I strung together in word-like fashion. Irregardless and its ilk may not be appropriate for use in formal registers, and you certainly don’t have to like them, but as Stan Carey says, “‘Not a word’ is not an argument.”

5. Turning proposals into ironclad laws. 
 This one happens more often than you think. A great many rules of grammar and usage started life as proposals that became codified as inviolable laws over the years. The popular that/which rule, which I’ve discussed at length before, began as a proposal—not “everyone gets this wrong” but “wouldn’t it be nice if we made a distinction here?” But nowadays people have forgotten that a century or so ago, this rule simply didn’t exist, and they say things like “This is one of the most common mistakes out there, and understandably so.” (Actually, no, you don’t understand why everyone gets this “wrong”, because you don’t realize that this rule is a relatively recent invention by usage commentators that some copy editors and others have decided to enforce.) It’s easy to criticize people for not following rules that you’ve made up.

6. Failing to discuss exceptions to rules.
 Invented usage rules often ignore the complexities of actual usage. Lists of rules such as these go a step further and often ignore the complexities of those rules. For example, even if you follow the that/which rule, you need to know that you can’t use that after a preposition or after the demonstrative pronoun that—you have to use a restrictive which. Likewise, the less/fewer rule is usually reduced to statements like “use fewer for things you can count”, which leads to ugly and unidiomatic constructions like “one fewer thing to worry about”. Affect and effect aren’t as simple as some people make them out to be, either; affect is usually a verb and effect a noun, but affect can also be a noun (with stress on the first syllable) referring to the outward manifestation of emotions, while effect can be a verb meaning to cause or to make happen. Sometimes dumbing down rules just makes them dumb.

7. Overestimating the frequency of errors.
The writer of this list says that misuse of nauseous is “Undoubtedly the most common mistake I encounter.” This claim seems worth doubting to me; I can’t remember the last time I heard someone say “nauseous”. Even if you consider it a misuse, it’s got to rate pretty far down the list in terms of frequency. This is why linguists like to rely on data for testable claims—because people tend to fall prey to all kinds of cognitive biases such as the frequency illusion.

8. Believing that etymology is destiny.
Words change meaning all the time—it’s just a natural and inevitable part of language. But some people get fixated on the original meanings of some words and believe that those are the only correct meanings. For example, they’ll say that you can only use decimate to mean “to destroy one in ten”. This may seem like a reasonable argument, but it quickly becomes untenable when you realize that almost every single word in the language has changed meaning at some point, and that’s just in the few thousand years in which language has been written or can be reconstructed. And sometimes a new meaning is more useful anyway (which is precisely why it displaced an old meaning). As Jan Freeman said, “We don’t especially need a term that means ‘kill one in 10.’”

9. Simply bungling the rules.
If you’re going to chastise people for not following the rules, you should know those rules yourself and be able to explain them clearly. You may dislike singular they, for instance, but you should know that it’s not a case of subject-predicate disagreement, as the author of this list claims—it’s an issue of pronoun-antecedent agreement, which is not the same thing. This list says that “‘less’ is reserved for hypothetical quantities”, but this isn’t true either; it’s reserved for noncount nouns, singular count nouns, and plural count nouns that aren’t generally thought of as discrete entities. Use of less has nothing to do with being hypothetical. And this one says that punctuation always goes inside quotation marks. In most American styles, it’s only commas and periods that always go inside. Colons, semicolons, and dashes always go outside, and question marks and exclamation marks only go inside sometimes.

10. Saying that good grammar leads to good communication. Contrary to popular belief, bad grammar (even using the broad definition that includes usage, spelling, and punctuation) is not usually an impediment to communication. A sentence like Ain’t nobody got time for that is quite intelligible, even though it violates several rules of Standard English. The grammar and usage of nonstandard varieties of English are often radically different from Standard English, but different does not mean worse or less able to communicate. The biggest differences between Standard English and all its nonstandard varieties are that the former has been codified and that it is used in all registers, from casual conversation to formal writing. Many of the rules that these lists propagate are really more about signaling to the grammatical elite that you’re one of them—not that this is a bad thing, of course, but let’s not mistake it for something it’s not. In fact, claims about improving communication are often just a cover for the real purpose of these lists, which is . . .

11. Using grammar to put people down.
This post sympathizes with someone who worries about being crucified by the grammar police and then says a few paragraphs later, “All hail the grammar police!” In other words, we like being able to crucify those who make mistakes. Then there are the put-downs about people’s education (“You’d think everyone learned this rule in fourth grade”) and more outright insults (“5 Grammar Mistakes that Make You Sound Like a Chimp”). After all, what’s the point in signaling that you’re one of the grammatical elite if you can’t take a few potshots at the ignorant masses?

12. Forgetting that correct usage ultimately comes from users. The disdain for the usage of common people is symptomatic of a larger problem: forgetting that correct usage ultimately comes from the people, not from editors, English teachers, or usage commentators. You’re certainly entitled to have your opinion about usage, but at some point you have to recognize that trying to fight the masses on a particular point of usage (especially if it’s a made-up rule) is like trying to fight the rising tide. Those who have invested in learning the rules naturally feel defensive of them and of the language in general, but you have no more right to the language than anyone else. You can be restrictive if you want and say that Standard English is based on the formal usage of educated writers, but any standard that is based on a set of rules that are simply invented and passed down is ultimately untenable.
And a bonus mistake:

13. Making mistakes themselves. 
It happens to the best of us. The act of making grammar or spelling mistakes in the course of pointing out someone else’s mistakes even has a name, Muphry’s law. This post probably has its fair share of typos. (If you spot one, feel free to point it out—politely!—in the comments.)





Category: 0 comments

The Crows and Snake Story







The Crows and  Snake Story- Story Of The Crows And Serpent

Long time ago two crows lived in a tree little away from a village. They laid eggs several times. Every time a snake, who lived in a hole of a nearby tree, ate all the eggs. This worried the crows. They hit upon a plan. Together they flew to the village well. Few village girls were taking bath there. At a little distance lay their belongings. A pearl necklace caught the crow’s attention. Finding an opportunity, one crow picked it up. The crows flew as fast as they could till they reached the snake’s hole. They dropped the necklace there. It look like a string of eggs and the snake came out of the hole. The villagers who had heard the cries of the girls followed the crows to the spot. They saw the snake and killed it. They went back taking the necklace with them. The crows lived happily and peacefully ever after.


Moral Of The Story


Intelligence is greater than strength.




Category: 0 comments

The Wolf and the Seven Young Kids




There was once upon a time an old goat who had seven little kids, and loved them with all the love of a mother for her children. One day she wanted to go into the forest and fetch some food. So she called all seven to her and said, "Dear children, I have to go into the forest, be on your guard against the wolf, if he comes in, he will devour you all - skin, hair, and everything. The wretch often disguises himself, but you will know him at once by his rough voice and his black feet."
The kids said, "Dear mother, we will take good care of ourselves, you may go away without any anxiety." Then the old one bleated, and went on her way with an easy mind.
It was not long before some one knocked at the house-door and called, "Open the door, dear children, your mother is here, and has brought something back with her for each of you." But the little kids knew that it was the wolf, by the rough voice.
"We will not open the door," cried they, "you are not our mother. She has a soft, pleasant voice, but your voice is rough, you are the wolf."
Then the wolf went away to a shopkeeper and bought himself a great lump of chalk, ate this and made his voice soft with it. The he came back, knocked at the door of the house, and called, "Open the door, dear children, your mother is here and has brought something back with her for each of you."
But the wolf had laid his black paws against the window, and the children saw them and cried, "We will not open the door, our mother has not black feet like you, you are the wolf."
Then the wolf ran to a baker and said, "I have hurt my feet, rub some dough over them for me. And when the baker had rubbed his feet over, he ran to the miller and said, "Strew some white meal over my feet for me." The miller thought to himself, the wolf wants to deceive someone, and refused, but the wolf said, "If you will not do it, I will devour you." Then the miller was afraid, and made his paws white for him.
So now the wretch went for the third time to the house-door, knocked at it and said, "Open the door for me, children, your dear little mother has come home, and has brought every one of you something back from the forest with her."
The little kids cried, "First show us your paws that we may know if you are our dear little mother."
Then he put his paws in through the window, and when the kids saw that they were white, they believed that all he said was true, and opened the door. But who should come in but the wolf. The kids were terrified and wanted to hide themselves. One sprang under the table, the second into the bed, the third into the stove, the fourth into the kitchen, the fifth into the cupboard, the sixth under the washing-bowl, and the seventh into the clock-case. But the wolf found them all, and used no great ceremony, one after the other he swallowed them down his throat. The youngest, who was in the clock-case, was the only one he did not find. When the wolf had satisfied his appetite he took himself off, laid himself down under a tree in the green meadow outside, and began to sleep.
Soon afterwards the old goat came home again from the forest. Ah, what a sight she saw there. The house-door stood wide open. The table, chairs, and benches were thrown down, the washing-bowl lay broken to pieces, and the quilts and pillows were pulled off the bed. She sought her children, but they were nowhere to be found. She called them one after another by name, but no one answered.
At last, when she came to the youngest, a soft voice cried, "Dear Mother, I am in the clock-case." She took the kid out, and it told her that the wolf had come and had eaten all the others. Then you may imagine how she wept over her poor children.
At length in her grief she went out, and the youngest kid ran with her. When they came to the meadow, there lay the wolf by the tree and snored so loud that the branches shook. She looked at him on every side and saw that something was moving and struggling in his gorged belly. Ah, heavens, she thought, is it possible that my poor children whom he has swallowed down for his supper, can be still alive?
Then the kid had to run home and fetch scissors, and a needle and thread and the goat cut open the monster's stomach, and hardly had she make one cut, than one little kid thrust its head out, and when she cut farther, all six sprang out one after another, and were all still alive, and had suffered no injury whatever, for in his greediness the monster had swallowed them down whole.
What rejoicing there was! They embraced their dear mother, and jumped like a sailor at his wedding. The mother, however, said, "Now go and look for some big stones, and we will fill the wicked beast's stomach with them while he is still asleep." Then the seven kids dragged the stones thither with all speed, and put as many of them into his stomach as they could get in, and the mother sewed him up again in the greatest haste, so that he was not aware of anything and never once stirred.
When the wolf at length had had his fill of sleep, he got on his legs, and as the stones in his stomach made him very thirsty, he wanted to go to a well to drink. But when he began to walk and move about, the stones in his stomach knocked against each other and rattled. Then cried he,
    "What rumbles and tumbles
    Against my poor bones?
    I thought 'twas six kids,
    But it feels like big stones."
And when he got to the well and stooped over the water to drink, the heavy stones made him fall in, and he had to drown miserably.
When the seven kids saw that, they came running to the spot and cried aloud, "The wolf is dead, the wolf is dead," and danced for joy round about the well with their mother.





Category: 0 comments

The Sly Fox





The Fox was walking on the road and found a stick. He picked it up and went on. He reached a village and knocked on someone's door:
- Knock - knock-knock!
- Who is it? - someone asked.
- It's me - the Sly Fox. Let me spend the night at your house.
- There isn't enough space. There isn't enough space for us anyway!
- I won't cause you inconvenience. I will lie down on the plank-bed, my tail will be under the plank-bed, and my stick will be under the stove.
They pitied him and let him in.

The Fox lay down on the plank-bed, his tail - under the plank-bed, and his stick - under the stove. During the night, the Sly Fox got up and burnt his stick, and in the morning he started yelling.

- Where is my stick? I want my stick back! I won't leave without it. Only a hen can replace my stick.

The owner was startled. He thought and thought, and after all what to do - he gave him a hen. The Fox took the hen and while walking on the road sang:
The Fox was walking on the road,
and found a stick
and in exchange of it
the Sly Fox got a hen.
The Fox walked all day and in the evening he reached another village.
- Knock - knock - knock!
- Who is it?
- It's me - The Sly Fox. Let me spend the night at your house.
- There isn't enough space, Sly Fox. There isn't enough, even for us!
- I won't cause you inconvenience. I will lie down on the plank-bed, my tail will be under it, and the hen will be under the stove.

They let him in. During the night the Fox got up again, plucked the hen and ate it. And in the morning he started whining:
- Where is my hen? I want my hen back! If not - give me a duck in exchange.
The owner didn't have any other choice and gave him a duck. And the Sly Fox took the duck, left and started singing cheerfully:
The fox was walking on the road
and found a stick,
and for the stick, he took
a hen, and for the hen
he got a fat duck.

At dusk the Fox reached a third village.
- Knock - knock - knock!
- Who is it?
- It's me - the Sly Fox. Let me spend the night at your house.
- No! We don't have enough space anyway!
- I won't cause you inconvenience! I will lie down on the plank-bed, my tail - under the plank-bed, and the duck - under the stove.
They let him in. He lay down on the plank-bed, his tail - under it, the duck - under the stove. He hardly waited them to fall asleep, jumped and grabbed the duck and ate it.
In the morning, when everyone got up, the Fox started yelling:
- Where is my duck? Give me your daughter in exchange for it!
- We would give her up, Fox, but how are you going to carry her?
- Put her in the bag!
But how the owner is going to give his girl! Instead of putting the girl in the bag, he put the big dog and gave the bag to the Fox. The Sly Fox set off and ordered:
- Come on girl, sing me a song!
And the dog growled. The Fox frightened threw the bag and started running.
The big dog jumped out and darted after him. The dog chases the Fox, the Fox runs, the dog chases, and the Fox runs, and finally he hid in his hole under one stump. He took a deep breath and started whining:
- Oh, I was full of fear!
And then he started asking:
- My ears, my ears, what did you do while the dog was chasing me?
- We were listening, Fox!
- And what about you, my dear legs, what did you do?
- We were running to save you, Fox!
- And what about you, my eyes?
- We watched!
- And you, my tail?
- And I was hampering you.
- Indeed? Then I will give you to the dog to eat you!
And the Sly Fox showed her tail out of the hole and shouted:
- Here dog, eat it!
The dog waited exactly that. He grabbed the tail and started pulling it. The Fox pulled in, the dog pulled out, the Fox - in, the dog - out.
The dog pulled and pulled, and pulled the Sly Fox out and made him mincemeat!







Category: 0 comments

IELTS for work





IELTS for work


http://afzenglish.blogspot.com/2016/06/ielts-overview.html



Employers, professional bodies and associations accept IELTS

Organisations around the world rely on IELTS to help them select the right people.





Category: 0 comments

IELTS Overview



IELTS Overview

The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) is an exam used to assess a test taker’s ability to speak, read, write and understand the English language. Over 6,000 different organizations, including colleges and universities, government agencies and corporations, recognize IELTS scores. IELTS is administered jointly by University of Cambridge ESO Examinations, British Council and IELTS Australia. About 1.7 million people take the exam every year.
Exams are offered up to four times each month at over 500 test centers in 125 countries.

Two exam formats are offered: academic and general training. The academic format is used for those who are applying for admission at English-speaking colleges or universities. The general training format is aimed at those who will be working, training or studying in an English-speaking country

Each test includes:

Listening
30 minutes are given for 40 questions following several different recordings.


Reading
60 minutes are given for 40 questions about three reading passages.


Writing
60 minutes are given for two writing tasks; a 150-word letter (for general training IELTS) and a 250-word response to a statement or question for an academic IELTS test.

Speaking
11 to 14 minutes of face-to-face interview time with a certified test examiner.
Score reports are available by mail approximately two weeks after the exam is taken. Candidates can take the exam as many times as they wish. Scores are reported on a scale of 1 to 9, one being a non-user and 9 being an expert user.


Generally speaking, the IELTS is taken by those who wish to study, live or work in a country where English is the primary language of communication.Specifically, the test is taken by three broad categories of people:
  • Those who want to study English in a high-school, college or university in the United States, Canada, UK, South Africa, Australia or New Zealand
  • Those wishing to apply for immigration to countries like Canada, Australia or New Zealand
  • Those wishing to demonstrate their English proficiency to meet the needs of professional associations or regulatory agencies in several countries
To find practice materials or study guides for the IELTS, please check our website.




Category: 0 comments

A Dialogue ...1





Afrooz: "Hey Afroza. What are you doing here?"
Afroza: "How's it going? I'm meeting up with a friend here."
 
Afrooz: "How have you been man?"
Afroza: "Not too bad. I'm still in school and having a little fun."
 
Afrooz: "How are you enjoying Mr. Lee's history class?"
Afroza: "It's so boring."

Afrooz: "Tell me about it. If it wasn't a requirement, I wouldn't have taken it."
Afroza: "How about you? What have you been up to?"
 
Afrooz: "I finished school last spring. I'm searching for a job now, but I'm slacking off."
Afroza: "I heard the job market is not that hot right now."
 
Afrooz: "I could always take a low end job, but I'm not that desperate yet."
Afroza: "Well, good luck to you."
 
Afrooz: "Thanks. It was good seeing you again."
Afroza: "Yeah. I'll catch you later."

Afrooz: "Have a good night."
Afroza: "You Have too."









Category: 0 comments