ความคิดเห็นที่ 1 his wife's foolishness ของภรรยาไงครับ เขาเล่นเรียงรูปประโยคใหม่ จากคุณ : ผมว่าอะนะ เขียนเมื่อ : 22 ส.ค. 55 12:18:34 A:161.200.16.42 X: TicketID:106200

ความคิดเห็นที่ 2 ควรเป็น this foolishness of his wife หนังสือผิด บรรณาธิการสำนักพิมพ์คงดูพลาดไป ฝรั่งเจ้าของภาษาเขียนผิดกันบ่อยๆ อันหนึ่งที่เห็นหลายครั้งคือ เขียนว่า could of แทน could have (การออกเสียงคล้ายกันมาก) จากคุณ : นายชัย เขียนเมื่อ : 22 ส.ค. 55 12:22:07

ความคิดเห็นที่ 3 อาจารย์ที่เคยสอน บอกว่า Publisher บางแห่ง ให้รางวัล กับคนที่ รายงาน ของผิดพลาดประเภทต่าง ๆ ในหนังสือด้วยนะคะ ถ้าจำไม่ผิด บางที่ให้ 10$ ต่อ 1 จุด อาจารย์ ยังบอกอีกว่า ให้อ่านหนังสือให้ดี ๆ เผื่อ เจอผิดสัก 3-4 จุด ก็เท่ากับได้หนังสือฟรีแล้วค่ะ จากคุณ : แม่กุ๊บกั๊บกับเก๋ากี้ เขียนเมื่อ : 22 ส.ค. 55 12:39:04

ความคิดเห็นที่ 4 The usage of 'this foolishness of his wife's' is not a grammatical error.  It is the'double possessive construction' which is still widely accepted. Here are the details: Double Possessives Do we say "a friend of my uncle" or "a friend of my uncle's"? In spite of the fact that "a friend of my uncle's" seems to overwork the notion of possessiveness, that is usually what we say and write. The double possessive construction is sometimes called the "post-genitive" or "of followed by a possessive case or an absolute possessive pronoun" (from the Oxford English Dictionary, which likes to show off). The double possessive has been around since the fifteenth century, and is widely accepted. It's extremely helpful, for instance, in distinguishing between "a picture of my father" (in which we see the old man) and "a picture of my father's" (which he owns). Native speakers will note how much more natural it is to say "He's a fan of hers" than "he's a fan of her." Generally, what follows the "of" in a double possessive will be definite and human, not otherwise, so we would say "a friend of my uncle's" but not "a friend of the museum's [museum, instead]." What precedes the "of" is usually indefinite (a friend, not the best friend), unless it's preceded by the demonstratives this or that, as in "this friend of my father's." Authority for the section on "double possessives": The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press. Examples our own. source: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm แก้ไขเมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 55 13:19:31 แก้ไขเมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 55 13:16:47 จากคุณ : fortuneteller เขียนเมื่อ : 22 ส.ค. 55 12:59:28

ความคิดเห็นที่ 5 ... by this foolishness of his wife's ( 's ใช้แสดงแทนความประพฤติของภรรยา)...ผมว่านะ จากคุณ : tnu เขียนเมื่อ : 22 ส.ค. 55 14:04:45

ความคิดเห็นที่ 6 You can read the full text below and decide for yourself: Passage One All her life, Mrs. Foster had had an almost pathological fear of missing a train, a plane, a boat, or even a theater curtain. In other respects, she was not a particularly nervous woman, but the mere thought of being late on occasions like these would throw her into such a state of nerves that she would begin to twitch. It was nothing much - just a tiny vellicating muscle in the corner of the left eye, like a secret wink - but the annoying thing was that it refused to disappear until an hour or so after the train or plane or whatever it was had been safely caught.    It was really extraordinary how in certain people a simple apprehension about a thing like catching a train can grow into a serious obsession. At least half an hour before it was time to leave the house for the station, Mrs. Foster would step out of the elevator all ready to go, with hat and coat and gloves, and then, being quite unable to sit down, she would flutter and fidget about from room to room until her husband, who must have been well aware of her sate, finally emerged from his privacy and suggested in a cool dry voice that perhaps they had better get going now, had they not?    Mr. Foster may possibly have had a right to be irritated by this foolishness of his wife's, but he could have had no excuse for increasing her misery by keeping her waiting unnecessarily, mind you, it is by no means certain that this is what he did, yet whenever they were to go somewhere, his timing was so accurate - just a minute or two late, you understand - and his manner so bland that it was hard to believe he wasn't purposely inflicting a nasty private little torture of his own on the unhappy lady. And one thing he must have known - that she would never dare to call out and tell him to hurry. He had disciplined her too well for that. He must also have known that if he was prepared to wait even beyond the last moment of safety, he could drive her nearly into hysterics. On one or two special occasions in the later years of their married life, it seemed almost as though he had wanted to miss the train simply in order to intensify the poor woman’s suffering.    Assuming (though one cannot be sure) that the husband was guilty, what made his attitude doubly unreasonable was the fact that, with the exception of this one small irrepressible foible, Mrs. Foster was and always had been a good and loving wife. For over thirty years, she had served him loyally and well. There was no doubt about this. Even she, a very modest woman, was aware that Mr. Foster would ever consciously torment her, there had been times recently when she had caught herself beginning to wonder. (440 words) 　 1. Mrs. Foster was always afraid of ________. (  )  (a) being late  (b) going to the station  (c) being nervous  (d) catching a train 2. When Mrs. foster was catching a train, she ________. (  )  (a) had difficulty doing preparations  (b) often left the house a bit late  (c) tried to leave the house much earlier  (d) often miscalculated the time to leave 3. The narrator of the passage felt certain that ________. (  )  (a) Mr. Foster purposely kept his wife waiting unnecessarily  (b) Mr. Foster was purposely torturing his wife  (c) Mrs. Foster often urged her husband to hurry up  (d) Mrs. Foster never dared to tell her husband to hurry 4. Which of the following is Not true? (  )  (a) Mrs. Foster was a good wife on the whole.  (b) Mrs. Foster never doubted about her husband.  (c) Mrs. Foster knew that she served her husband well.  (d) The husband was guilty of maltreating his wife. 5. The tone of the passage is ________. (  )  (a) humourous  (b) pitiful  (c) serious  (d) contemptuous                                                   TOP   　 Passage Two California-born and Stanford-educated, John Steinbeck gained prominence during the Great Depression of the 1930s as a novelist who combined themes of social protest with a benign view of human nature and a biological interpretation of human experience, a combination that gained him wide popularity and provided the basis for a career not only in fiction but also in journalism, the theater, and films.    John Ernst Steinbeck, Jr., was born in 1902, in the Salinas Valley, whose scenery, agricultural workers, and ne'er-do-well paisanos appear frequently in his fiction. His father was treasurer of Monterey County, and his mother was a former schoolteacher. Their library introduced him early to such standard authors as Milton, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, George Eliot, and Thomas Hardy. He was a contributor to the school newspaper, a varsity athlete, and president of his graduating class in high school, and he attended Stanford University sporadically between 1920 and 1925, majoring in English, but never finished the degree. He worked on ranches and on a road gang before trying futilely to establish himself as a writer during a brief stay in New York City in 1926, and he worked in a California fish hatchery and camped in the Sierras before publishing his first novel, Cup of Gold, in 1929. In those years he read D. H. Lawrence, Willa Cather, Sherwood Anderson, and particularly the novelists James Branch Cabelland, Hemingway with enthusiasm, but his perennial interests were the classics of Continental literature and the ancient historians.    In 1930 he married and moved to Pacific Grove, California, where his father provided a house and small allowance to support him. Two unsuccessful novels treating the enchantment of the American Dream and the cost of pursuing it (The Pastures of Heaven, 1932, and To a God Unknown, 1933) preceded his first successes, Tortilla Flat in 1935 and In Dubious Battle in 1936. The first was an episodic, warmly humorous treatment of a band of paisanos (a mixture of Spanish, Indian, and Caucasian strands). Their picturesque and shiftless ways, naive affection for their church, mystical appreciation of nature, and loyalty to their band are given the air of legend and likened to the tales of King Arthur's Round Table. The second deals with a strike among fruit pickers, its defeat by the landowners with their vigilantes, and the efforts of communist organizers first to organize the strike and then to exploit the workers. (338 words) 6. According to the passage, Steinbeck did all of the following except ________. (  )  (a) protesting against social evils  (b) regarding human nature as essentially evil  (c) becoming a prominent writer in the 1930s  (d) working as a journalist 7. “Paisanos” means ________. (  )  (a) rich people  (b) poor people  (c) peasants  (d) laborers 8. As a student at school, Steinbeck was all the following except ________. (  )  (a) a school newspaper reporter  (b) an athlete  (c) president of the school  (d) an English major 9. Steinbeck's first success as a writer was ________. (  )  (a) Cup of Gold  (b) The Pastures of Heaven  (c) To a God Unknown  (d) Tortilla Flat 10. In Dubious Battle gives a description of ________. (  )  (a) a group of paisanos loyal to their band  (b) King Arthur's Round Table  (c) the defeat of a strike by the landowners  (d) soldiers fighting for freedom                                    TOP Passage Three I feel that this award was not made to me as a man but to my work - a life's work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among whom is already that one who will some day stand here where I am standing.    Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.    He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.    Until he relearns these things, he will write as though he stood alone and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure; that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail. (William Faulkner: Nobel Prize Award Speech) (552 words) 11. Faulkner thought that ________. (  )  (a) because he had worked in agony and sweat, he deserved the award  (b) the award should be given to someone else  (c) his life as a writer was marked by agony and sweat  (d) only those who did not care for glory or profit can hope to succeed 12. According to Faulkner, the only thing worth writing about was ________.(  )  (a) the agony and the sweat of human heart  (b) the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself  (c) the question: "When will I be blown up?"  (d) a general and universal physical fear 13. A good writer, according to Faulkner, should remember all the following except ________. (  )  (a) fear  (b) pity  (c) hope  (d) love 14. Faulkner would not accept the end of man because ________. (  )  (a) man is immortal  (b) man will eventually meet his doom and die  (c) man has his own voice that never dies  (d) man has a soul 15. It is more important for a writer to ________. (  )  (a) know what is happening  (b) record what has happened  (c) endure better than others  (d) give people spiritual support source: http://www.thnu.edu.cn/data/ce/er/4/kechenx/BOOK4/UNIT15/15fastreading.htm จากคุณ : fortuneteller เขียนเมื่อ : 22 ส.ค. 55 14:15:20

ความคิดเห็นที่ 7 เข้าใจแล้วค่ะ เป็นอย่างนี้นี่เอง Double Possessive ขอบคุณคุณ fortuneteller มากๆ และท่านอื่นๆ ด้วยค่ะ จากคุณ : Kicker Girl เขียนเมื่อ : 22 ส.ค. 55 15:43:15

ความคิดเห็นที่ 8 เราเคยเห็นเขาใช้หลายที ให้เราใช้เราก็ทำตามได้ แต่เราอธิบายไม่ถูกหรอกว่ามันมาจากไหน ต้องขอบคุณหมอดูที่ไปหามาให้ ไวยากรณ์ฝรั่งมันก็มีลูกเล่นเยอะ จำพวก double possessive, split infinitive จำพวกนี้แหละ จากคุณ : แอ๊ด ปากเกร็ด เขียนเมื่อ : 23 ส.ค. 55 11:48:37