Friday, January 31, 2020

Review of Related Literature Essay Example for Free

Review of Related Literature Essay This chapter of the research caters to the principles of English as Second Language (ESL); Writing Development of ESL Students; English Structural Problems Encountered by Chinese Students; and Common Errors on Grammar of Chinese Students. English as a Second Language (ESL) is a process of instruction of English in an English speaking country whose mother tongue is a different language (Rosenthal, 2000, p. 73). On the other hand, the method of teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) comprises of teaching English in a particular country wherein English is not the primary language being used (Rosenthal, 2000, p. 73). Students who are studying English as a second language are described as nonnative speakers, language minority students, second language learners, and students with limited English proficiency (Rosenthal, 2000, p. 73). According to Cochran (1992) as cited from Rosenthal (2000), there are generally six identified groups of the ESL college population who needs help with their English, in which four of them required a special ESL instruction in order to continue their college education. The first group is the Native speakers of English who are students who are monolingual, bilingual or bidialectical in nature. This group of students is born in the United States and needs a remedial or basic English skills instruction, focusing more on academic writing (Rosenthal, 2000, p. 74). Second among the groups are called close to native speakers in which they comprise of students who came in various ethnic backgrounds but from a society who practices English at home or with peers. The third group is made by foreign-educated adults with no knowledge in English. This group of individuals is made of students who are well educated in their respective countries and have a good grasp of English grammar and English reading skills; they normally stays in the United States for the sake of continuing education. The foreign-educated adults with no knowledge of English are the group of students who are as described by Cochran as virtually no knowledge of English from any other source who are normally composed of individuals who after graduated high school moved in the United States and have been observed as having gaps and certain problems in their English. The fifth in the group is called the native speakers with limited schooling; more often, immigrants and refugees compose this group. They are characterized by low-level language skills both in their native tongue and English. As a result, it is often perceived that their manner of speaking is not really a standard in neither language. The last group is the nonnative not literate speakers. These individuals are categorized as lacking knowledge both in their native language and the English language (Rosenthal, 2000, p. 74). The process of learning the English language has been strictly categorized in a strict sequence such as â€Å"listen, speak, read and then write (Perotta, 1994, p. 237). As such, the learning emphasizes a strict stage-by-stage approach in learning the English language. Hudelson (1984) as cited from Perotta (1994) had pointed out that the process of contemporary ESL instruction is characterized by programs that place strict limitations on writing to prevent error (p. 237). As such, it is often the case that students are only asked to write what only they have learned or used to do in orally in formal lessons. One significant study that could be cited is the one of Franklin (1986) as cited from Perotta (1994) who made a study between the educational framework and the learning patterns of native English speakers and ESL students. The study viewed that the capacity of the latter are hugely characterized of strict programs that are designed in order to prevent errors in their writing methods. As such, ESL students are only permitted to write what they have practiced orally. Methods such as language drill work, copying, filling in blanks and taking dictation often limit the capacity of ESL student to learn. Studies shown by Rigg (1981) and Urza (1987) as cited from Perotta (1994) have shown that a good number of students are capable of writing things that they are not able to control orally. One specific example that could be cited is the work if a student who appears to be not doing well in speaking English but was able to write the following: Ones supon a time ther livd a good harted lien. he difrent from de adrs. He ws good toode adr animoles and de adr animoles wer good too hem. Ande he dident like too fte and he dident like de adr animol too fte. He somtims guen [when] da abr animoles fte gued [with] hime and he liked too play and he livd gapolievr aftr (p. 267). This example implies then that an effective ESL learning process, most specially if focusing on writing must allow students to learn in a manner that is closely similar to native English speakers. ESL learners must be allowed and encouraged to write as much as they can. The process of writing could be learned through practice, observation, trial and error and also receiving feedbacks from other people and peers as well Perotta (1994).

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Broken Dreams :: essays research papers

Luke is jogging down the ground, followed closely by a stalker. He feels the hot, heavy breath of his follower on his neck, and can see his large shadow looming in front of him. He tries to fun faster to get away, dodging and weaving, but cannot seem to shake him; he is with him every step of the way. There is no escape. A call from a mate is an enormous relief; Luke has been rescued. He passes the ball to his mate, and continues running towards goal. Ryley lines up for goal about forty meters out, and with a superbly executed drop punt, sends the ball sailing through the goal posts. He kicks the first goal of the 2005 premiership season, and puts the Falcons six points in front, after only three minutes into the first quarter. The crowd erupts into applause and begins to chant, ‘Falcons, Falcons!’ Luke knew that this season would be a lot better than the last. This year he is going to be injury free and the critics have already ranked him highly in the running for the b est and fairest player at the end of the season. The Falcons were also tipped to finish in the top four this year, even though they did not have a full coaching staff. The game continued with a bounce from the umpire in the centre of the oval. The ruckmen battle it out, wrestling each other to get the tap needed for a break out of the centre. The football falls to the ground and is immediately smothered by desperate players trying to help their team. The umpire blows the whistle and signals another bounce. Again, the ruckmen struggle against each other, but this time the ball is punched forward. Luke jumps high into the air to seize the football, however comes crashing down and lands awkwardly, with other players falling in a pile on top of him. Everyone quickly jumps up and chases the pack of players following the ball. Luke is left lying on the ground, curled up in excruciating pain, holding his knee. The Falcon’s team runners come sprinting onto the field to attend to the injured player, signaling for the stretcher. Luke stands up, ignoring the stretcher, and is helped off the ground by two trainers. He is carried down into the clubrooms, where a physiotherapist attempts to identify the severity of the injury.

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Case Memo: Howard Wolowitzz & Rajesh Koothrappalii Essay

THE PARTIES: 1.Howard Wolowitzz: eighty-seven years old, was an excellent engineer. He was a retired soldier who had served with the Canadian Army. He worked in Ontario later, and became a realtor and a developer of lands. 2.Rajesh Koothrappalii: fifty-five years old, was a chartered accountant. He has abundant experiences and background knowledge about the hotel businesses. ABSTRACT: Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii first met in 2000. From then on, Wolowitzz and Koothrappali decided to begin investing in the hotel businesses to make profits under the suggestion of Koothrappalii as Koothrappalii was very familiar with the hotel industry. Through several investments on the similar projects, Howard Wolowitzz fundamentally believed that he and Rajesh Koothrappalii had been into a â€Å"partnership† when conducting business activities. After Koothrappalii personally made some investments without Wolowitzz, Wolowitzz thought that he was â€Å"betrayed† by Koothrappalii and should be compensated by a portion of earnings from Koothrappalii since Koothrappalii violated the â€Å"fiduciary duties† towards his â€Å"partner† to make a â€Å"secret profit.† ANALYSIS: 2001-2003: Invested in North Etobicoke In 2001, Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii invested one hundred thousand Canadian dollars each in a company in north Etobicoke which is an electoral district in Ontario, and both became the shareholders of the company. After the subdivision of the company was sold in 2003, Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii received five hundred thousand Canadian dollars respectively. In this situation, Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii are not in a partnership, but both are the equal shareholders of the same company. First of all, they never conduct a written or oral agreement that ensures their partnership in doing any kinds of business. Moreover, according to the Partnership Act., the partnership means two or more people running a common business and having the aim of earning profit are in a relationship called partnership. The partners in the partnership have to share the same venture and profit in business which they are carrying on. Each partner is fully liable for the debt of the firm in their partnership, and general partners should get actively involved in the management of the business. However, in terms of the definition of the partnership entity, Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii did not carry on the same business and not be fully liable for the debt of the firm they invested. Instead, they are the shareholders with limited liabilities, and they do not have authorities to make any decisions in management while investing in business. Additionally, they do not share the profit earned in real. The profit they earned is based on their personal investment rather than the shared one. Therefore, at that time, Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii were two persons who individually invested in the same firm and obtained their own profit under the suggestion of Koothrappalii. 2004-2006: Invested in Mr. Sport Hotel In June 2004, Rajesh Koothrappalii advised again that he and Howard Wolowitzz invested in the same hotel near Niagara Fall, called the Mr. Sport Hotel. This time they invested and became the shareholders of the Mr. Sport Hotel. Differently, Rajesh Koothrappalii, who was based on his excellent experience and knowledge about the hotel industry, involved in the management and arrangement of the hotel. As a â€Å"manager,† Koothrappalii was remunerated by an amount of ten thousand Canadian dollars per month. Until the early 2006, the Mr. Sport Hotel was sold. Meanwhile, Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii received one million Canadian dollars respectively from their shares through the sales of the hotel. Although Rajesh Koothrappalii participated into the management of the hotel and also invested his capital to the hotel, he and Howard Wolowitzz were still not in a partnership under this condition. To make sure a partnership legally exists, the Nature of Partnership in the Partnership Act states a few rules have to be followed. One of them claims that all partners who contribute the same amount of capital to the firm should share the same responsibility of debts and profits earned. Also, they all ought to actively participate in the management, arrangement and decision making of the business they run. Nevertheless, even though Rajesh Koothrappalii involved in the management of the Mr. Sport Hotel, Howard Wolowitzz did not involve in. As demonstrated above, they still did not assume the same venture and share the same profit of the business together; even they did not run the same business. Obviously, their business actions violate the Nature of the Partnership which claims â€Å"Partnership is the relation that subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view to profit.† It is undoubted that there was no any partnership relationship between Wolowitzz and Koothrappalii. The business relationship between these two persons is just that they are the shareholders of the same hotel, and Rajesh Koothrappalii is the manager of the Mr. Sport Hotel as well. We suppose that the Mr. Sport Hotel was run by a corporation. Rajesh Koothrappalii would be a director and shareholder in this situation since he managed and invested in the Mr. Sport Hotel. Considering about the duty of good faith, a director holds this duty towards his shareholders for making his own best judgments to fulfill the best interests of the company. However, Rajesh Koothrappalii did not increase the loss and cost of the company when he was the director of the Mr. Sport Hotel. On the contrary, he generated the profits of shareholders, and we can assume that he executed the duty of good faith towards Howard Wolowitzz and other shareholders. A Few Years Later: Invested Separately In a few years later, Rajesh Koothrappalii sometimes suggested Howard Wolowitzz to invest on the same project with him; sometimes he followed the investment opportunities alone without noticing Howard Wolowitzz. Those actions made Wolowitzz feel that he was betrayed and excluded by Rajesh Koothrappalii who made a â€Å"secret benefit.† In fact, there is still no partnership here among Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii. Besides what was illustrated above that they repeated the same actions and fell into the same circumstances: no shared profits, no shared risks, no personal liability towards the full debts, no involvement in management of the business and no running of the same business. There were several core problems appeared. More fundamentally, no written or oral agreement was given to prove their business relationship, and neither Howard Wolowitzz nor Rajesh Koothrappalii was entitled to be an agent of their partnership if the business relationship exists. When a person becomes a partner of a partnership to carrying on a business, he is entitled to sign as an agent or a representative of the whole partnership and the other partners as well. A person, as a delegate of the partnership, has an apparent authority to sign a contract and conducts business activities to make a profit to the partnership. The contracts he signs and the business activities he involves in should be considered as an effective document. However, none of them has an apparent authority when they conduct business activities outside their â€Å"partnership.† In other words, none of them can be considered as a legal agent of the â€Å"partnership,† and they cannot make decisions on behalf of the â€Å"partnership† legally. Moreover, without notification, no other people outside their â€Å"partnership† would consider them into a partnership and treated them as legal partners in business. The public did not realize and acknowledge that Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii are legal partners in a partnership. The absence of the apparent authority is not the only problem. To be one partner in a partnership, everyone has a responsibility to fulfill the fiduciary duties with each other. As noted in Partnership Act, â€Å"[p]artners are bound to render true accounts and full information affecting the partnership to any partner or his legal representatives.† That is to say that the accurate information and accounts having influences on the partnership must be available to all partners. Standing on the Howard Wolowitzz’s point of view, Rajesh Koothrappalii â€Å"concealed† the information of investment opportunities of their partnership, and reserved the beneficial opportunities to himself. Furthermore, Howard Wolowitzz believed that â€Å"[e]very partner must account to the firm for any benefit derived by him without the consent of the other partners from any transaction concerning the partnership or form any use by him of the partnership property, name or business connection.† Indeed, Rajesh Koothrappalii did not notice Howard Wolowitzz about some investments although he invested by himself. It is not necessary for him to inform Howard Wolowitzz since no real partnership exists between them. 2011ï ¼Å¡ Purchased a Hotel Rajesh Koothrappalii spent two million Canadian dollars on an obsolete hotel located on Queen Street at the downtown area of Toronto and started to renovate it with his two sons. Then, he had an agreement with Triden Investment Inc. (abbreviated as TII) and allowed TII to set up residential condominiums on his place. Also, they agreed that they would divide their profits through selling the condominiums. Koothrappalii estimated that he would gain a profit of around six million Canadian dollars. The Partnership Act clarifies some elements of partnership, including having a real relationship between partners, carrying on a business in common and having a view to profit. At first, according to this time period of this case, it is certain that Rajesh Koothrappalii and Triden Investment Inc. had an agreement about the construction of the condominiums and his two sons Rajesh Koothrappalii entrusted TII to build the condominiums. However, they did not create any agreement about a partnership relationship between them in a written or oral manner. In addition, Koothrappalii and TII did not run a business in common. It is a fact that Koothrappalii had an ownership of property which was the hotel he purchased, but he did not manage and operate the construction. Not only did TII construct the hotel, but also managed the whole process of construction. Furthermore, Koothrappalii and TII had a share of profit. Although the share of profit is a key point of partnership, they cannot be regarded as a partnership if this point is only condition they have in common. With the perspective of TII, Rajesh Koothrappalii and Howard Wolowitzz do not have any partnership relationship in this construction project. Rajesh Koothrappalii individually signed an agreement with TII about the construction of condominiums without acting as a partner of the â€Å"partnership† with Howard Wolowitzz. TII, as an outsider from the â€Å"partnership† between Rajesh Koothrappalii and Howard Wolowitzz, did not acknowledge and discover the partnership’s existence between Rajesh Koothrappalii and Howard Wolowitzz. Thus, it shows that Wolowitzz does not have an apparent authority of a partnership and does not make the third party know he had a partnership with Rajesh Koothrappalii. In addition, Rajesh Koothrappalii purchased the hotel and had an agreement with TII by himself and Wolowitzz did not get involved in these procedures. Therefore, Koothrappalii and Wolowitzz do not carry on a business in common. More importantly, Koothrappalii and Wolowitzz do not share the profit of the construction. Sharing a profit between partners is an essential element in the partnership. CONCLUSIONï ¼Å¡ In terms of the above facts and analysis of this case, Rajesh Koothrappalii and Howard Wolowitzz do not have a partnership relationship. There is no adequate evidence to show that they acted as partners. The business behaviors and actions of Koothrappalii and Wolowitzz do not correspond to the definition of the partnership. Firstly, they never make a written or oral agreement of partnership between them in each business investment from the beginning to the end. Secondly, they do not carry on one business in common. Last but not least, they do not have a share of profits and costs. In this case, their actual business role are shareholders or investors, they do not form any typical forms of business. The main reason is that they undertake and invest their own business separately. Despite of considering about the partnership relationship, Koothrappalii and Wolowitzz do not have any partnership liabilities since they do not form a partnership. From a legal point of view, Wolowitzz is not entitled to have claims on the compensation about fiduciary duties like secret benefits from Koothrappalii. Conversely, Koothrappalii has no an obligation to compensate for Wolowitzz in fiduciary duties because they are not in a partnership. In conclusion, the partnership between Rajesh Koothrappalii and Howard Wolowitzz does not exist in this case. ADVICEï ¼Å¡ To Howard Wolowitzzï ¼Å¡ According to my analysis and conclusions of this case, I suggest Howard Wolowitzz not to sue Rajesh Koothrappalii. The above analysis reveals that his appeal is likely to be rejected and he may lose a lawsuit because there is no any evidence to show that Rajesh Koothrappalii and Howard Wolowitzz have a partnership relationship. Wolowitzz’s business actions cannot prove that he has the conditions of partnership. Thus, Koothrappalii does not have any liability of partnership to compensate for Howard Wolowitzz. Also, Wolowitzz misunderstand the concepts of partnership. He thinks that he is in a partnership but actually he is not in law. So Koothrappalii has no liability to him. However, there are some situations in this case I’d like to mention. Initially, Koothrappalii suggested Howard Wolowitzz to invest many businesses every time. If Koothrappalii mislead Howard Wolowitzz to invest a business with his advice, Wolowitzz may lose a lot of money and this investment is very beneficial to Koothrappalii to earn more profit. It is apparent that he provides Howard Wolowitzz with inaccurate information in order to achieve his business purpose. When this kind of situation happens, Wolowitzz can sue Koothrappalii and he has a personnal liability to Wolowitzz because his business behavior violates the law of business defraud. Nevertheless, If Koothrappalii suggests him to invest and offer true and reliable investment information to Howard Wolowitzz and Wolowitzz obtains the loss of profits in his own investment, this problem will be attributed to Wolowitzz instead of Koothrappalii. In this situation, Koothrappalii has no any liability to Wolowitzz, and he does not violate the law of business defraud as well. In addition, if the Mr. Sport Hotel is run by a corporation, Koothrappalii will be a director and shareholder of th e Mr. Sport Hotel from 2004 to 2006. At that time, Howard Wolowitzz is also a shareholder of that company but not a director of the company. If Wolowitzz can find evidence that Koothrappalii’s investment as a director does not give the best interests to the Mr. Sport Hotel, Howard Wolowitzz may sue him in fiduciary duties as a shareholder. In this situation, Rajesh Koothrappalii violates the duty of good faith. But I’d like to warn Howard Wolowitzz that there is a limitation period of a contract and tort appeal which is two years. From the time of this situation to now, the time range is around six years. Thus, it is less likely to appeal successfully for Wolowitzz. An another thing I’d like to suggest to Howard Wolowitzz is the concept of apparent partners. We know Howard Wolowitzz are not in a partnership so he cannot be related to the concept of apparent partners in this case. However, if he wants to establish a partnership with other people in the future, he has to pay attention to his apparent authority of a partnership. When he and his partners are going to corporate with the third party, he is bound to make the third party notice that he and his partners have a partnership relationship. This is one of the most significant points in the partnership. Furthermore, this case will cost Howard Wolowitzz a plenty of money, energy and time. If he loses the lawsuit, he will spend more costs on it since he has to bear a part of the winning party’s legal fees. Howard Wolowitzz should realize that he almost has little chance to win this lawsuit so I suggest that he had better not to sue Rajesh Koothrappalii. It will be not good for him. Time and energy are very important to him because the opportunity cost of time and energy are earnings. He can take advantage of the time he puts on this lawsuit to invest and develop more businesses for earning profits. Eventually, I’d like to recommend Howard Wolowitzz to study and learn the statutes and laws of business in Canada via different kinds of social media like TV news, magazines, newspaper or Internet. These are good and convenient ways for Howard Wolowitzz to understand the business law further. He can develop his law knowledge better. He also can know various cases about business law on news. It is a good source to pay attention to many laws that he does not really know. Also, Howard Wolowitzz can search for some laws on the Internet. This method will show him about laws fast and efficiently. There are some good business laws on the website, such as e-laws on Service Ontario website. Furthermore, going to library is a nice choice to read the statutes of business law if he is interested in more business law. To the lawyer, Ms.Littigator: From my analysis and judgments of this case, I advise that Ms.Littigator had better not help Howard Wolowitzz sue Rajesh Koothrappalii because the probability of losing a lawsuit for this case is very large. Firstly, it is hard for you to win a lawsuit for this case because Howard Wolowitzz and Rajesh Koothrappalii do not have a partnership legally. They just acted as shareholders to invest their business separately all the time. With the perspective of a lawyer, Ms.Littigator cannot have sufficient and strong evidence to prove that they have a real partnership relationship. Secondly, I found that a situation may bring a benefit to Howard Wolowitzz. If the Mr. Sport Hotel is run by a corporation and Howard Wolowitzz have evidence that Rajesh Koothrappalii did not make the best interests to the corporation called the Mr.Sport Hotel rather than himself as a director, it is possible that you may help Wolowitzz sue Koothrappalii in the fiduciary duty of corporation rather than the fiduci ary duty of partnership. However, the most important thing is that a limitation period of contract and tort appeal is two years. Thus, I still think that it is good for you to not help Wolowitzz sue Koothrappalii. What is more, you are more likely to lose your profit, energy and time. If you lose the lawsuit, you will not attain the remuneration from the losing party. You also lose your time and energy on it. Actually, you can use the time you put on this lawsuit to deal with a new lawsuit which you can win. Finally, if you really would like to help Howard Wolowitzz, I have another several suggestions. Howard Wolowitzz was a veteran in his early life. He may not know the newest version of the business law. As he became a land developer and always carry on a business by himself, Howard Wolowitzz may not have much chance to collaborate with others and form a partnership when doing business. This makes him unfamiliar with and misunderstands the meaning of a partnership, and was mistaken about the business relationships between Koothrappalii and him. To this point, since Koothrappalii and Wolowitzz have been in an acquaintanceship for a long time, they must know each other very well, and may know that Wolowitzz did not know the business law of partnership a lot. However, when Koothrappalii and Wolowitzz conducted investments, Koothrappalii did not indicate their relationships in business unequivocally to Wolowitzz and even did not mention that they are personal investors but not partners. There is a point hidden here that Koothrappalii may mislead Wolowitzz with the â€Å"partnership† relationship between them, and made Wolowitzz firmly believed that they are in a partnership. The key conditions including the age, a retired soldier, the familiarity with business laws and the mistake caused by a long-time friend Koothrappalii can lead Ms.Littigator and Howard Wolowitzz to a relatively advantageous position in the court. Unless Ms.Littigator emphasizes the characteristics of Wolowitzz that he is older, not knowing business laws so much and believed Koothrappalii but was misled by him, Ms.Littigator does not have any chance to win this lawsuit. IMPRESSION OF HOWARD WOLOWITZZ: Howard Wolowitzz was once an engineer and a war veteran. Thus, he did not have any business experiences in the past few years. That’s why he does not totally understand and know the business laws. In any court action, Howard Wolowitzz is a typical person who is hard to win the lawsuit. He does not have patience to analyze his situations in different ways. He does something on impulse and does not considerate about one thing carefully and comprehensively. This kind of incautious personality is more likely to lead him to make mistakes in other cases as similar as the case we analyzed before. Also, Howard Wolowitzz is an easily angry and not tolerant person. When he thought Rajesh Koothrappalii hide him to make a â€Å"secret benefit†, he was very angry about Rajesh Koothrappalii and want to sue him immediately. This fact also reveals that he made decisions fast and this kind of attitude causes him to make mistakes easily. What’s more, he did something with his emotions. For example, he loves Rajesh Koothrappalii as â€Å"a son†. Actually, Rajesh Koothrappalii is not his son and Howard Wolowitzz did not realize that he did not have authorities to interfere with Rajesh Koothrappalii’s own business. Therefore, a person has similar personalities and attitudes like Howard Wolowitzz is more likely to make mistakes in and misinterpret the law.

Monday, January 6, 2020

Did Hamlet Love Ophelia Essay - 1302 Words

Matthew Sandoval Sandoval 1 Professor: Jamie F. Wheeler ENGL 1302.S17 Date 2/4/12 Did Hamlet Love Ophelia? Although some scholars argue that Hamlet has a concise story, it is filled with many uncertainties relating to Hamlet. One of which is Hamlet love for Ophelia, despite some argue otherwise, the evidence provides that the Prince truly did love Ophelia. The word â€Å"love† is a powerful one, both in real life, and in Shakespeares play Hamlet. It is often a confusing concept, made even harder to grasp when one of the lovers repeatedly changes his/her mind (Hanson, 16). In Hamlets case, his feelings towards Ophelia veer from love, to never loved, to always love. This cycle of emotions is due to Hamlet feigning†¦show more content†¦His love for Ophelia is also strongly noticed by all. The nobles of Elsinor also take notice that the love he shows and they start to realize the possibility that Hamlet love for Ophelia would benefit them all. When Polonius reads from one of Hamlet s love letters to Ophelia, in which he says to her â€Å"But that I love thee best, O mos t best, believe it† (2.2.91). The numbers that would encapsulate by the physics and psychology of Hamlet’ love for Ophelia (McCormick, 74). Queen Gertrude wishes to use Ophelia’s love to bring her only son out of madness. Claudius wishes to do the same. Sandoval 3 His reason, however, is to end the threat of his own life. Once the king and queen realize this remedy they quickly act to use it by persuading Ophelia to talk to Hamlet. In this Scene, true madness comes into play. Once Ophelia meets Hamlet and speaks with him Hamlet realizes that his mother and stepfather are aware of this love and might use this to end his threat. Hamlet must end their thoughts of using Ophelia to rid him of his condition. To do this he must destroy all the current feelings Ophelia has for him and he does so very well, perhaps too well. As the story grows deeper, Hamlet shows us that he really did love Ophelia when Hamlet tells Ophelia that â€Å"I did love you once† (3.1.131). Hamlet only confesses that he did indeed loved Ophelia, but only when it goes on to says that Hamlet never loved her (Habib, 23). On theShow MoreRelatedThe Hamlet By William Shakespeare1605 Words   |  7 PagesThe Hamlet, written by William Shakespeare is a true tragedy of the century that will be remembered by all the people. The author of the play tended to focus on revenge, humanity and death in most of his plays. The Hamlet is a story of revenge, accusation, and love. The love author describes can be in very different and variety of forms but on the other hand, there’s pure love that every girl dreams of. In the play, Hamlet declares in the funeral of Ophelia that he was in love with her but was heRead MoreDoes Hamlet Love Ophelia Analysis1193 Words   |  5 Pagesplays of love tragedies. Among these love tragedies is the story of Hamlet. Hamlet revolves around love and madness. In the play, madness did overpower love, especially between Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship. In the play, there have been many questions about whether Hamlet did love Ophelia. There’s evidence arguing Hamlet never loved Ophelia by the way he acts towards her throughout the play, but by the way he acts around Ophelia when he was alone with her, he really did love her. When Hamlet findsRead MoreDoes Hamlet Love Ophelia Analysis1111 Words   |  5 Pagesargue that Hamlet has a concise story, it is filled with many unknowns relating to Hamlet. One of which is Hamlets love for Ophelia, despite some arguments against it, the evidence proves that the Prince truly did love Ophelia. The word â€Å"love† is a powerful one, both in real life, and in Shakespeare’s play Hamlet. This word is even harder to understand when the person behind it is constantly changing their mind, saying different things to oth ers, and acting crazy, but despite this Hamlet seems toRead MoreHamlet And Ophelia Analysis1266 Words   |  6 Pagesera told the love story of Hamlet and Ophelia. Throughout Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, some people struggle understanding if Hamlet’s love for Ophelia was genuine or if he was just feeling lust. I think that Hamlet was truly in love with Ophelia. Throughout most of the play, Hamlet showed his love for Ophelia in many different ways. Although he did break up with her at one point during the play and said he did not love her, it was obvious throughout the rest of the play that he still did. There isRead MoreDoes Hamlet Truly Love Ophelia957 Words   |  4 PagesDoes Hamlet Truly love Ophelia? In William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, many arguments have been argued as to whether or not Hamlet is really in love with Ophelia. I believe that there is a lot of evidence arguing that Hamlet never loved Ophelia and that he was just using her. By the way he acts around Ophelia when he is alone with her, he shows that his feelings for her are true. Hamlet shows throughout the play that he is really in love with Ophelia. One piece of evidence showing that Hamlet reallyRead MoreHamlet ´s Treatment of Ophelia and Gertrude Essay1680 Words   |  7 PagesLove in the forms of parent to child and from lover to lover is an addictive element which can result in loneliness and lead to madness to those who lose it forever. Hamlets relationship with Gertrude and Ophelia is quick to fall apart after he learns key information about his parentage. Both Gertrude and Ophelia provide him with love but are absent at a time when he needs it most; during the reign of his madness. Hamlets madness is partly evident due to his poor relationship with Gertrude andRead MoreHamlet Love for Ophelia Essay759 Words   |  4 PagesHamlets Love For Ophelia Although the play Hamlet was written nearly 450 years ago by William Shakespeare, scholars still pose the question, â€Å"Did Hamlet really love Ophelia?† I believe Hamlet had feelings for Ophelia, but he never demonstrated true love for her. Several times in the play Hamlet denies his love for Ophelia. If he truly loved her, he would not want to hurt her. When Hamlet accidently killed Polonius, he did not try to console Ophelia. If he truly loved her, he would have been at herRead MoreHamlet And Ophelia Relationship Analysis988 Words   |  4 PagesIn William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia has always been open for interpretation because Shakespeare was never clear on what their exact relationship was. However, throughout the play there are multiple interactions between Hamlet and Ophelia that suggest that they were more than just friends. Hamlet and Ophelia’s interactions and behavior around each other prove that they are in l ove and their complicated relationship expresses many themes carried throughout theRead More The Love Of Hamlet For Ophelia in Shakespeares Hamlet Essay1537 Words   |  7 PagesThe Love Of Hamlet For Ophelia in Shakespeares Hamlet Hamlet is without any reservations, one of Shakespeares most mystifying plays. Although the play has a concise story, it is filled with many uncertainties relating to different issues behind the plot. The reader is left with many uncertainties about the true feelings of prince Hamlet. One question in particular is, did Hamlet really love Ophelia? This dispute can be reinforced either way, however I believe Hamlet was truly in love withRead MoreHamlet - the Love of Hamlet for Ophelia Essay examples1609 Words   |  7 PagesHamlet is without any reservations, one of Shakespeares most mystifying plays. Although the play has a concise story, it is filled with many uncertainties relating to different issues behind the plot. The reader is left with many uncertainties about the true feelings of prince Hamlet. One question in particular is, did Hamlet really love Ophelia? This dispute can be reinforced either way, however I believe Hamlet was truly in love with Ophelia. Support for my decis ion comes from Hamlets treatment