determiner حدد

[transitive] الكلمة لها اربع معاني كما يلي مع امثلة لاستخدامها

1 to find out the facts about something [= establish]:
Investigators are still trying to determine the cause of the fire.
determine how/what/who etc
The aim of the inquiry was to determine what had caused the accident.
determine that
Experts have determined that the signature was forged.

2 if something determines something else, it directly influences or decides it:
The amount of available water determines the number of houses that can be built.
The age of a wine is a determining factor as to how it tastes.
determine how/whether/what etc
How hard the swimmers work now will determine how they perform in the Olympics.

3 to officially decide something:
The date of the court case has not yet been determined.
determine how/what/who etc
The tests will help the doctors determine what treatment to use.

4 determine to do something formal to decide to do something:
We determined to leave at once.

Statements and questions


A statement is a sentence which gives information. If you make a statement, you usually give the sentence a subject, and this must go in front of the verb.

The children are playing  in the garden.


Negative statements are made in two main ways:


1. If the statement contains an auxiliary verb, such as is or have, you usually add not or its contracted form n’t.

She is not leaving. OR She isn’t leaving.

Am and may do not allow n’t. Will, shall, and can have special contracted forms: won’t, shan’t, can’t.

The same rules apply when you make a question negative.

Are they in the garden? Aren’t they in the garden?

WiII he get the job? Won’t he get the job?

2. If the statement has no auxiliary verb, you need to make the negative using a form of do + not/n’t. Make sure that the main verb is in its basic form.

She likes swimming. She doesn’t like swimming. NOT She doesn’t likes swimming.

I saw a ship. I didn’t see a ship. NOT I didn’t saw a ship.


Questions are sentences which ask for information. They fall into three main types, depending on the kind of reply they expect.

‘Yes‑no questions’ expect a simple yes or no reply (or a word or phrase which can be used instead of yes or no). In these cases, you change the order of subject and verb.

Will Jane resign? (Possible answers: yes, no, don’t know; probably, maybe etc)

Are they ready?

‘Wh‑ questions’ begin with a question word, such as what, why, where, or how. This kind of question can have a wide range of different replies. The answer may be a full sentence, or one which leaves out the words that you can guess from knowing the question. Here too, you need to change the order of subject and verb.

Where are you going? (Possible answers: I’m going to work, downstairs, the library etc)

‘Alternative questions’ give the listener a choice of two possible replies, both of which

are mentioned in the question. The two possibilities are connected by the word or. Once again, you must change the order of subject and verb.

Will you travel by train or by boat? (Possible answers: by train, by boat, don’t know etc)

Tag questions

You can change a statement into a question by adding a ‘tag question’ at the end of it. When you use a tag question, you are asking the listener to agree with the statement you have just made. If you make the statement positive, you expect the answer yes. If you make it negative, you expect the answer no.

A tag question is a type of ‘yes‑no question’, and shows the same change of word order. You use the same personal pronoun (she, they etc) and tense of the verb as in the statement to which the tag question is joined. In the most common kind of tag question, you change from positive to negative, or from negative to positive.

She’s outside, isn’t she? (Expected answer: yes)

They were ready, weren’t they? (Expected answer: yes)

You aren’t going, are you? (Expected answer: no)

It isn’t difficult, is it? (Expected answer: no)

Questions which are not questions

You can also use a sentence which looks like a question, but it is one where you are not actually expecting any reply. Because these sentences are halfway between a question and an exclamation, you will find them sometimes written with a question‑mark and sometimes with an exclamation mark.

In some cases, you already know the answer or you are asking your listener to agree with you. These sentences are called ‘exclamatory questions’.

Hasn’t she grown!

Wasn’t the book marvellous?

In other cases, no answer is possible. (Of course your listener may still give you an

answer, whether you like it or not!) These sentences are used when you want to

express a strong feeling about something. They are called ‘rhetorical questions’.

Doesn’t everyone know that the whole thing is impossible?

الجزء الرابع من قصص اكسفورد The man with white hair

Nick stopped his car in front of the hotel. He looked carefully before he got out, but there was nobody with white hair near the hotel.

He half-ran through the hotel doors and went to the desk inside.

'I'm looking for a man with very short white hair,' he said to the woman behind the desk. 'He's staying here, I think. He's about sixty years old, and he's tall and thin.'

The woman did not look very interested. 'There are a lot of visitors in the hotel,' she said. 'Do you know his name?'

'No, I don't,' Nick said. 'He's, er, a friend of a friend, you see. He arrived in Vancouver yesterday, and I must find him. It's very important. Please help me!'

The woman looked at him. 'There are three hundred and fifty rooms in this hotel,' she said, 'and maybe thirty or forty men with white hair. How can I remember all their names?' She turned away to answer a telephone call.

Nick walked away from the desk.

'A drink,' he thought. 'I need a drink.' He went into the hotel bar, got a drink and sat down at a table.

'So what do I do now?' he thought.

And then he remembered something. A letter in the girl's half-open bag in the Whistler cafe.

. . . and we can meet at the Empress Hotel, Victoria, Vancouver Island, on Friday afternoon . . .

And tomorrow was Friday.

'I'm going to Victoria, on Vancouver Island!' he thought. 'To the Empress Hotel!'


Nick had dinner in the hotel that evening. He finished eating and got up from his table . . . and saw the man with white hair.

Nick moved quickly. The man was at the hotel desk. Nick could see the white head above the other heads near the desk.

'Excuse me!' said Nick. He pushed past the people in the hotel restaurant. A small boy ran in front of him and Nick ran into him. The boy and Nick fell down on the floor. The boy began to cry.

'Hey!' said a woman behind Nick.

'I'm very sorry!' said Nick. He got up and helped the boy to his feet. 'Are you OK?' he asked the boy.

'Be more careful next time,' said the woman.

Nick moved away quickly, but when he looked back at the hotel desk, he couldn't see the man with white hair. He pushed through the crowd of people.

'That man!' he shouted at the woman behind the desk. 'That man with short white hair. Where did he go?'

The woman looked at Nick. 'Mr Vickers?' she said. 'I don't know.'

'Vickers? Is that his name?' said Nick. 'What's his room number?'

'I'm sorry, I can't tell you that,' the woman said. 'But I need to-' began Nick.

The woman turned away to answer the telephone. After a second or two, Nick went upstairs to his room. 'Vickers,' he thought. 'Does Meg Hutson know Mr Vickers? I need some answers, and I need them quickly!'

الجزء الثالث من قصص اكسفورد A walk in the park

The next day was Thursday. Nick stayed in his hotel room and wrote about mountains all morning. Then he drove to Stanley Park in the afternoon. He sat and read a book for an hour, then he went for a walk under the tall trees.

There was nobody here. It was quiet, and he could walk and think. He thought about Meg Hutson, and about the man with white hair. Did he know Meg Hutson? Did she know him? He remembered Meg Hutson's last words. Drive carefully, Mr Hollywood.

Why did she say that? Why did she call him Mr Hollywood? He didn't understand any of it. Suddenly, he heard a noise.

He stopped. 'That was a gun!' he thought. 'There's somebody in the trees with a gun! There it is again!' Then something hit the tree over his head. 'Somebody's shooting at me!' Nick thought. He turned and ran.

And somebody began to run after him.

Nick ran through the trees. There was no sun in here, and it was half-dark. And there were no people. Nobody to help him.

'I must get to my car,' Nick thought. 'Find some people. . . the police. . .' He ran on.

He could still hear the gunman behind him, so he ran faster. After three or four minutes, he stopped and listened.

Nothing. It was all quiet.

Nick was afraid. 'What's happening?' he thought. 'Why is somebody shooting at me? First a hand pushes me in front of a car, and now somebody's shooting at me!'

He waited another second or two, then walked quickly back to his car. He was very careful. He looked and listened all the time. But nobody came out of the trees, and nobody shot at him. Then he saw people - women with young children, some boys with a football, two men with a dog. He began to feel better. 'Nobody can shoot me now,' he thought. 'Not with all these people here.'

Ten minutes later, he was back at his car.

There was a letter on the window. Nick read it. It said:

I'm going to kill you, Mr Hollywood.


Nick drove to the nearest police station. He waited for half an hour, then a tired young policeman took him into a small room. Nick told his story, and the policeman wrote it all down.

'So what are you going to do?' asked Nick.

'Nothing,' said the policeman.

'Nothing!' said Nick. 'But somebody shot at me, and-'

'Mr Lortz,' the policeman said tiredly. 'How many people are there in this town with guns?'

'I don't know,' said Nick. 'But . . .'

'You didn't see the gunman. Was it a man, a boy, a woman? Colour of eyes? Long hair, short hair? You don't know, because you didn't see anybody. Maybe it was an old girlfriend. Maybe somebody doesn't like your travel books, Mr Lortz.'

'But what about the man with white hair in Whistler?' said Nick. 'The girl, Meg Hutson, called me Mr Hollywood in the cafe, and this man heard her. And now I get a letter to Mr Hollywood on my car. Who is this Mr Hollywood?'

'We all want answers to our questions, Mr Lortz,' the policeman said, 'but we don't always get them.'

Questions. But no answers.

Nick walked out of the police station and drove to his hotel. He was angry, and afraid.

'How did the man with white hair find me in Vancouver?' he thought. 'Did he follow me from Whistler? Is he following me now? Maybe he's staying at my hotel, too. In the next room. With his gun.'

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God

Henry F. Schaefer III 

Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.

(This article is a transcript of a lecture Dr. Schaefer presented at the University of colorado in the spring of 1994, sponsored by Christian Leadership and other campus ministries. Over 500 students and professors were present.)

Stephen Hawking's bestseller A Brief History of Time is the most popular book about cosmology ever written. The questions cosmology addresses are scientifically and theologically profound. Hawking's book covers both of these implications.

Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole--it's structure, origin and development. I won't answer all the questions Hawking raises concerning cosmology, but I will try to make comments on many of them. I caution here that you should not confuse cosmology with cosmetology, the art of beautifying the hair, skin, and nails!

Here are some of the questions cosmology seeks to answer (As elsewhere in this lecture, I borrow heavily from astrophysicist Hugh Ross' excellent books The Fingerprint of God and The Creator and the Cosmos.):

Is the universe finite or infinite in extent and content?
Is it eternal or does it have a beginning?
Was it created? If not, how did it get here? If so, how was this creation accomplished and what can we learn about the agent and events of creation?
Who or what governs the laws and constants of physics? Are such laws the product of chance or have they been designed? How do they relate to the support and development of life?
Is there any knowable existence beyond the known dimensions of the universe?
Is the universe running down irreversibly or will it bounce back?
Let me begin with five traditional arguments for the existence of God. It may seem an unlikely starting point for this topic, but I think you'll see as time goes on that these arguments keep coming up. I'm not going to comment right away on whether these arguments are valid or not, but I will state them because throughout astrophysical literature these arguments are often referred to

The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness.
The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.
The Big Bang

The idea that the universe had a specific time of origin has been philosophically resisted by some very distinguished scientists. We could begin with Arthur Eddington, who experimentally confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919. He stated a dozen years later: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me and I should like to find a genuine loophole." He later said, "We must allow evolution an infinite amount of time to get started."

Albert Einstein's reaction to the consequences of his own general theory of relativity appear to acknowledge the threat of an encounter with God. Through the equations of general relativity, we can trace the origin of the universe backward in time to some sort of a beginning. However, before publishing his cosmological inferences, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant, a "fudge factor," to yield a static model for the universe. Einstein later considered this to be the greatest blunder of his scientific career.

Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause. You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing--a direction of discomfort to some physicists.

In 1946, George Gamow, a Russian-born scientist, proposed that the primeval fireball, the "big bang," was an intense concentration of pure energy. It was the source of all the matter that now exists in the universe. The theory predicts that all the galaxies in the universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a result of that initial big bang. A dictionary definition of the hot big bang theory is "the entire physical universe, all the matter and energy and even the four dimensions of time and space, burst forth from a state of infinite or near infinite density, temperature, and pressure."

The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Bell Telephone laboratories convinced most scientists of the validity of the big bang theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the big bang theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe approximately 15 billion years ago.

About the 1992 observations, which were from the COBE (the NASA satellite Cosmic Background Explorer), there was a story on the front page of virtually every newspaper in the world. The thing that the London Times, New York Times, etc. seemed to pick up on was a statement by George Smoot, the team leader from the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory. He said, "It's like looking at God." Obviously, this captured the public's attention.

A somewhat more sober assessment of the findings was given by Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, "These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."

Not everyone was ecstatic about these observations that revealed the so-called "big bang ripples." Certainly, those who had argued so strongly and passionately for a steady-state model of the universe didn't like the interpretation of these results at all--primarily two persons, Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, and Jeffrey Burbidge, a very distinguished astrophysicist at the University of California at San Diego.

We can begin to get into the philosophical implications of these observations when we assess Burbidge's statement (made during a radio discussion with Hugh Ross) on these things. Burbidge discounts the new experiment. He is a strong advocate still today, in the face of overwhelming evidence, of the steady-state theory. He says these new experiments come from "the first church of Christ of the big bang." I can tell you that my former colleague George Smoot, at the Lawrence-Berkeley Laboratory, took strong exception to this statement. He absolutely insisted his observations were in no way colored by any religious presuppositions.

Burbidge does say something that is true, however. He favors the steady-state hypothesis and claims his view supports Hinduism and not Christianity. That is correct, because a steady-state theory of the universe, were it to be true, would provide some support for the endless cycles taught by Hinduism. The big bang theory is significant evidence against Hinduism.

Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, has written very persuasively on this topic. He again brings us into the philosophical implications. Ross says that, by definition,

Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe. It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained within the universe.
These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe (another popular view

Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains unexplained."

I want to quote from a book that I don't recommend. It is by a brilliant physicist, Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner. It is called The God Particle and although the title sounds very appealing, the good information is all in the first paragraph. The rest of it is just a case for the building of the SSC, the Super Conducting-Super Collider, which we now know is not going to be built. Therefore the book is a bit of a Rip Van-Winkle sort of experience! But the first paragraph is wonderful; it's a great summary of what I have said so far:

In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.
That is about all that Lederman has to say about God--in the first paragraph--and that's the end of it. The thing that has made Hawking's book so popular is that he is talking about God from beginning to end.

Stephen Hawking

Hawking is probably the most famous living scientist. His book, A Brief History of Time, is available in paperback and I strongly recommend it. It has sold in excess of 10 million copies, and I think he sold about five million before the paperback version. For a book to sell so many copies is almost unheard of in the history of science writing.

There has been a film made about the book. The film is also good. There has even been a book made about the film. Hawking has a wonderful sense of humor. He writes in the introduction of the second book, "This is the book of the film of the book. I don't know if they are planning a film of the book of the film of the book."

I want to begin by saying something about Stephen Hawking's scientific research. Hawking has made his reputation by investigating, in great detail, one particular set of problems: the singularity and horizons around black holes and at the beginning of time. Now, everyone is sure if you encountered a black hole, it would be the last thing you ever encountered--and that is correct! A black hole is a massive system so centrally condensed that the force of gravity prevents everything within it, even light, from escaping.

Hawking's first major work was published with Roger Penrose, a physicist very famous in his own right, and George Ellis, during the period 1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past. This is now known as the "singularity theorem," and is a tremendously important finding.

Later, working by himself, in 1974, he began to formulate ideas about the quantum evaporation of exploding black holes, the now famous "Hawking radiation." These are all tremendously important scientific works.

The work most referred to in A Brief History of Time is also the most speculative: the 1984 work with James Hartle, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Using an elegant vacuum fluctuation model, they were able to provide a mathematical rationalization for the entire universe popping into existence at the beginning of time. This is also called the "universe as a wave function." I need to emphasize that they were using very simple models. Now, while such mathematical exercises are highly speculative, they may eventually lead us to a deeper understanding of this creation event.

Hawking is certainly the most famous physicist in history who has not won the Nobel Prize. This has puzzled people. They automatically assume he has won the Nobel Prize. He has not yet. This is because the Swedish Royal Academy demands that an award-winning discovery must be supported by verifiable experimental or observational evidence. Hawking's work, to date, remains unproved. The mathematics of his theory, however, are certainly beautiful and elegant. Science is just beginning to verify the existence of black holes, let alone verify "Hawking radiation" or any of his more radical theoretical proposals.

My opinion is that within the next year or two we will have firm evidence for the existence of black holes. Unfortunately, I think the person who will get the Nobel Prize will be the observa-tionalist who comes up with its data. So I think Hawking may not get the Nobel Prize soon, even though he's the world's most famous scientist.

Even if some aspects of Hawking's research turn out to be wrong, he will have had a profound impact on the history of scientific thought. Einstein was wrong about all matter of things, especially quantum mechanics, and we still recognize him as one of the three great geniuses of physics.

And God

A Brief History of Time says a lot about God. God is mentioned in this book from beginning to end. So let us try to put Hawking's opinions about God in some sort of a context. The context is that Stephen Hawking made up his mind about God long before he became a cosmologist.

The principle influence in his early life was his mother, Isabel. Isabel Hawking was a member of the Communist Party in England in the 1930's, and her son has carried a good bit of that intellectual baggage right through his life.

By the time he was 13, Hawking's hero was the atheist philosopher and mathematician, Bertrand Russell. At the same age, two of Hawking's friends became Christians as a result of the 1955 Billy Graham London campaign. According to his 1992 biographers, Hawking stood apart from these encounters with "a certain amused detachment." There is nothing in A Brief History of Time that deviates in a significant way from the religious views of the 13-year old Stephen Hawking.

The most important event of his life occurred on December 31, 1962. He met his future wife, Jane Wilde, at a New Year's Eve party. One month later, he was diagnosed with a terrible disease, ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. He was given two years to live at that time. That was 32 years ago. I have had three friends die of this disease. It's a horrible disease. They lasted two, three, and five years, respectively. By anyone's estimation, Stephen Hawking is a medical miracle.

At this point in his life, 1962, Stephen was by all accounts an average-performing graduate student at Cambridge University. Let me quote from his biographers, White and Gribbon, on this point:

There is little doubt that Jane Wilde's appearance on the scene was a major turning-point in Stephen Hawking's life. The two of them began to see a lot more of one another and a strong relationship developed. It was finding Jane that enabled him to break out of his depression and regenerate some belief in his life and work. For Hawking, his engagement to Jane was probably the most important thing that ever happened to him. It changed his life, gave him something to live for and made him determined to live. Without the help that Jane gave him, he would almost certainly not have been able to carry on or had the will to do so.
They married in July of 1965. Hawking himself has said that "what really made a difference was that I got engaged to a woman named Jane Wilde. This gave me something to live for

Jane Hawking is an interesting person in her own right. I think she decided early on to get into an academic discipline as far as possible from her husband. She has a doctorate in Medieval Portuguese Literature!

Jane Hawking is a Christian. She made the statement in 1986, "Without my faith in God, I wouldn't have been able to live in this situation;" namely, the deteriorating health of her husband. "I would not have been able to marry Stephen in the first place because I wouldn't have had the optimism to carry me through and I wouldn't have been able to carry on with it."

The reason the book has sold 10 million copies, i.e., the reason for Hawking's success as a popularizer of science, is that he addresses the problems of meaning and purpose that concern all thinking people. The book overlaps with Christian belief and it does so deliberately, but graciously and without rancor. It is an important book that needs to be treated with respect and attention.

There is no reason to agree with everything put forth in A Brief History of Time and you will see that I have some areas of disagreement. It has been said that this is the most widely unread book in the history of literature. I first prepared this material for a lecture in December 1992, because I was asked by a friend in Australia to come and speak on it. He told me, "A great many people in Sydney have purchased this book. Some claim to have read it." So I encourage you to be one of those who have actually read A Brief History of Time

كيف تكتب موضوع تعبير بالانجليزي ؟

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته 

الكثير منا لا يجيد كتابة موضوع تعبير باللغة الانجليزية ..
حتى وان استطاع ربما لا يكون بذلك القدر ...
هذه بعض النصائح لكتابة موضوع تعبير باللغة الانجليزية ...

اولا ً : 

عليك ان تعلم ان موضوعات التعبيرتنقسم الى 3 اقسام:

1- موضوعات عامه:مثل الاسره , السياحه , السفر , الارهاب , الارض , الماء ..

2 - الخطابات :مثل الرد على خطابات من صديق , التقدم لوظيفه , تهنئة ..

3- موضوعات ابداعيه:مثل كتابة قصه , تخيل ما يحدث في موقف معين او تحت ظروف خاصه ..

ثانيا ً :

نصائح قبل البدء بكتابة الموضوع ...

1- اقرأ رأس الموضوع عدة مرات لكي تعرف تماما ما هو الموضوع المطلوب الكتابه فيه ولا تكتب في موضوع مشابه غير المطلوب.

2- حدد النقاط المطلوب الكلام فيها من رأس الموضوع ورقمها حتى لا تنسى أي منها.

3- فكر في الموضوع الذي تنوي الكتابه فيه وكلما خطرت لك فكره او تذكرت شيئا ما اكتبه على الفور في المسودة .

4- اصعب ما في الامر هو كيف تحفز ذاكرتك لتحصل منها على الافكار التي سوف تكتبهاإسأل نفسك اسئلة تبدا بجميع ادوات الاستفهام التي تعرفها:
What ,Why ,Where ,When ,Who ,Which, How ,How many ,How ,frequently ,etc
والاجابات التي سوف تحصل عليها هي الافكار التي سوف تكتبها بالمسودة .

5- نسق الافكار التي كتبتها في المسودة ايها هي الاولى اهمية وسوف تكتبها اولا وايها سوف تختم به التعبير .

6 - اجعل كلامك واضحا فالنثر بعكس الشعر يهتم بنقل الافكار اكثر من اهتمامه
بنقل المشاعر والاحاسيس ولذلك لابد ان يكون كلامك واضحا مفهوما لا لبس
فيه ولا غموض ولا ابهام وبينما في الكلام العادي تساعد اشاراتك ونغمة صوتك
على توصيل المعنى الذي تقصده الى السامعين نجد في الكتابه انك تعتمد فقط على
ما تكتبه ولذلك تاكد دائما ان ما تكتبه واضح .

7- لا تكتب الموضوع باللغه العربيه ثم تحاول ترجمته للانجليزيه عند الترجمه
سوف تكون الجمل ركيكه وتركيبها غريب على الانجليزيه حاول ان تفكر باللغه
التي سوف تكتب بها الموضوع واكتب الافكار التي ترد على خاطرك باللغه الانجليزيه .

ثالثا ً :

عند البدء في كتابة الموضوع ...

اولا :قسم الموضوع إلى هذه العناصر :

1/ المقدمة(-البداية)Topic Sentence
2/ الموضوع( جسم الموضوع)Supporting Sentences
3/ النهاية(الخاتمة)Concluding Sentenceثانيا :

...هناك بعض الاشياء التي يجب الانتباه لها :

1/ اترك مسافة خمسة كلمات عند اول سطر من التعبير ..

2/ ان تبدا بحرفCapital كبير وواضح.

3/ ان تضع (.) واضحة مع نهاية كل جمله .

4/ ابدا الموضوع بجمله رئيسية تحتوي مجملها علي فكرة الموضوع ككل.

5/ ان تراعي التنسيق والترابط العام للموضوع.

6/ تجنب استخدام الجمل المعقدة والالفاظ المركبة التي توقعك في اخطاء انت في غنى عنها ولكن استخدم الجمل والكلمات ذات المعاني السهله والبسيطة.

7/ خصص صفحة كامله للموضوع ويفضل ان تترك سطر فارغ تحت سطر قد كتبت عليه .

8/ اجتهد في تحسين خطك لان هذا يعطي انطباعا جيدا للمصحح ويسهل علية فهم ما تريد تعبير عنه .

9/ حاول ان تكون الجمل فالمضمون وتجنب الجمل الطويله حتي لا تقع في اخطاء القواعد ..

10/ تجنب تجنب ان تتكلم بصيغة الملكية (مثل :my favourit ) لأنه غالبا ما يكون الموضوع من النوع العام ..

11/ لا تستخدم الاختصارات مثل don't بل اكتبها do not لان اغلب الاخطاء تقع في الاختصارات ...

12/ استخدم زمن واحد فقط في التعبير ... اذا تكلمت عن الزمن الماضي فأكمل التعبير به وكذلك اذا استخدمت الزمن الحاضر .

رابعا ً :

استخدم بعض الكلمات التي تنفع مقدمة للأشياء المفيدة (كالتعليم مثلاً)

نتفق جميعا ان ...... شي مهم في حياتنا.
We All agree that... is important things in our life

نتفق جمعيا ان....... له دورا حيويا في الوقت الحاضر 
We all agree that ...has vital role nowadays.

كلنا نقر باهمية .......... في حياتنا.
We all admit the importance of .... in our life.

لا عجب اذا قلنا ان ...... له اثار ايجابيا علينا.
No wonder if we say that ... has/have good positive effects on us.

اننا ندين لـ.... والذي يعلب دور حيوي في حياتنا
We owe to ....which play racy part in our life.

للأشياء الضارة (كالتلوث البيئي)
نحن نستطيع أن نرى ان .....يمثل عقبة في طريق تقدمنا
We can see that ...... stands for an obstacle in the way of our progress

من وجهة نظري اعتقد ان ..
In my point of view, I think that......

ما لا شك في ذلك ...هي واحدة من اكثر الظواهر الخطرة في حياتنا.
There is no doubt that ..... is one of the most dangerous phenomena in our life.

هناك اسباب مختلفة لمشكله ..
There are various causes for the problem of ...... .

خامسا ً :
بعض الروابط اللي ممكن ان تستخدمها مع بداية كل جمله او فكرة جديدة :

اولا ًFirst
ثانيا ًSecond
قبل ذلك Before that
بعد ذلك After that
لاحقا ًLater
اخيرا Finally
من ناحية On one hand
من ناحية اخري On the other hand
بالاضافة الي ذلك Addition to that
علاوة علي ذلك Moreover
قبل كل شيء Above all
في نفس الوقت At the same time
على ايه حال However 

انشودة بسم الله بالانجليزي

تمارين رائعة ومنوعة لتقوية المفردات ( الكلمات )

الكتاب الأول

Squeeze in some extra practice in word analysis, spelling, and punctuation with these engaging grammar worksheets.
PDF 6.42 Mb/ 6.12 Mb

الكتاب الثاني

These vocabulary worksheets will introduce kids to the wide world of words and get them excited about learning new skills through reading.
PDF 4.59 Mb / 4.37 Mb

زمن الماضي البسيط The Past simple

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
°ˆ~*¤®§(*§*)§®¤*~ˆ°طيب ماذا نعني بزمن الماضي البسيط ؟

What do we mean by The past Simple Tense?

هو الزمن الذي يتحدث عن نشاط أو حدث أو فعل معين حدث وإنتهى في الماضي . إذا الفعل أو الحدث بدأ وإنتهى في الماضي .

يعني كذا مثال على الطاير ,,,, أمل غابت عن المدرسة أمس . طيب إذا الحدث هنا إن أمل غابت والغياب حدث وإنتهى خلاص أمس (أي شيء أصبح ماضي) لكن اليوم أمل حضرت المدرسة .

How to form the Past simple Tense?
كيف نصيغ زمن الماضي البسيط؟

هناك صياغتين للماضي البسيط :

أولا : الصيغة المنتظمة (الغير شاذة) وهذه بكل بساطة تكون بإضافة فقط حرفي
إلى نهاية الفعل فيصبح الفعل ماضي . ولكن ننتبه إلى أن هذه الطريقة لاتتبع مع كل الأفعال في اللغة الإنجليزية لكن نتبعها مع الأفعال المنتظمة وهي تسمى :
Regular Verbs
وقد يتسائل البعض ماهي الأفعال المنتظمة وهل هناك قائمة بها عشان نعرفها لكن عشان أبسط الحكاية لكم ..إنه أي فعل غير منتظم على طول نعرف إنه منتظم وراح نعرف قائمة الأفعال الغير منتظمة بعد لحظات ....
لكن الآن دعونا نأخذ أول صيغة للماضي ..وهي مثل ماقلنا :
Subject+ V-ed+ Complement
إذا الفاعل ثم الفعل مضافا له حرفي Ed ثم بقية الجملة سواء كان فيها مفعول به أولا .

طيب ناخذ أمثلة :

It rained yesterday.

لقد امطرت بالأمس .

إذا الفعل الأساسي هو Rain وكان في المضارع ولما حولنا الفعل إلى الماضي أضفنا حرفي ed إلى الفعل فتحول إلى ماضي .

Naser arrived last night.

وصل ناصر الليلة الماضية
.إذا الحدث هنا وقع وإنتهى في الليلة الماضية وهو وصول ناصر فوضعنا حرف ed إلى نهاية الفعل حتى نعرف إن الفعل ماضي.

ثانيا: الصيغة الشاذة ومن الإسم نلاحظ أنها الصيغة التي لايضاف لها ed في نهاية الفعل حتى نثبت أنها في الماضي . إذا الصيغة تكون بأن شكل الفعل كلية يتغير تماما من ناحية الكتابة ومن ناحية النطق . وكما قلت أن ليست كل الأفعال شاذة لكن هناك قائمة بالأفعال الشاذة والتي تسمى Irregular Verbs وقد ذكرتها في إحدى الدروس السابقة على شكل رابط وسأذكرها الآن . وبالنسبة للائحة الأفعال التي سأذكرها الآن هي عبارة عن جدول (معروف لدى الجميع) والجدول هذا مقسم إلى ثلاث أقسام والأقسام هذه تحوي الأفعال الشاذة . في أول خانة من هذا الجدول نلاحظ الفعل في الزمن المضارع أما الخانة الثانية فنلاحظ انفس الفعل لكن في الزمن الماضي (وهذا مانريده ) أما الخانة الثالثة وهي لاتهمنا الآن فهي تسمى الماضي .

تعالوا نشوف الرابط ونشوف الأفعال الغير منتظمة
Irregular Verbs

When to use The Past Simple?
متى نستخدم الماضي البسيط؟

أولا / في حالة التعبير عن نشاط أو فعل معين حدث في وقت محدد في الماضي .وعادة مانستخدم كلمات معينة تدل على تحديد الزمن والوقت مثل :

Yesterday أمس

last night الليلة الماضية

year ago منذ سنة

last week الأسبوع الماضي

last month الشهر الماضي

It rained yesterday.

لقد امطرت بالأمس .

Naser arrived last night.

وصل ناصر الليلة الماضية

They came here ayear ago .

ثانيا/ أيضا في حالة التعبير عن حدث معين ليس له زمن محدد في الماضي . ويكون الوقت مفهوم من المضمون الكلي.


He went to town .

لقد ذهب إلىالبلدة.

إذا لايوجد هنا وقت محدد هنا لوقت ذهابه .

He spoke to the captin about it.

لقد كلم القائد عنه. (لايوجد وقت محدد عن الوقت الذي تكلم فيه)

ثانيا/ أيضا في حالة التعبير عن حدث معين ليس له زمن محدد في الماضي . ويكون الوقت مفهوم من المضمون الكلي.

He went to town .

لقد ذهب إلىالبلدة.

إذا لايوجد هنا وقت محدد هنا لوقت ذهابه .

He spoke to the captin about it.

لقد كلم القائد عنه. (لايوجد وقت محدد عن الوقت الذي تكلم فيه)

The negative


مثلا عندنا هذه الجماة المثبتة

I walked to school yesterday

نحولها إلى جملة منفية نستخدم

did not وإختصارها


ثم نضع الفعل الأصلي وليس الماضي

إذا تصبح الجملة:

I Didn’t to school yesterday.

وصيغة النفي هذه تأتي مع جميع الضمائر اللي عارفينها

كيف نصيغ السؤال ؟
How to form Q.?

نستخدم أيضا في السؤال الفعل did سواء كان مثبت أو منفي .Didn’t


Did you go out last night?
هل ذهبت ليلة البارحة؟

ولو لاحظنا إن إذا إستخدمنا did على طول الفعل الأساسي يكون في صيغته الأصليه أي المصدر من دون أي إضافات ..

When did Yaser die?

متى توفى ياسر؟

ملاحظة على السريع/ لاننسى إن الفعل be يعني is-am-are

طيب نبغ نعرف إيش الماضي منهم

was -were

ملاحظة أخرى /نحن لانستخدم على الإطلاق الفعل did سواء في حالة النفي أو السؤال مع الفعلين
was –were

الدرس العاشر : الماضي التام
The Past Perfect يب تعالوا نشوف سوا ماذا نعني بالماضي التام ؟
What do we mean by the Past Perfect?

هو الزمن الذي يستخدم للتعبير عن حدث معين أو فعل معين وقع( قبل حدث آخر ) في الماضي ..
إذا لونلاحظ إنهم حدثين أو فعلين وكلهم في الماضي لكن واحد من الحدثين وقع قبل الآخر وهو حدث الماضي التام ثم الماضي البسيط .

إيش رايكم ناخذ مثال على السريع عشان نفهم السالفة ..
مثلا/ أنا أكلت التفاحة قبل ذهابي للمدرسة بالأمس .
إذا الحدثين هنا في الماضي وهما أكل التفاحة والذهاب للمدرسة لكن حدث سبق الآخر وهو أكل التفاحة .
طبعا راح أكتب هذا المثال بالإنجليزي لكن بعد أخذ الصيغة للماضي التام.

كيف نصيغ الماضي التام؟
How to form the Past Perfect

صياغتنا هنا سهلة جدا ولو نتذكر شوي إيش أخذنا في المضارع التام في صيغته التي كانت
Has/have+V-past participle

طيب صياغتنا هنا راح تكون في صيغة الماضي من الصيغة السابقة فتصبح :

Had+ V-past participle

إذا الفعل المساعد had ثم الصيغة الثالثة للفعل الأصلي .

طبعا الفعل المساعد هنا had يأخذ جميع الضمائر بدون إستثناء

طيب فاكرين المثال السابق تبع التفاحة تعالوا نصيغه :

تصبح الجملة
I had eaten the apple before I went to school yesterday.

لو نلاحظ هنا إن الحدثين وقعت في الماضي لكن الماضي التام سبق الماضي البسيط فالحدث الأول هو أكل التفاحة والحدث الثاني وهو في الماضي البسيط هو الذهاب للمدرسة .إذا الحدث الذي يسبق الحدث الآخر يكون في صيغة الماضي التام وأما الآخر ففي الماضي البسيط


في ملاحظة حبيباتي إن أحيانا ليس من الضروري كتابة الحدثين في الجملة كما رأينا في المثال السابق لكن في بعض الصياغات تحذف الجملة التي في الماضي البسيط وبالمقابل نلاحظ أن عنصر الوقت متضمن ومفهوم من خلال الجملة ونفهم إن الجملة اللي إنحذفت هي أصلا في صيغة الماضي البسيط وراح نشوف في الأمثلة إن شاء الله.

متى نستخدم الماضي التام ؟
When to use the Past Perfect ? طبعا التكرار يفيد الشطار ومثل ماذكرنا في التعريف( وهو إستخدام واحد) يستخدم للتعبير عن حدث معين أو فعل معين وقع( قبل حدث آخر ) في الماضي ..
إذا لونلاحظ إنهم حدثين أو فعلين وكلهم في الماضي لكن واحد من الحدثين وقع قبل الآخر .وليس من الضروري وجود الحدث الآخر (الذي في الماضي البسيط) ظاهرا للعيان لكن متضمنا ومفهوم من خلال الجملة .

أمثلة /Examples

My Parents had already eaten by the time I got home.
لقد أكل والداي توا في الوقت الذي حضرت فيه إلى المنزل

إذا الحدث الأول : أن والداي قد أكلا وهنا إستخدمنا الماضي التام.
الحدث الثاني :حضوري المنزل وهنا إستخدمنا الماضي البسيط .

ولو نلاحظ هنا أن الحدثين كانا ظاهرين للعيان.

I had finished my work before the captin came.
لقد أنهيت عملي قبل مجيء الكابتن.

إذا الحدث الأول : أنني أنهيت عملي وهنا إستخدمنا الماضي التام.
الحدث الثاني :مجيء الكابتن وهنا إستخدمنا الماضي البسيط .

ولو نلاحظ هنا أن الحدثين كانا ظاهرين للعيان.

He had never seen a cigarette before.
لم يشاهد هو السيجارة من قبل .

إذا الحدث الأول : أنه لم يشاهد السيجارة وهنا إستخدمنا الماضي التام.
الحدث الثاني :غير مذكور إنما هو مفهوم ومتضمن من خلال الجملة .

إذا الحدث الآخر الذي من المفترض أن يكون في الماضي البسيط محذوف هنا في الجملة وبالمقابل قد فهمنا مضمونه من سياق الجملة .

He had already heard the story.
لقد سمع القصة للتو.

إذا الحدث الأول : أنه سمع بالقصة وهنا إستخدمنا الماضي التام.
الحدث الثاني :غير مذكور إنما هو مفهوم ومتضمن من خلال الجملة .

إذا الحدث الآخر الذي من المفترض أن يكون في الماضي البسيط محذوف هنا في الجملة وبالمقابل قد فهمنا مضمونه من سياق الجملة .

He had called the doctor when I got there.
لقد كان قد إستدعى الطبيب حينما وصلت هناك.

إذا الحدث الأول : أنه إستدعى الطبيب وهنا إستخدمنا الماضي التام.
الحدث الثاني :وصول المتكلم هناك وهنا إستخدمنا الماضي البسيط .

ولو نلاحظ هنا أن الحدثين كانا ظاهرين للعيان.

أتمنى تكون الأمثلة واضحة .

طبعا لو أردنا كتابة أي قطعة في الماضي نكتب الجمل في الماضي البسيط لكن لو حصل أن تعرضنا في سرد القطعة إلى ذكر أشياء وقعت قبل الماضي البسيط إذا في هذه الحالة نستخدم الماضي التام.

الدرس الحادي عشر:زمن الماضي المستمر
The Past continuous tense
The Past Progressive tense

بداية ماذا نعني بالزمن الماضي المستمر ؟
? What do we mean by the Past continuous tense

هو الزمن الذي يشير إلى فعل أو حدث مستمر في الزمن الماضي . أي أن هذا الحدث مازال في الإستمرار في الماضي بحيث بدأ في وقت معين في الماضي ومازال مستمرا ولازم نلاحظ إن الحدث مستمر في زمن الماضي وليس المضارع كما في الدرس الذي أخذناه.(زمن المضارع المستمر)

كيف نصيغ الماضي المستمر؟
?How to form the Past continuous tense

دعونا نعود قليلا بذاكرتنا إلى الوراء لنتذكر صيغة زمن المضارع المستمر ماذا كانت !!
نجدها على النحو التالي:

وقد قلنا أن [Beتعني is-am-are
مايهمنا الآن أن صيغة الماضي المستمر هي عكس المضارع المستمر أي الماضي مما سبق فتصبح الصيغة :

إذا الفعلان المساعدان was/were ثم الفعل ملحوقا به حرف ing للدلالة على إستمرارية الحدث .

ومنعا ((لللخبطة)) راح أقسم الصيغة إلى جزئين :

أولا / Was+V-ing
وهذا الفعل المساعد was يأخذ الضمائر التالية she-I-he-it أو البدائل من الأسماء الظاهرة.


I was playing.كنت ألعب ومازلت ذلك الحين في الماضي
She was playing.كانت تلعب ومازالت ذلك الحين في الماضي
He was playing.كان يلعب ومازال ذلك الحين في الماضي
it was raining.إنها أمطرت ومازالت ذلك الحين في الماضي

ثانيا/ were+V-ing

ثانيا/ الفعل المساعد were ويأخذ الضمائر التالية we-you-they

وذلك حسب الصيغة التالية:

تعالوا ناخذ أمثلة:

They were playing.
We were playing
You were playing

إذا ماندخل الأمور في بعضها ونعرف كل ضمير إيش بياخذ أو البديل من الأسماء الظاهرة

Different English poems

Hello Sisters/Brothers

Hope u enjoy these nice poetries

My friend

When I am hurt
I tell you my pain
When I am lost
You are there to show me the way

When times seem to get rough
You some how seem to show up
We might not get along but we try the best we can
But no matter what we always seem to get throw the bad times

I hope we remain friends
Even when the road starts to end
Lets stay friends like we were from the start
And I mean every word from the heart


Why must one have so many choices. . .. . .. . ..?
I sit, sit, and sit listening to my own voices
I can't ever make up my mind
I always feel myself in a bind

At times I think I know what I want
Then I realize my life is not written in that font

I go to someone and ask for advice
It seems every time it comes with some sort of price

The people I ask are the people that care
The rest of them aren't even aware

Lately there's one choice that's constantly in my head
It seems so hard, kinda like a hotel room bed

Some people think they understand
Where I am coming from its in my own hand

While all these choices are floating around
I'll just wait and think, maybe with my head in the ground

The choices are so great, the choices are so far
I figure now I'll live one day at a time, and live it up to par.

Why must one have so many choices. . .. . .. . ..?
I sit, sit, and sit listening to my own voices
I can't ever make up my mind
I always feel myself in a bind

At times I think I know what I want
Then I realize my life is not written in that font

I go to someone and ask for advice
It seems every time it comes with some sort of price

The people I ask are the people that care
The rest of them aren't even aware

Lately there's one choice that's constantly in my head
It seems so hard, kinda like a hotel room bed

Some people think they understand

Where I am coming from its in my own hand

While all these choices are floating around
I'll just wait and think, maybe with my head in the ground

The choices are so great, the choices are so far
I figure now I'll live one day at a time, and live it up to par.

Why must one have so many choices. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ..?


The Poem Of Like
On the dreadful day of March 30, 2001
I would finally realize fate
One saw myself get closer to the sun
At that point of time there was not one ounce of hate
All I could think about was love
Then I close my eyes,
And visualize the man above
All the sudden all I could hear were the cries

Were they Angels?
Were they prophets?
As my head was in a mangle
I watered like a faucet

The people spoke
Were they there to assist?
Then I woke
And wanted to give myself a kiss

On the dreadful day of March 30, 2001
I would finally realize fate....


This Promise Is True
you showed me the way
the way that no one else could
when you wishper my name
I new that I should
I wish you would tell me
the hurt you are going through
but even if you dont no matter
I'll always be here for you!
that is the promise that im makeing
to you
now and forever this promise
is true !!!

I have a dream
"I have a dream", he said
as sweat came falling from his head
I listened, anxious, hanging on his every word
The people were quiet so this black rev. could be heard
"All men are created equal", I heard him say
But I doubted it on this day
For the past week, month, and year
We were forced to run, to fear
How could there be equality in the land
While hate has ruled with iron hand?
All of a sudden there was a real loud bang
And to this day no one knows from whom the bullet sang
Everything was like slow mo
When I saw the pastor go
He fell down with a biff
His body was cold and was stiff
We tried to help but it was too late
Cause he was already at the gate
In the shadows we were livin'
Until to us our rights were given


its no joke i've been roped in chokin on a bone
from a fish in the school of your twilight zone
you shook me, took me to another place
where the air im breathin's like mace in my face
suggestions questions ppl wanna know
is this what love is? cause if it is then id better go.

thanks for everyone