A Very Short Story Research Paper Example

A Very Short Story Research Paper Example A Very Short Story Paper A Very Short Story Paper The story Eve read is called A very short story. It Is written by Ernest Hemingway. He was an American writer and Journalist. Hemingway style was significant as he was brief and straight-forward. His subject matter Is love, war, wildness and loss. Most of his works are biographical, and this story Is not an exception. Let me pass on to the analysis Itself. As for the title, In direct meaning It refers to the small size of the story, but indirectly it refers to transient of human relationship. Speaking about the homes, they are first love experience, devotion and treachery, illusion of first love and reality. The main one is the theme of love of a man and a woman, which was lost because of the ruined dreams and betrayal. The main idea is that the one should be careful in choosing the object of love. Now let me pass on the plot of the story. Being wounded during the WWW young soldier met a nurse and they fell in love. Having returned to the front, their relationships were developing, they planned to get planned. Having returned to the USA, he found out the girl cheated on him (had an affair). Speaking about composition, exposition reveals the setting and mall characters of the story. We find the conflict when the couple separated from each other. The climax reveals when Lug had an affair with the major and denouement Is showed when the mien hero had an affair with another girl. So, It means that sex and love are different things and they have nothing in common. The story is narrated from the first point of view. It is interesting to note that the author didnt give the name of the man only the name of the woman. It means he was one of many but she was the only one of all women. Speaking about discourse types, narration is prevailing. It brings the reader through the chain of events and gives us an opportunity to experience the feelings and emotions of the main characters. As for characters, the author describes them indirectly. Id like to start with the soldier. He was young, desperate and very kind. He fell in love with Lug and wanted to marry her in order to show that she belonged to him. Maybe, his love to Lug was based on the felling of gratitude, because she saved his life. Nevertheless, It was strong felling. It was understood he would not drink, and he did not want to see his friend or anyone n the States. Only to get a job and be married this shows he was truly in love with her and wanted to spend the rest of his life with her even if it meant he has to give up all these liberties. He felt seek at the moment of separation, he tried to Justify her betrayal and he attempted to forgive her with another women. Lug was determined women. She was devoted to her lover, she wrote him lots of letters, but he wasnt able to answer them. The syntactical repetition (how it was impossible to get along with him and how terrible it was missing him at night) shows her true linings. She loved him, but didnt go to the USA and considered it would be better for him without her. However, she became the victim of her passion and had an affair with the major. The stylistic device antithesis skillfully used by Ernest Hemingway: and she expected, absolutely unexpectedly, to be married In the spring. We understood that she changed her planes after the war. Describing the relationship between Lug and the soldier, the author uses the repetition of word bed shows that church and prayed. It means their relationship had spiritual foundation. At the end f the story, the author creates depressed atmosphere, using the epithets muddy, rainy townÐ’Â », Ð’Â «it was lonely and rainy there to describe that something bad will happen. We observe that the author makes use of the colloquial style avoiding professionalisms and pompous bookish words and phrases. Hemingway resorts to the language of everyday life and his choice of words is very limited. In conclusion Id like to note, thought this story rather short, its still well-structured. It was interesting to follow the plot. I think that this story leaves much room for meditation especially about the theme of first love.

Could, Should, and Would

Could, Should, and Would Could, Should, and Would Could, Should, and Would By Mark Nichol Is it a coincidence that the etymologically unrelated but closely associated words could, should, and would look and sound nearly the same? Mostly yes, with a little bit of no. Could derives from the Old English word cuà °e, the past tense of cunnan, meaning â€Å"to be able†; the present-tense form is can. The terminal spelling and pronunciation changed to d in the fourteenth century, but unlike in the case of should and would, which naturally developed their similar appearance (they already rhymed), could was manipulated by the insertion of additional letters to match the other words. (The obsolete character in the Old English form is an eth, pronounced like th. Yes, that means that the word was pronounced â€Å"cooth.† That similarity to couth is not a coincidence; couth, also derived from cunnan, originally meant â€Å"known.† Supplanted by could hundreds of years later, couth reemerged in the late nineteenth century as a back-formed antonym of uncouth meaning â€Å"sophisticated.† Cunning is also related.) Should evolved from sceolde, the past tense of the Old English word sceal, which meant â€Å"ought to† or â€Å"must† as well as â€Å"owe† and shifted in sense while still in its Middle English form so that it referred to the future as well as an obligation; the latter Old English word is the derivation of shall. Would comes from the Old English term wolde, past tense and past subjunctive of willan, meaning â€Å"to will,† and is the past tense of will. The phrases â€Å"could have,† â€Å"should have,† and â€Å"would have† are often contracted (in speech if not in writing) to could’ve, should’ve, and would’ve; slang variants are coulda, shoulda, and woulda. Other contractions based on phrases that bring these words together with not are couldn’t, shouldn’t, and wouldn’t. These contractions sometimes puzzle English-language learners because, for consistency, the latter should be styled could’n’t and so on. Couldn’t’ve and the like are natural progressions of this form but should be reserved for informal writing. Could-have, should-have, and would-have are nouns, usually in plural form, that refer to what could, should, or would have happened under different circumstances than those that actually existed. (Note the hyphens that distinguish these nouns from the verb phrases that inspired them.) Another development is the adjective would-be, which denotes someone who wishes to be or pretends to be something other than what he or she is. Could, should, and would can also confound nonnative speakers because they can be used to refer both to the past (as in â€Å"As I child, I would visit my grandparents every summer†) and the future (as in â€Å"I would do it again if I had the chance†). Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Spelling category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:7 Examples of Passive Voice (And How To Fix Them)60 Synonyms for â€Å"Trip†How Long Should a Synopsis Be?