Oct. 22, 2020
Journal 10/22/20
A colleague thinks that I am always wearing low price clothes and he thinks I should wear more expensive clothes. I do not agree with him. I think it is good as long as the clothes I wear are clean and not broken. I can't agree that a piece of clothes costs a lot of money and I think that a single piece of clothes costs 50-200 CNY will be reasonable. If a single piece of clothing costs more than 200 CNY, I would think it is very expensive. Plus, I buy new clothes until the old ones are broken.
A colleague thinks that I am always wearing low pricecheap clothes and he thinks I should wear more expensive clothes.
I think it is good as long as the clothes I wear are clean and not brokein good condition.
I can't agree that a piece of clothesing should costs a lot of money and I think that a single piece of clothesing costsing 50-200 CNY willould be reasonable.
Plus, I buy new clothes untilwhen the old ones are brokenworn out.
Oct. 22, 2020
I can't agree that a piece of clothesing should costs a lot of money and I think that a single piece of clothesing costsing 50-200 CNY willould be reasonable.
Could you please tell me why they are should, costing and would? I don’t know why.
Oct. 22, 2020
Plus, I buy new clothes untilwhen the old ones are brokenworn out.
Broken here doesn’t work?
Oct. 22, 2020
I'm not a native English speaker so take whatever I write cautiously.
In my mind, "broken" is more suited to describe something that ceases to function, for instance, a machine or even a person. Generally, we judge a clothing by its condition, e.g. is it frayed, torn, shrunken; it can still be (somewhat) worn in spite of its poor condition.
Oct. 22, 2020
Thank you for your explanations. Thank you very much.
Oct. 23, 2020
No worries, Jack. Happy learning.
Oct. 23, 2020
Could you please tell me why they are should, costing and would? I don’t know why.
It is complicated. The sentence is a bit above your current level of English. "Should," "would," and "could" are used to talk about things that are hypothetical, that aren't happening but can happen.
"This should only cost a little" means "I think it is a good thing if this only costs a little."
"Paying $20 for this would be reasonable" means "If you paid $20 for this, I think that is reasonable."
More examples here
https://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa/How-to-Use-Could-Would-and-Should
or consult an English textbook in your language for a better explanation.
Oct. 23, 2020
I'm not a native English speaker so take whatever I write cautiously. In my mind, "broken" is more suited to describe something that ceases to function, for instance, a machine or even a person. Generally, we judge a clothing by its condition, e.g. is it frayed, torn, shrunken; it can still be (somewhat) worn in spite of its poor condition.
This is correct.
A colleague thinks that I am always wearing low pricecheap clothes and he thinks I should wear more expensive clothes.
"Cheap" sounds more natural than "low price".
I do not agree with him.
I think it is good as long as the clothes I wear are clean and not brokendamaged.
We wouldn't really describe clothes as "broken." Perhaps "damaged," or "torn" (if the clothes had a tear in them).
I cadon't agree that a piece of clothesing should costs a lot of money and. I think that a single piece of clothes costs 50-200 CNY will be reasonable50-200 CNY would be a reasonable price for a single piece of clothing.
Idiomatically, the term is "a piece of clothing." I rearranged the second part—it could also be written as "I think that a single piece of clothing should cost between 50-200 CNY."
If a single piece of clothing costs more than 200 CNY, I would think it is very expensive would not want to pay more than 200 CNY for a single piece of clothing.
The way you wrote it makes sense and isn't technically incorrect, but this re-write sounds more natural.
Plus, I only buy new clothes untilwhen the old ones are brokenworn out.
I added "only" to indicate that you do not buy new clothes if the old ones are still in good condition. Once again, "broken" isn't typically used for clothes.
Oct. 23, 2020
Thank you for your corrections and explanations. They are very helpful. Thank you very much.
|
Journal 10/22/20 |
|
A colleague thinks that I am always wearing low price clothes and he thinks I should wear more expensive clothes. A colleague thinks that I am always wearing "Cheap" sounds more natural than "low price". A colleague thinks that I am always wearing |
|
I do not agree with him. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
I think it is good as long as the clothes I wear are clean and not broken. I think it is good as long as the clothes I wear are clean and not We wouldn't really describe clothes as "broken." Perhaps "damaged," or "torn" (if the clothes had a tear in them). I think it is good as long as the clothes I wear are clean and |
|
I can't agree that a piece of clothes costs a lot of money and I think that a single piece of clothes costs 50-200 CNY will be reasonable. I Idiomatically, the term is "a piece of clothing." I rearranged the second part—it could also be written as "I think that a single piece of clothing should cost between 50-200 CNY." I can't agree that a piece of cloth |
|
If a single piece of clothing costs more than 200 CNY, I would think it is very expensive. I The way you wrote it makes sense and isn't technically incorrect, but this re-write sounds more natural. |
|
Plus, I buy new clothes until the old ones are broken. Plus, I only buy new clothes I added "only" to indicate that you do not buy new clothes if the old ones are still in good condition. Once again, "broken" isn't typically used for clothes. Plus, I buy new clothes |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium