Wajuzi wa lugha ya Kiingereza msaada hapa

[The hammer]

Nilikuwa napitia hand out ya ndugu yangu anasoma chuo Diploma nimekutana na hii sentensi nikaona haipo vizuri sana kimatamshi na ikaleta ubishi kidogo.

"Are commodities that satisfy our wants directly,which implies that we want them for their own sake.They are of two types.."

Nimeona mistake nyingi sasa sijui labda ni mimi Kiingereza kimenipiga chenga au ni mwalimu!

Msaada

 

[mavangah]

That/those of /the

 

[drgeorgemayalla]

Mh....ndo Elimu ya ccm, usimlaumu.

I guess Alitaka Sema "....are commodities that satisfy our NEEDS directly, which implies that we USE them.....

 

[IamMrLiverpool]

Needs instead of wants

 

[IamMrLiverpool]

Which instead of that

 

[IamMrLiverpool]

There are instead of they are

 

[IamMrLiverpool]

Our own sake instead of their own sake

 

[IamMrLiverpool]

Hata hyo kajitahidi njoo udsm uone broken

 

[Kifyatu]

Nilikuwa napitia hand out ya ndugu yangu anasoma chuo Diploma nimekutana na hii sentensi nikaona haipo vizuri sana kimatamshi na ikaleta ubishi kidogo.

"Are commodities that satisfy our wants directly,which implies that we want them for their own sake.They are of two types.."

Nimeona mistake nyingi sasa sijui labda ni mimi Kiingereza kimenipiga chenga au ni mwalimu!

Msaada

Hiyo sentensi haina kosa lolote lile. Labda mwanzoni kuna kitu kinakosekana na ni hizo commodities zenyewe.

Ingeandikwa hivi:

"... are commodities that satisfy our wants directly,which implies that we want them for their own sake.They are of two types..."

Katika lugha ya kichumi (economics):
Wants ni vitu tunavyovitaka kama gari, friji, chakula, ... Yani vitu vyote tunavyotaka tuwe navyo hata kama sio vya muhimu au lazima kwa maisha yetu.

Needs ni vitu tunavyovihitaji kwa maisha kama vile chakula, nyumba (kibanda), usalama, nk.

Au kwa maana nyingine Wants = Needs + vitu vya anasa.

cc. mavangah, drgeorgemallya, fredericko

 

[mpendwa789]

Nilikuwa napitia hand out ya ndugu yangu anasoma chuo Diploma nimekutana na hii sentensi nikaona haipo vizuri sana kimatamshi na ikaleta ubishi kidogo.

"Are commodities that satisfy our wants directly,which implies that we want them for their own sake.They are of two types.."

Nimeona mistake nyingi sasa sijui labda ni mimi Kiingereza kimenipiga chenga au ni mwalimu!

Msaada

Hiyo sentensi haina maana. Ni machanganyiko kubwa ya grammar. Shida (au kosa) kubwa ni neno 'that' (Are commodities that...). Neno hili ni relative pronoun. Linahitaji subject nyingine au ni lazima kumaliza clause ya kwanza. Kwa mfano...

"Are commodities things that satisfy our wants directly. If so, it implies that we want them for their own sake. They are of two types.." (Lakini badala ya "They are of two types", afadhali ni: Such commodities are of two types...)

au

Are commodities that satisfy our wants directly things that we want for their own sake? If so, they are of two types...

Haya kuhusu grammar. Lakini mantiki ya sentensi siyo wazi pia.

 

[mpendwa789]

Aidha, "Are commodities….." ni swali. Lakini jibu halipo. Kwa hiyo niliweka "If so,…" (Kama ni hivyo&#8230😉.

 

[dapangi]

Nilikuwa napitia hand out ya ndugu yangu anasoma chuo Diploma nimekutana na hii sentensi nikaona haipo vizuri sana kimatamshi na ikaleta ubishi kidogo.

"Are commodities that satisfy our wants directly,which implies that we want them for their own sake.They are of two types.."

Nimeona mistake nyingi sasa sijui labda ni mimi Kiingereza kimenipiga chenga au ni mwalimu!

Msaada

Kuna maelezo ya awali ambayo ndiyo yanaweza kutusaidia kujua mantiki ya maelezo hayo. Vinginevyo umpate aliesoma mada hiyo ili abainishe makosa kama yapo

 

[tegeruka]

[QUOTE=

"Are commodities that satisfy our wants directly,which implies that we want them for their own sake.They are of two types.."



Ni maneno ya kiingereza lakini si kiingereza hicho

 

[tegeruka]

Nilikuwa napitia hand out ya ndugu yangu anasoma chuo Diploma nimekutana na hii sentensi nikaona haipo vizuri sana kimatamshi na ikaleta ubishi kidogo.

"Are commodities that satisfy our wants directly,which implies that we want them for their own sake.They are of two types.."

Nimeona mistake nyingi sasa sijui labda ni mimi Kiingereza kimenipiga chenga au ni mwalimu!

Msaada

Ebu na wewe mleta hoja tusaidie tujue kwanza,yaani huyo ni Mwalimu au?

 

[Omari Issa]

nijuavyo...sentesi hii ina kosa moja tu nalo ni for "our" own sake badala ya for "their" own sake

 

[Omari Issa]

lingine ni kwamba hiyo ni "part of definition" ya kitu fulani na si swali
Kutumia wants in place of needs ni sawa kabisa

 

[Anonymous101]

Nilikuwa napitia hand out ya ndugu yangu anasoma chuo Diploma nimekutana na hii sentensi nikaona haipo vizuri sana kimatamshi na ikaleta ubishi kidogo.

"Are commodities that satisfy our wants directly,which implies that we want them for their own sake.They are of two types.."

Nimeona mistake nyingi sasa sijui labda ni mimi Kiingereza kimenipiga chenga au ni mwalimu!

Msaada

No the sentence isn't wrong. It's right. But it should say "our own sake" not "their own sake."

 

[namwakalima]

lingine ni kwamba hiyo ni "part of definition" ya kitu fulani na si swali
Kutumia wants in place of needs ni sawa kabisa

Wants are not needs mkuu, usijichanganye

 

[Spider]

No the sentence isn't wrong. It's right. But it should say "our own sake" not "their own sake."

hapana,kinachoongelewa hapo ni commodities,so,ni lazma ibaki 'their own sake'.
kwa mtu aliyesoma uchumi, hawez kuikosoa hyo sentensi kwa kuwa ipo sahihi kabisa.

 

[Spider]

Hiyo sentensi haina maana. Ni machanganyiko kubwa ya grammar. Shida (au kosa) kubwa ni neno 'that' (Are commodities that...). Neno hili ni relative pronoun. Linahitaji subject nyingine au ni lazima kumaliza clause ya kwanza. Kwa mfano...

"Are commodities things that satisfy our wants directly. If so, it implies that we want them for their own sake. They are of two types.." (Lakini badala ya "They are of two types", afadhali ni: Such commodities are of two types...)

au

Are commodities that satisfy our wants directly things that we want for their own sake? If so, they are of two types...

Haya kuhusu grammar. Lakini mantiki ya sentensi siyo wazi pia.

mkuu,kwenye uchumi huwez sema 'are commodities th?ngs that satisfy our wants directly'.maana,neno commodities lina maana ya bidhaa au linasimama badala ya neno 'goods'.
kuna terminologies ambazo zinatumika katka uchumi huwez kuelewa kama haujasoma uchumi na kuhisi kuna makosa.
uchumi unaendeshwa na assumptions,bila hvyo,kuna vi2 visingewezekana.