Anyone that knows Korean ? -PLEASE HELP-

[1986]

[admin]
I made a copy of the original here in the off-topic forums for those who wish to debate grammar.
-JB
[/admin]

a few people are Using this cyberoro app on the I-Phone/I-Pad
it would be helpful to avoid some guesswork if we knew what a few buttons functions were
its Korean.

I figured out how to play games and go to the problems through trail and error;
but i still would like to figure out the translation to some of the other main buttons.



What button Does What?



same question for the 3 bottom buttons and the top left button?



same question for the 4 buttons at the bottom and two buttons at the top?

Thank you in advance
i appreciate your kindness?

[Harleqin]

Perhaps you could get a faster reply if you asked for someone who knows Korean.

[John Fairbairn]

Perhaps you could get a faster reply if you asked for someone who knows Korean.

I have no problems with "that" here. But I'm only a native speaker

The underlying functions are unknown to me but subject to that, the buttons seem to be for:

TOP
Game room, Waiting Room, Waiting Room Chat
Live broadcast, Search, Wagering
Replay game records, Classroom, Settings

MIDDLE
Trial moves, Position analysis, Game info

BOTTOM
Try again, Hint, Previous, Next (The text above is variable commentary - here B1 may be surprising but is the right answer).

[Ben]

Perhaps you could get a faster reply if you asked for someone who knows Korean.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv313.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

[1986]

Thank u thank you thank You all

[Harleqin]

Perhaps you could get a faster reply if you asked for someone who knows Korean.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv313.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Well, it seems that the use of "that" for "who" has already been accepted as "normal, but informal" in english. For perspective, it could only be seen as an insult to use "das" instead of "der" in german---I believe that this is quite apparent when you think about it.

Language evolves. I see no problem with new language constructs that improve the language by giving its user a way to express some idea in a more concise, unambiguous, or exact manner.

Nevertheless, I apologize for the rude interjection, since it seems that the native speakers do allow this sloppiness.

[John Fairbairn]

Nevertheless, I apologize for the rude interjection, since it seems that the native speakers do allow this sloppiness.

I'm not quite sure what we are supposed to make of an apology to one person which is replaced by an insult to virtually all native speakers of English now branded as sloppy, but I think it deserves some sort of prize for chutzpah.

But as you appear to care about English grammar, you may wish to know that the last part of you sentence would read much better as "since it seems that native speakers do allow this sloppiness".

[flOvermind]

[OFFTOPIC]

Not being a native speaker, I'm a bit confused. I always thought that "that" is a pronoun that can be used for both persons and things, while "which" and "who" are specific.

For example:
http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/ ... at_who.htm

The relative pronoun 'who' should be used for people; whereas, 'which' should be used for things. The relative pronoun 'that' can be used for either.

Doing a quick search, I found lots of other references, going both ways, but generally the references that say "that" can be used in both ways seem more credible to me. The ones that say "that" is strictly for things more have the feeling of rules of thumb, while the ones that say "that" can be used for both often cite usage in dictionaries or literature.

Can any native speaker help me out? Because that's an area where a simple error that really comes from not knowing the language well could easily insult someone.

[/OFFTOPIC]

[Kirby]

I am a native speaker, and I sometimes use "that" when I refer to people. For example, I'll probably more likely say, "He's the guy that just walked through the door" rather than "He's the guy who just walked through the door". Maybe it has to do with speaking style.

I don't really study English grammar, but using "that" to refer to people sounds fine to me.

I don't think people would be offended by being called, "that", either. For example, if I ask, "Who is that?", a normal response is "That's <X>.", where <X> is the name of the person in question... I guess that's a different use of "that", but it doesn't take away from the point that I'm not offended to be referred to as "that".

[hyperpape]

Can any native speaker help me out? Because that's an area where a simple error that really comes from not knowing the language well could easily insult someone.

Luckily, I don't think it could, unless they were a pedant.

If you say "the fire extinguisher who I carried", it will sound funny and ungrammatical, ditto if you say "the policeman which arrested me". I can't think of a use here that would be insulting.

[Kirby]

... "the policeman which arrested me". I can't think of a use here that would be insulting.

To me, "which" seems unnatural, whereas I'm more OK with "that". In other words, "the policeman that arrested me" and "the policeman who arrested me" both sound better than "the policeman which arrested me".

[hyperpape]

Kirby: I think we agree--it sounds funny and ungrammatical. I was just telling flovermind that I didn't think you could insult anyone misusing the terms.

[Kirby]

Kirby: I think we agree--it sounds funny and ungrammatical. I was just telling flovermind that I didn't think you could insult anyone misusing the terms.

Yes. I also thought we agreed. Maybe I should have prefixed my post with that.

[jts]

But in some circumstances it does sound funny, doesn't it? "Which policeman?" "The policeman that says hi to me."

[freegame]

omg, every understood. idc wtf u ppl use s long s it's understandable English.
back Go stuff now.