If so, how do you use the English in different situations where the cueball needs to cut the object ball? If not, please explain. Thanks!
211995
english makes the object ball throw as well as changing the path on it and the cue ball it depends on the end result of where you want the two balls to go best way to find out is table Time and experimentation
204126
isn't it "Play Ball"?  im not sure but thats what i always thought it was.  I like it when they play Sweet Caroline.  Whoa Whoa Whoa.  \n\nGO SOX!!
655976
That's ok.  I passed English class.  \nBut your question makes a good point for some people.  It annoys me when people use words like that the wrong way, or with the incorrect form.
474072
just click on the cue stick with your mouse and drag it, then release your click and your cue will send the ball flying, i am assuming you are talking about yahoo pool, since this is under the snooker and pool section. Cheers
170040
Not quite... It's generally understandable though. \n\nIf you're meaning... \n\n"I'm afraid my English is not good enough to understand the important rules that you are going to say."\n\nI'm is I am, which, in some circles is more common, and readable, but of little importance grammatically.\n\nThe important point is with the word "miss". In this incident having miss instead of understand makes the meaning of the sentence change dramatically. \n\nWritten as you did, it basically means that if you understand English well, you won't be able to understand... \n\nThis is non-sensible, and self contradictory, so it leaves the reader with the option of understanding it despite its poor grammar. \n\nAmericans often make similar mistakes themselves and, perhaps unconsciously, compensate, as many of those who have answered before me have done.\n\nI seperated the above into extra paragraphs to make it more readable, and hopefully easier to understand. Normal English obviously does not use such segmented paragraphing.
592052
English is the "official" language for the games.  When they argue with the referees, they normally do it in their own language, so the referee does not understand, ha.  Even though players argue, they usually don't get anywhere, cause it's always the referees final word.
504149
Where has common courtesy gone?  If I wasn't willing to take the penalty strokes, drop a ball and play on, I would get the ball myself.  If I "needed" to have the caddie do it, then YES I definitely would up my tip at the end of my round.  I may be old fashioned, but I would also say "thanks!"
227253
Although I don't know specifically, I know a bit *around* the topic.  I live in Bowling Green, which is named for having nice flat green spaces.  I also played an interesting "bowling" yard game while I was in Sweden that seemed a lot like bowling.  SO the way I imagine it is that the English had a similar yard game that was the predecessor of modern bowling.  It probably used a similar size ball as the Swedish game - a wooden (?) ball slightly larger than a softball, but definitely not as large as a modern bowling ball.  "Pins" would probably be carved of wood and would have ot be made stable enough to stand on soft turf, but tall enough to be knocked over by the ball - the Swedish game just had blocks of wood this size, but wealthy people might afford something sanded down to pegs or even already given a pin shape to make throws more difficult.  The game would be similar, but no gutters or return, of course - just the pins set up on a green (think putting green) and the players standing at a distance.  Depending on the class of the person playing, either servants or friends would help set up or remove the pins.  Of course, they probably weren't as pressed for time as we are today, so I suppose they could have just done it themselves.  Anyhow, I don't see how the scoring for... What is it called?  One round?  Anyhow, the terms "strike" and "spare" might have been invented then, but I doubt the games ran ten rounds... then again, there were 18 holes of golf, so why not?\n\nHopefully someone can confirm my suspicions!
629341
NOT NECESSARY.\nYOU MAY HIT IT BEFORE BOUNCE.\n\nANYHOW, MAXIMUM I BOUNCE ALLOWED TO RETURN BACK THE BALL.
372307
Depends on what skill you want to practice.  When I'm teaching verb conjugation I use the dice game.  2 sets of die 1 is for 6 verb and the other is for the subjects in spanish (yo, tú,etc) Students role the dice and conjugate the verb according the subject of the other dice.  \nOne of my favorite games is the story game(which targets speaking ability) where I start out the class with one sentence example (Hay una chica). Then the other students raise their hand to add to the story.  I usually give them a piece of paper or bingo chip every time they add something. Usually they have to earn 2 or 3 chips to get a perfect score and the others can be used as bonus.\nNumber game-Take a beach ball and have the students count in spanish up to whatever number.  You start with one, then the next students who hits it says two in spanish, the next one three, etc.  I have also used the ball to practice vocabulary words, spanish speaking countries.
252061
I agree with the "you're" and "your" response. I even asked a question about that one. Other common ones: there, their, and they're or it's and its. Another one I see quite often that I find humorous is the confusion of "lose(r)" and "loose(r)."\nIt's especially funny when someone says, "your a looser."\nOkay, maybe not to everyone, but it is to me. :o)\n\nOh, how could I forget too, two, and to?
471759
NO!!  If people would stop (mis)quoting half-remembered precepts here, and do a spot of THINKING, instead, we might get somewhere.\n\n1.  If a moving spherical ball directly hits an identical free, stationary ball head on in an elastic collision, the moving ball STOPS, and the previously stationary one heads off with the original velocity of the other.  So ALL of the moving ball's K.E. has been transferred to the other ball.  \n\nHere are two ways to see this:\n\n1a.  The device known somewhat indelicately to British schoolboys as "Newton's balls" (but in squeamish America as "The Swinging Wonder") provides an excellent table-top demonstration of this.  Most undergraduate physics instructors must haul this out from time to time.\n\n1b.  You can easily solve it analytically, but a thought experiment will also demonstrate it.  In the originally stationary ball's frame, let the other ball approach with speed v.  Now shift (with an appropriately directed speed of v/2) to the frame in which the two equal balls are simply approaching each other, each with a speed in this frame of that same v/2 (oppositely directed, of course)!  Clearly, from the symmetry of the situation, they'll bounce off each other with the same (oppositely directed) speeds in this frame, still of v/2.  Now go back to the original frame: the previously moving ball is now completely stationary, while the originally stationary one is haring off with speed v.  (You may need to make little sketches of what is happening as viewed successively from each of these frames, to see this; I admit that that's what I did.)\n\n2a.  A similar approach can be used to solve the general case for an arbitrary ratio of masses, m (initially moving)/M (initially stationary).  Hint: have the balls approach one another in their center of mass frame with equal but opposite momenta of mv and  MV.  They'll clearly bounce off one another in such a frame, retaining the same values of their respective (but now oppositely directed) speeds.  Then you can do the other frame-jugglings from there. \n\nHowever, this analytical approach, done accurately, is a tedious mess.  So, to appreciate the general problem more physically, consider just the following:\n\n2b.  The case of m << M.\n\nConsider the "equal but opposite momentum" frame for these two balls, in which MV = mv.  This means that if ball M is VERY MASSIVE, the speed it will have in such a frame, V = (m/M)v; that is, it's VERY SMALL compared to little puny m's high speed.\n\nSo, transforming to the frame in which M itself (the big guy) is initially stationary takes only a speed shift of O(m/M)v.  (In fact identically so.)  This only affects the speed of puny m minutely, so m's initial K.E. is still of order O(m v^2).  (There's no need to do picky constant book-keeping for these purposes.)  \n\nNow after the collision: In the original frame, Big M is now moving (and in fact at 2V if you think about it.)  But, being loose about the constants, M's K.E is only O(MV^2).  \n\nSo, the ratio (m's K.E.)/(M's K.E.) ~ (mv^2)/(MV^2)\n\n= (m/M)(M/m)^2 (since mv = MV)\n\n= M/m.\n\nBINGO!  The little bugger still carries by far the larger amount of the kinetic energy.  The massive ball (i) moves sluggishly, and (ii) because  K.E. involves both mass but also the SQUARE of the speed, the TWO POWERS of (small) speed more than cancel out the effect of its (large) mass.\n\nThis is a well-known fact in particle collision theory, that little particles basically bounce off big ones.  \n\nYou could also say that it's well-known in "space billiards": when spacecraft head close to Jupiter to receive a "gravitational sling-shot effect" that sends them off to the outermost planets.  \n\nIt's more complicated because of 3-D effects there, but analogous frame-shifting methods can be used to show that the spacecraft can pick up considerable speed AND change
584218
I wouldn't use the object "it" if you just say:\n都是你的！\n\nthe context of the situation will be sufficient.
374415
Sorry to dash your hopes but usually to play for england or one of the counties, you do actually have to be english. I know it sounds mad but its one of the basic requisites for the job. sorry!
340855
Okay, a  few working definitions.\n \nA direct object recieves the action from the verb.\n  I threw the ball.   Ball is the direct object, it gets thrown.\n\nAn indirect object recieves the direct object.\n  I threw Bob the ball.   The ball is still being thrown, but Bob is the one who catches it. (hopefully)\n\nA predicate nominative is a noun or pronoun that follows a linking verb (usually a form of to be) and renames the subject.\n\nC.S. Lewis is an author.  Author renames the subject, so it's a nominative,  and it follows the linking verb is, so it's part of the predicate.  \n\n\nA predicate adjective is an adjective that follows a linking verb, and describes the subject.  \n\nThe furnace was hot.  Hot is an adjective which describes the furnace, but if follows the linking verb was, so it's part of the predicate.  \n\nPredicate adjectives and nominatives are both types of subject complements, because they complete the meaning of the linking verb, and further identify and describe the subject.\n\nNow,in your example-to identify the parts of speech, you need to start by breaking it into the subject and predicate.  Your subject is fairly obvious, "games".  Some is an adjective modifying games.\nNext we look for the verb, which is a little trickier here because the next word is "that".   This phrase, "that are popular with students" is actually an adjectival clause, which modifies the subject.  The verb of the sentence is the "are" which procedes "tag, hopscotch, and basketball", and not the "are" which preceeds the adverb popular\nIn your sentence, the words "tag, hopscotch, and basketball" are in the predicate, since they come after the linking verb "are"  They are nouns, so they are nominatives.  They rename  "games", which is the subject of your sentence.  So they are a kind of subject complement  known as predicate nominatives.\n\nSubject compliments are different from appositives because they always follow a linking verb, so are part of the predicate.  An appositive is noun which can rename the subject, but it always follows directly after the noun or pronoun it is renaming.  An appositive can be eliminated from the sentence without changing anything.  A subject compliment can't be eliminated.\n\nI hope this makes things a little clearer and doesn't just muddy them up for you.
611482
It doesn't´t matter really if you know how to use it. Here is a saying: "No es importante el tamaño sino el trabajo" (The size is not important, but the job is) or another saying: "No importa tanto el juguete como el juego" (The play is more important than the toy).\n\nAnd in my experience it's true.
612479
i've found when learning other languages that it's best to constantly hear the pronouns in use -- with the proper conjugations of verbs, in context of sentences, etc. -- in order to get used to hearing the sounds together. we know instantly when someone uses the wrong pronoun in english, only because we've heard it correctly a million times. i am, you are, he/she/it is, we are, you are, they are -- there's little rhyme or reason to the irregularities, so practice, practice, practice -- drill 'em hard, teach. :)\n\ngood luck!