Doubts of a non-native English speaker

[mmcavall]

As a non-native English speaker, I have a doubt about the exact meaning of some sentences.

What do you exactly mean by "use a mineral mix with little organic matter"?

1. Organic matter is undesirable, so prefer almost pure mineral mixes (or even pure mineral mix)
2. Organic matter is important, can't be absent, although must be provided in small quantities

So, 1 or 2?

The point is: it is telling me that organic matter must be avoided or it is telling me that it can't be absent?

In Portuguese the sentence could be translated as "use composto mineral com pouca matéria orgânica" (the meaning is as in 1) or " use composto mineral com um pouco de matéria orgânica" ( the meaning is as in 2).

Very subtle differences ... Hope my question makes sense.

Thanks in advance !

[gemhunter178]

For me, it's not that simple - it honestly depends on the plant. Cacti (and succulents) come from many different places with different climates.
I do have to say number 1 is accurate for some plants, like the easy-to-rot desert types.
I think number 2 is less accurate since I can grow almost anything in a pure mineral mix- except it might not grow as well and/or I have to water it every day for plants like jungle cacti.

Number 2 would be my description of a general cacti mix though, barring weird climates like jungle or easily rotted cacti and succulents.
The point being: organic matter can be avoided in some cases, but, generally there should be some (especially for jungle types).

[walker87]

Interpretation 1 is the most accurate for that sentence.

If a mineral mix is called for with little to no organic matter then the sentence means organic matter is undesirable.

[brixtertabun]

Deleted

[DaveW]

The dictionary defines organic as:-

"relating to or derived from living matter."

Meaning in the case of cactus soils any material derived from plants (or to a lesser degree in habitat, animals). This can vary from some soils in wetter climates having a considerable amount of actively rotting plant material in them (which cacti usually do not like) to those in dryer climates having dead plant material that has not rotted but eventually turned to powder. The third type of organic material is of course peat, or CoCo peat (Coir) both of which are fairly inert.

I doubt there are any soils in the world where plants grow/or have grown, that do not have some form of organic material in them to a greater or lesser extent, but usually it is quite a small proportion in cactus habitats. The problem with purely mineral potting soils is they often lack the nutrients and trace elements organic matter usually provides, therefore you need to fertilise occasionally to put these back. Then of course the cultivation becomes more like hydroponics where the substrate is merely to hold the plant up and most of the nutrients are provided separately by fertilisation.

The fact that cacti can and have been grown in various mixtures from organic to mineral over the years shows they are pretty tolerant, but they do not seem to like actively rotting material in the mix, possibly because they have not developed immunity to the bacteria and moulds etc that rot this type of organic material down

[Aiko]

What do you exactly mean by "use a mineral mix with little organic matter"?

1. Organic matter is undesirable, so prefer almost pure mineral mixes (or even pure mineral mix)
2. Organic matter is important, can't be absent, although must be provided in small quantities

So, 1 or 2?

There could also be a 3. At least when it comes down on how I mix my soils.

3. Organic matter is not important, but provides some additional nutrients and makes the soil less cement like when it dries.

I usually have a mix of 50% loam and 50% grit for many of my plants. Quite minerally. That mix usually hardens to concrete when the soil dries out. But if I add some organic matter (sieved top soil in my case) it prevents the loam mix to turn to concrete. Doesn't have to be much organic matter.

Also succulents with leaves seem to like organic matter more than non-leaves succulents. The succulents with leaves also require more water than those without it, so a more organic mix provides more moist and more nutricients than a mineral mix provides.

[walker87]

It seems this thread is shifting more into a soil discussion than language interpretation.
Perhaps I read the original post differently.

[mmcavall]

Hello everyone, and thanks for all the replies.
My point was about English grammar and native-speakers way to construct sentences and interprete them.
I should have used as example something like " use a soil with little "A".

Without the implicit meaning of "mineral soil" and "organic matter", perhaps the answers would be different? Or it really depends on the context?

Thanks again for taking part in this discussion and help me understand correctly what I am reading.

[mmcavall]

It seems this thread is shifting more into a soil discussion than language interpretation.
Perhaps I read the original post differently.

Thanks walker87, you understood correctly. Please see above what I've just posted.

Anyway I think all replies help the interpretation.
Thanks

[saboten]

Hello everyone, and thanks for all the replies.
My point was about English grammar and native-speakers way to construct sentences and interprete them.
I should have used as example something like " use a soil with little "A".

Without the implicit meaning of "mineral soil" and "organic matter", perhaps the answers would be different? Or it really depends on the context?

Thanks again for taking part in this discussion and help me understand correctly what I am reading.

I love questions like these! I tutor English to non-native speakers and find it really fun! KEEP THE QUESTIONS COMING!

Any way, the rule is:
'A little' has a positive connotation to it. What I mean is: If I say, "Yeah I have a little money" it means "I don't have a huge amount of money, but yes! I do have some ".
'Little' has a more negative connotation. When I say "I have little money," it means, "I really DON'T HAVE much money at all but it's not $0"

This is the same with 'a few' vs. 'few', i.e. "I have a few friends" sounds like you are happy to have some good friends, even if you don't have hundreds of friends; "I have few friends" sounds sad, saying that you really almost have 0 friends.

Of course 'A little/little' goes for non-count nouns (soil, furniture,traffic, bread, etc) and 'A few/few' goes for count nouns (grains, chairs, cars,
slices, etc)

Edit: I realize I didn't even answer your question from the original post, Sorry! #1 is better, as someone already said.

[greenknight]

Even better would have been to say "little or no organic matter" - that would have made it clear that organic matter is not necessary. However. when posting online (or any time, really) people often don't employ the most precise language.

[DaveW]

You would have a field day with some native English speakers then Saboten. There is certainly a difference between people who are taught English and those who learn it as their native language.

We used to get an ex football player from up north as a pundit on TV coming out with phrases like "we've went to the match" instead of "we went to the match" or "he's went to the match" instead of "he's gone to the match", or "he went to the match"..

https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... -have-gone

Words seem to change their use in certain British dialects. You can often tell a "foreigner" as they speak too perfect English, having actually been taught English rather than picked it up in their environment from childhood. The same applies to American English.

Native speakers seldom need to dissect their language as to whether they are using verbs, adverbs, nouns etc in the correct place. That is the language of academia. Native speakers in day to day usage just string sentence's together in the way they and their friends have from childhood, never having to worry about sentence construction.

We do get the academics occasionally pontificating to argue that Star Treck's "to boldly go" is bad English and it should be "to go boldly" but nobody pays much attention to them. Also our national broadcaster the BBC should not call women "Ladies" unless they are Lords wives, although it is usually considered a courtesy in Britain to address females that way. Received Pronunciation of English is really just as much a regional accent from down south as are all other accents in Britain. In fact it is not even the native regional accent of our capital city London, which should be cockney and not so called "Queens English".

A quote from the following link:-

"The modern study of language has shown that all native speakers are experts in their language. Almost all judgments about someone's language – the laziness of a glottal stop, the slowness of rural speech, the supposed ugliness of a particular urban accent – have no linguistic justification and reflect only the prejudice of the judger. However, very few people are aware of these basic findings."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/ ... cs-chomsky

Certainly if you are actually teaching English as a second language the ideal would be a version that can be understood by all, but if you actually come to the UK and go South to North you will gradually notice the language change and a different usage of words..

[mmcavall]

'A little' has a positive connotation to it. What I mean is: If I say, "Yeah I have a little money" it means "I don't have a huge amount of money, but yes! I do have some ".
'Little' has a more negative connotation. When I say "I have little money," it means, "I really DON'T HAVE much money at all but it's not $0"

This is the same with 'a few' vs. 'few', i.e. "I have a few friends" sounds like you are happy to have some good friends, even if you don't have hundreds of friends; "I have few friends" sounds sad, saying that you really almost have 0 friends.

Of course 'A little/little' goes for non-count nouns (soil, furniture,traffic, bread, etc) and 'A few/few' goes for count nouns (grains, chairs, cars,
slices, etc)

Edit: I realize I didn't even answer your question from the original post, Sorry! #1 is better, as someone already said.

Thank you, Saboten, that's the kind of explanation I was searching for. So it is similar to Portuguese ("pouco" = "little" ; "um pouco = a little").

Even better would have been to say "little or no organic matter" - that would have made it clear that organic matter is not necessary. However. when posting online (or any time, really) people often don't employ the most precise language.

Thank you Spence, no doubts left!

We should edit the tittle of the thread to "Doubts of non-native English speakers", so others can ask questions too, and the thread keeps going.

[saboten]

You would have a field day with some native English speakers then Saboten. There is certainly a difference between people who are taught English and those who learn it as their native language.

We used to get an ex football player from up north as a pundit on TV coming out with phrases like "we've went to the match" instead of "we went to the match" or "he's went to the match" instead of "he's gone to the match", or "he went to the match"..

https://english.stackexchange.com/quest ... -have-gone

Words seem to change their use in certain British dialects. You can often tell a "foreigner" as they speak too perfect English, having actually been taught English rather than picked it up in their environment from childhood. The same applies to American English.

Native speakers seldom need to dissect their language as to whether they are using verbs, adverbs, nouns etc in the correct place. That is the language of academia. Native speakers in day to day usage just string sentence's together in the way they and their friends have from childhood, never having to worry about sentence construction.

We do get the academics occasionally pontificating to argue that Star Treck's "to boldly go" is bad English and it should be "to go boldly" but nobody pays much attention to them. Also our national broadcaster the BBC should not call women "Ladies" unless they are Lords wives, although it is usually considered a courtesy in Britain to address females that way. Received Pronunciation of English is really just as much a regional accent from down south as are all other accents in Britain. In fact it is not even the native regional accent of our capital city London, which should be cockney and not so called "Queens English".

A quote from the following link:-

"The modern study of language has shown that all native speakers are experts in their language. Almost all judgments about someone's language – the laziness of a glottal stop, the slowness of rural speech, the supposed ugliness of a particular urban accent – have no linguistic justification and reflect only the prejudice of the judger. However, very few people are aware of these basic findings."

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/ ... cs-chomsky

Certainly if you are actually teaching English as a second language the ideal would be a version that can be understood by all, but if you actually come to the UK and go South to North you will gradually notice the language change and a different usage of words..

Absolutely, Dave! The vagaries of a 'single' language (as we are wont to call English 'English' regardless of which dialect, although some use different grammatical rules) are endlessly fascinating. I must confess that I'm not completely familiar with all the sounds of British dialects/accents, but I once was going with a northerner (from Middlesbrough) and I often had to ask "Come again?" (I speak American English of the midwest, of course). However, not being from England myself, I had none of the stereotypes to attach to various accents, and I found them all lovely. Plus, regional slang is a delight!

When I am helping students, I often try to make the point of saying that such-and-such rule is 'the current standard for writing', and try to tell them that they will often hear it differently in speech, and try to give examples of different ways people say the same thing. I don't see the point of people who get really up in arms about a misplaced comma and other common invented offenses

[DaveW]

Languages ev0lve with time. For instance there are no such things as Latin experts, it being a dead language, because there are no recordings of how people at the time spoke it. Passing down languages by word of mouth means it gradually changes every generation, just like the game "Chinese Whispers". If original Latin speakers came back to life and heard academic Latin as now spoken they would probably laugh. I suppose written language is the only thing that stays constant, but not how you actually pronounce the words. It's only since we have had the ability to record speakers that future generations will actually know how our language was spoken at the time. Probably worldwide communications like TV are now doing more to standardise spoken languages, just as printing did to standardise written language.

Also before the days of printing brought about common spelling, everybody used their own form of phonetic spelling. Therefore whether the word shop had an e on the end and an extra p in the middle as shoppe, it was still originally pronounced shop. Also the letter Thorn which was a TH sound looked most like the letter Y, so as they did not have a letter for Thorn the printers used the Y. Therefore it was always pronounced The old tea shop though written "Ye olde Tea Shoppe". In fact it was probably the printing trade that standardised English rather than the academics.

http://www.scottishhandwriting.com/cmLFth.asp