quinta-feira, 22 de abril de 2010

Phrasal Verbs Reference



The following table is an alphabetical reference chart of the most commonly used English phrasal verbs with following explanations. You should remember that native speakers of English tend to use phrasal verbs in everyday conversation and generally reserve one-word verbs (i.e. "investigate" instead of "look into") for more formal occasions such as business letters etc.

Please note that all phrasal verbs marked by an asterisk (*) are NON-separable verbs (i.e. the preposition MUST follow the main verb. For example: I called on Dan NOT I called Dan on!). Verbs that are not marked by an asterisk (*) are separable verbs (i.e. the preposition may or may not follow the main verb. For example: I brought the children up OR I brought up the children).
IMPORTANT
Remember that separable phrasal verbs using a pronoun as the object of the verb MUST be separated (I brought them up NOT I brought up them)

A Ask out Ask someone to go on a date
B Bring about cause

Bring up 1) rear children 2) mention or introduce a topic
C Call back Return a telephone call

Call in Ask to come to an official place for a special reason

Call off cancel

Call on* 1) visit 2) ask a student a question in class

Call up Call on the telephone

Catch up (with)* Reach the same position or level as someone

Check in* Register at a hotel

Check into* investigate

Check out 1) borrow a book from a library 2) investigate

Cheer up Make (someone) feel happier

Clean up Make clean and orderly

Come across* Find by chance

Cross out Draw a line through

Cut out Stop an annoying activity
D Do over repeat

Drop by* Visit informally

Drop in (on)* Visit informally

Drop off Leave something/someone somewhere

Drop out (of)* Stop going to school or class
F Figure out Find the answer by logic

Fill out Complete a form

Find out Discover information

Get along (with)* To have a good relationship with

Get back (from) 1) return from somewhere 2) receive again

Get in, get into* 1) enter a car 2) arrive

Get off* Leave any vehicle

Get on* Enter any vehicle

Get out of* 1) leave a car 2) avoid some unpleasant activity

Get over* Recover from an illness

Get through* finish

Get up* Arise from bed, a chair etc.

Give back Return something to someone

Give up Stop doing something

Go over* Review or check

Grow up* Become an adult
H Hand in Submit an assignment

Hang up 1) Stop a telephone conversation 2) put up clothes on a line or a hook

Have on Wear
K Keep out (of) Not enter

Keep up (with)* Stay at the same position or level

Kick out (of) Force (someone) to leave
L Look after* Take care of

Look into* Investigate

Look out (for)* Be careful

Look over Review or check

Look up Look for information in a reference book
M Make up 1) invent 2) do past work
N Name after Give a baby the name of someone else
P Pass away* Die

Pass out 1) distribute 2) lose consciousness

Pick out Select

Pick up 1) go to get someone 2) take in one's hand

Point out Call someone's attention to

Put away Remove to an appropriate place

Put back Return to original position

Put off Postpone

Put on Dress

Put out Extinguish a cigarette, fire

Put up with* Tolerate
R Run into Meet by chance

Run across Find by chance

Run out (of) Finish a supply of something
S Show up* Appear, come to

Shut off Stop a machine, equipment, light etc.
T Take after* Resemble

Take off 1) remove clothing 2) leave on a trip 3) leave the ground (aeroplane)

Take out 1) take someone on a date 2) remove

Take over Take control

Take up Begin a new activity

Tear down Demolish, reduce to nothing

Tear up Tear into many little pieces

Think over Consider

Throw away Discard; get rid of

Throw out Discard; get rid of

Throw up Vomit

Try on Put on clothing to see if it fits

Turn down Decrease volume

Turn in 1) submit classwork 2) go to bed

Turn off Stop a machine, equipment, light etc.

Turn on Start a machine, equipment, light etc.

Turn out Extinguish a light

Turn up Increase volume or intensity

quinta-feira, 15 de abril de 2010

Why the Oscars are a Con




Why are so many films so bad? This year’s Oscar nominations are a parade of propaganda, stereotypes and downright dishonesty. The dominant theme is as old as Hollywood: America’s divine right to invade other societies, steal their history and occupy our memory. When will directors and writers behave like artists and not pimps for a world view devoted to control and destruction?

I grew up on the movie myth of the Wild West, which was harmless enough unless you happened to be a native American. The formula is unchanged. Self-regarding distortions present the nobility of the American colonial aggressor as a cover for massacre, from the Philippines to Iraq. I only fully understood the power of the con when I was sent to Vietnam as a war reporter. The Vietnamese were “gooks” and “Indians” whose industrial murder was preordained in John Wayne movies and sent back to Hollywood to glamourise or redeem.

I use the word murder advisedly, because what Hollywood does brilliantly is suppress the truth about America’s assaults. These are not wars, but the export of a gun-addicted, homicidal “culture”. And when the notion of psychopaths as heroes wears thin, the bloodbath becomes an “American tragedy” with a soundtrack of pure angst.

Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker is in this tradition. A favourite for multiple Oscars, her film is “better than any documentary I’ve seen on the Iraq war. It’s so real it’s scary” (Paul Chambers CNN). Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian reckons it has “unpretentious clarity” and is “about the long and painful endgame in Iraq” that “says more about the agony and wrong and tragedy of war than all those earnest well-meaning movies”.

What nonsense.  Her film offers a vicarious thrill via yet another standard-issue psychopath high on violence in somebody else’s country where the deaths of a million people are consigned to cinematic oblivion. The hype around Bigelow is that she may be the first female director to win an Oscar. How insulting that a woman is celebrated for a typically violent all-male war movie.

The accolades echo those for The Deer Hunter (1978) which critics acclaimed as “the film that could purge a nation’s guilt!”  The Deer Hunter lauded those who had caused the deaths of more than three million Vietnamese while reducing those who resisted to barbaric commie stick figures. In 2001, Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down provided a similar, if less subtle catharsis for another American “noble failure” in Somalia while airbrushing the heroes’ massacre of up to 10,000 Somalis.

By contrast, the fate of an admirable American war film, Redacted, is instructive. Made in 2007 by Brian De Palma, the film is based on the true story of the gang rape of an Iraqi teenager and the murder of her family by American soldiers.  There is no heroism, no purgative. The murderers are murderers, and the complicity of Hollywood and the media in the epic crime in Iraq is described ingeniously by De Palma. The film ends with a series of photographs of Iraqi civilians who were killed. When it was order that their faces be ordered blacked out “for legal reasons”, De Palma said, “I think that’s terrible because now we have not even given the dignity of faces to this suffering people. The great irony about Redacted is that it was redacted.” After a limited release in the US, this fine film all but vanished.

Non-American (or non-western) humanity is not deemed to have box office appeal, dead or alive. They are the “other” who are allowed, at best, to be saved by “us”. In Avatar, James Cameron’s vast and violent money-printer, 3-D noble savages known as the Na’vi need a good guy American soldier, Sergeant Jake Sully, to save them. This confirms they are “good”. Natch.

My Oscar for the worst of the current nominees goes to Invictus, Clint Eastwood’s unctuous insult to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Taken from a hagiography of Nelson Mandela by a British journalist, John Carlin, the film might have been a product of apartheid propaganda. In promoting the racist, thuggish rugby culture as a panacea of the “rainbow nation”, Eastwood gives barely a hint that many black South Africans were deeply embarrassed and hurt by Mandela’s embrace of the hated Springbok symbol of their suffering. He airbrushes white violence – but not black violence, which is ever present as a threat. As for the Boer racists, they have hearts of gold, because “we didn’t really know”. The subliminal theme is all too familiar: colonialism deserves forgiveness and accommodation, never justice.

At first I thought Invictus, could not be taken seriously, then I looked around the cinema at young people and others for whom the horrors of apartheid have no reference, and I understood the damage such a slick travesty does to our memory and its moral lessons. Imagine Eastwood making a happy-Sambo equivalent in the American Deep South. He would not dare.

The film most nominated for an Oscar and promoted by the critics is Up in the Air, which has George Clooney as a man who travels America sacking people and collecting frequent flyer points. Before the triteness dissolves into sentimentality, every stereotype is summoned, especially of women. There is a bitch, a saint and a cheat. However, this is “a movie for our times”, says the director Jason Reitman, who boasts having cast real sacked people. “We interviewed them about what it was like to lose their job in this economy,” said he, “then we’d fire them on camera and ask them to respond the way they did when they lost their job. It was an incredible experience to watch these non-actors with 100 per cent realism.”   

Wow, what a winner.

John Pilger is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by John Pilger