[title]Family quotes[/title] [description]Welcome to our family quotes section! Here you'll find some of the funniest (and wisest) quotes on the subject of family life![/description]
Learn English and meet people on the world’s largest EFL social network

We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!

Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com


Share this topic:
This question is Not Answered
Latest post Sun, Aug 10 2008 9:07 AM by Anonymous. 8 replies.
Suggest an answer | | |
redkiddy  +  169211 Mon, 12 Dec 05 07:48 PM

Hi from Istanbul,

Look at this question:

"I ..............there a long time watching the ship going further and further.

a) stand          b) am standing         c) have been standing           d) stood               e)  was standing

I gave the answer "e" firstly,,,but The answer is "d"   ,,,,and I thought it is ok, too.

But how can I eliminate "e".what is the grammar explanation to eliminate "e".

Joined on Mon, May 17 2004
TURKLAND
Full Member 199
the biggest football team of all times "FENERBAHCE"
Pemmican  +  169234 Mon, 12 Dec 05 08:58 PM

I'd say "was" is as correct as "stood".

 

It has to be a past tense form (both "was" and "stood" are past tense forms) - and both of them fit in this context:

The only difference is a semantic one:

"stand" (past tense: "stood") means that you were there "standing", i.e. neither sitting nor lying etc. while

"be" (past tense "was") only considers the fact that you were attendant.

 

All  the best

-Pemmican

Joined on Thu, Aug 21 2003
Regular Member 569
Wâ mag ich mich nu vinden? wâ mac ich mich nu suochen, wâ? nu bin ich hie und bin ouch dâ und enbin doch weder dâ noch hie. wer wart ouch sus verirret ie? wer wart ie sus...
CalifJim  +  169274 Mon, 12 Dec 05 11:49 PM
The adverbial phrase "(for) a long time" just doesn't seem to go with the past continuous/progressive tense.
I can't imagine why I think that.
In fact, I think any adverbial phrase that specifies a period of time seems odd (just a little) with the past progressive.

The second of each of the following pairs seems better to me:

The children were sleeping for four hours.  The children slept for four hours.
It was raining for three hours.  It rained for three hours.
I was sitting in the study all day.  I sat in the study all day.

I believe the adverbial puts the verb into a sort of 'event' mode.  It makes us want to envision what happened in the specified period as an event (simple past), not as an activity (past progressive).

If we want the 'activity' interpretation, we can get that by interrupting with a "when" clause.

I was sitting in the study when suddenly a meteorite crashed through the ceiling.

But without this sort of contrast, the progressive just doesn't work as well.

CJ

Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member 22,434
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
davkett  +  169291 Tue, 13 Dec 05 12:41 AM

 CalifJim wrote:

I was sitting in the study when suddenly a meteorite crashed through the ceiling.

It's true!

 


Joined on Tue, Jun 7 2005
Pennsylvania, USA
Senior Member 2,788
"The rose stays fresh in its name..." -Bernard of Morlay
CalifJim  +  169388 Tue, 13 Dec 05 07:31 AM
Do I really come across in the Forum as being THAT old?
And having so FEW grammar books?
 Smile [:)]

pieanne  +  169400 Tue, 13 Dec 05 08:38 AM

Great! (Though I must say I didn't quite see you like that, Calif...  Sad [:(]   )

 

Joined on Thu, Jan 20 2005
South of France ...But I'm Belgian!
Veteran Member 7,517
I'm glad to help, but I'm not a native! And please excuse my typos...
redkiddy  +  169572 Tue, 13 Dec 05 09:15 PM
Thank you CalifJim........................
Anonymous, 1 yr 177 days ago
> The second of each of the following pairs seems better to me:
>
> The children were sleeping for four hours.  The children slept for four hours.
> It was raining for three hours.  It rained for three hours.
> I was sitting in the study all day.  I sat in the study all day.

> In fact, I think any adverbial phrase that specifies a period of time seems odd (just a little) with the past progressive.

>   I can't imagine why I think that.

 

I agree. I think the reason is that a verb form can be confused in some circumstances because modern English is so uninflected. The second of my examples without the double past-tense seems more natural to me:

1: We were stood by the teacher, waiting for our exam results :

2: We were standing by the teacher, waiitng for our exam results

(or 'We stood by the teacher waiting for our exam results)

 The first sounds more ambigiuous, as though the teacher stood us in the same way he'd stand a notice board against the wall.

I'm not really sure that English needs to be so strict because your meaning will be conveyed to even the strictest of English professors whichever form you choose.

Anonymous, 1 yr 106 days ago
because it would have to be: 'I was standing there a long time watching the ship go further and further', so that they are both in past tense

(Y)
© MediaCet Ltd. 2009, v5.0.3615.39139. All content posted by our users is a contribution to the public domain, this does not include imported usenet posts.*
For web related enquires please contact us on webmaster@mediacet.com, status updates are available at status.mediacet.com.
*Usenet post removal: Use 'X-No-Archive'. You may not have understood that your posts would end up in the public domain. Please send proof of the poster's email, we will remove immediately.