how good is your command of the english language

good enough

>>9166488
I know when to use whom, whomever, whomsoever, and whomsoevers.

Makes me feel like a smarty to drop those pronouns on people

When I was a freshman the head of the English Department said I had a "remarkable command of the English language".

how WELL is your command of the english language**

It is happy.

Its splendid

Mediocre, although I get angry when people misuse "your", "you're" and "yaw". Aerospace is too costly to fuck around with misspellings.

>>9166534
he probably means you didn't greet him by saying "wasssup mang".

>>9166488
>how good is your command of the english language


plusgood but not doubleplusgood

I keep regurgitating circumventing, circumlocutory instantiations derivationally synchronised with unsatisfactorily unidiomatic phraseologies which teleologically inveigle unpreoccupied communicandi.

>>9166757
>Aerospace is too costly to fuck around with misspellings.
>implying anything new happens in aerospace which would warrant worrying
Non-chemical propulsion when?

>>9166488
Why, thank you!

>>9166528
when you start using whomst and whomst'd've get back to me

>>9166800
Hello. What now?

probably better than majority of native brits.

>>9166488
It's pretty cromulent.

>>9166488
Goodly.

>>9166488
Bad (I'm not a native speaker)

>>9166488
Better than the average college student but not too tryhard like Joyce.

Secondhand none

I get immensely pissed off at people who go out of their way to speak in a sophisticated manner so I try to simplify everything I say as much as possible as to not seem like a try-hard faggot. This, in turn, means that I've lost a lot of what I used to have, especially since I haven't been writing a lot as of late.

>>9166488
I've been told talk pretty good

>>9166827
The three word conjunction is a new meme on reddit.

Hopefully that poster will jump into a bus soon.

>>9166969
That's bogus. You either learn the language or you don't, and much of it occurs when very, very young. In other words, youre not more honest for being a minimalist. And the fact that you think so means youre a goon. De-goonify yourself!

>>9166775

Yaw just trolling, right? I hope the next plane trip you take, the plane starts your'eing uncontrollably and you crash.

>>9166488
dismal

>>9166969
While I am certainly against overly flowery language, I also feel like there should be more backlash against the morons who think Hemingway somehow concluded all of English development, and the "correct" way is to write as if you're speaking to a blind child. Discard the superfluous, great. But the next time I see criticism for not utilizing exclusively monosyllabic words and sentences longer than 10 words, I'm going to just embrace the obscurantist/verbose crowd, because if nothing else, at least it isn't so stultifying.

Is pretty gud boss

You can see the flesh, shaping itself to procreate the greatest words ever made in the history of man.
They are so easy
To SHAPE

I'm able to get my point across. I can give sufficient details on the environment and characters I want to portray, without it coming off like an Ikea instruction manual.

I can comprehend and usually appreciate poetic, whimsical prose, but attempting it makes me feel foolish. I see something like "Something Wicked This Way Comes," and I'm just baffled at how someone can think/write like that.

Or maybe you're talking about the proper names for the grammatical elements, in which case I remember approximately fuck-all.

>>9166488
Compared to commoners, quite good. Compared to geniuses I've met both in person and in paper, quite poor.

No matter how many big words you know, if you're not a profoundly insightful person, you'll never be able to use them fully to your advantage. Words are merely receptacles of thought, so most examples you see of purple prose, for instance, are no more than pathetic attempts at replacing legitimate and original ideas with window-dressing.

Profundity can be expressed in minimal terms.

Varies.
I sometimes make stupid spelling errors and my text structure isn't really R
English.Not in the gramatical sense,I just write stuff in an overly convoluted way

>And but so.
You tell me.

File: image.jpg (311KB, 1161x1550px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1161x1550px

>>9166488
Not that good, but I'm actually a virtuoso when it comes to Italian.

>>9166488
Pretty bad. It isn't my mother tongue and I think I have a decent passive vocabulary but I struggle when I try to write. Words and expressions just won't come to mind when I need them. My speaking and listening skills are mediocre at best.

above average

>>9166969
What gave it away? 'utilize' -- good try.

>>9166969
tell me about the rabbits, george!