Perhaps you both are right and I am wrong. Если(if)... , то(then)... construction does exist in the Russian Wiktionary.I think it's a mix of both or something like that. Maybe Hemo used a word that could mean only "afterwards" in his Russian translation.
That's probably what it was.Maybe there are a bit more bi- and tri-linguals in Flanders, though.
Does "If you read the instructions, then we can talk" sound natural in English?
I would say "Read the instructions! Then we can talk." (if you want to keep then)
OR "If you read the instructions, we can talk about them later." (if you want to keep if)
OR "We'll talk after you (have?) read the instructions."
In theory I'm a native speaker, but in this case I have apparently not internalised the relevant laws or whatever, because the more I think about it the more uncertain I am. I certainly don't think it would be ungrammatical; but maybe it would require stressing the 'then' (and thus the futurity of the apodosis). Or it would mean something like 'if you habitually read instructions for things, then we can talk (now).'I think so, but wait for native speakers to confirm or disconfirm, I guess.
That often happens to me.In theory I'm a native speaker, but in this case I have apparently not internalised the relevant laws or whatever, because the more I think about it the more uncertain I am.
Second-guessed myself on the plurality of инструкция.Мы поговорим, после того как ты прочитаешь инструкции
Jen jsem si říkal, že by tě to mohlo zaujmoutWhat did you need from me, Godmy? Czego chcesz?
You can use it in the singular as well (in your sentence or similar sentences with little difference in meaning). инструкция has two meaings: 1) a whole set of rules or prescriptions and 2) one of those rules or prescriptions. (To be honest, I didn't notice that in your sentence инструкция was in the singular.)Second-guessed myself on the plurality of инструкция.
Spoko, dziękuję!Jen jsem si říkal, že by tě to mohlo zaujmout
Hmm, your English seems to be better than English of 99.99% of those for whom it is native.Regarding the level of English proficiency in Belgium, I was surprised to see us ranked in "high proficiency" in an "English proficiency index" found here.
I wonder if this is mostly accounted for by the Flemish population.
They have a huge population; a lot of it is not urban, so probably not particularly well educated in general. I think educating a population of one small European country with very high per capita GDP and educating 1.3+ billion people in a country with low per capita GDP are two different ball games.I would have though India would do better, being a former British colony and all that.
Right.They have a huge population; a lot of it is not urban, so probably not particularly well educated in general. I think educating a population of one small European country with very high per capita GDP and educating 1.3+ billion people in a country with low per capita GDP are two different ball games.
Interesting.
I should think not.Would a 'Hinglish' speaker count as proficient in English, for example?
It says the same thing to me.I went to https://www.ef.co.th/epi/ to see what the ranking depended on, but being easily discouraged, found their screen informing me that my country/region, Thailand, was 53rd in English proficiency somewhat offputting. I hope their methodology is more reliable than their ability to track IP addresses.