ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Has to be served

Rex — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:28:33 GMT

Thanks everybody for all the valuble comments. Yankee wrote the following: When an expert is asked to comment on whether a sentence is correct, it is more polite or less dogmatic to use would when a recommendation is made -- especially if there is more than one possible way to write/say something correctly. Marius It seems you are angry with me. You wrote ' I will not continue this discussion'. You are all experts and native speakers of English. People who send questions are trying to learn. I repeatedly press the question to learn this point. Until now, for several years, I was writing the words 'would' and 'would be' in an incorrect manner. Now I learnt it from you all. I printed out the reply too; because this is an important answer...

Re: Has to be served

Yankee — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:28:33 GMT

Hi Rex When an expert is asked to comment on whether a sentence is correct, it is more polite or less dogmatic to use would when a recommendation is made -- especially if there is more than one possible way to write/say something correctly. So you might also think of would being used this way: " (If I were you,) I would write the sentence this way. " Someone who is offering a correction or a better way to write something might also say: "You can/could write it this way." That means the person expects you to be able to correct the error now (and in the future). ---------------------------- In your two sentences above, the first one sounds like you are either making the decision to buy the router at this moment OR you are promising...

Re: Has to be served

Grammar Geek — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:28:33 GMT

I have some plans to buy a Linksys router. I could tell you one of the following: 1. I will buy a Linksys router. 2. I would buy a Linksys router. Not really. This needs some sort of condition to say why you won't. I would buy a Linksys route, but I don't have enough money. Or, you can say that you would if some other condition were met. If I had a million dollars, I would buy a big house. If you simply want to say that you are not certain, then say "I may buy ..." (or I may not.)

Re: Has to be served

Marius Hancu — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:28:33 GMT

Forget about other cases and think about your original posting. That's where your problem was/is. You cannot use the subjunctive/conditional for something which already exists: The quote about W ... is already there. You must say: it is/was incorrect , not it would be incorrect. It would be means that the quote is not yet there and someone would write it now or in the future. I will not continue the discussion, sorry.

Re: Has to be served

Rex — Sat, 23 May 2009 17:28:33 GMT

All right, what you say is that it doesn't fit for the given context. These minute differences are tricky, as far as I am concerned. I have seen umpteen times people have written the following words when correcting sentences. I would write ... You may have written like this way too. So when correcting sentences, it is ideal to write the 'would be' form. Please tell me if I am wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please read the following: I have some plans to buy a Linksys router. I could tell you one of the following: 1. I will buy a Linksys router. 2. I would buy a Linksys router. In the above context, is it incorrect to write the second sentence? It doesn't...

Re: Has to be served

Marius Hancu — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:28:33 GMT

>In the above it would be incorrect to write ' that the bank's "best interests" also had to be served'. It would be isn't appropriate because it's already there (in the above), it's already written. Would be is hypothetical and it's about present or future time. You can't make a hypothesis about something which already EXISTS, and has been already done/written in the past. Thus you must use was . Would be incorrect would fit in other contexts, but not as you posted it.

Re: Has to be served

Yankee — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:28:33 GMT

Yankee wrote: Rex wrote: In the above it would be incorrect to write ' that the bank's "best interests" also had to be served'. Yes No It should be the present tense. It should be ' that the bank's "best interests" also has to be served. No, because the second half of the sentence is reported speech (not a direct quote). However, in a direct quote, it would be "... the bank's best interests have to be served". The use of 'had' is fine and quite normal. In the sentence "adding that" means "he added that" (i.e. reported speech). Sorry about my confusing post. I meant to tell you that the sentence was correct as written.<

Re: Has to be served

Rex — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:28:33 GMT

I thank both of you for the excellent replies. Marius wrote the following: In the above it would be incorrect to write ' that the bank's "best interests" also had to be served'. Wrong formulation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know why Marius objected to my way of writing. I believe when I write 'it would be incorrect' it means to some extent that I believe it is not correct. If I write ' it will be incorrect' there are no doubts in my mind. The degree of certainity is higer when I write ' it will be incorrect' something. Let us say I wrote a wrong sentence. When you write...

Re: Has to be served

Yankee — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:28:33 GMT

Rex wrote: In the above it would be incorrect to write ' that the bank's "best interests" also had to be served'. Yes It should be the present tense. It should be ' that the bank's "best interests" also has to be served. No, because the second half of the sentence is reported speech (not a direct quote). However, in a direct quote, it would be "... the bank's best interests have to be served". The use of 'had' is fine and quite normal. In the sentence "adding that" means "he added that" (i.e. reported speech).

Re: Has to be served

Marius Hancu — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:28:33 GMT

> In the above it would be incorrect to write ' that the bank's "best interests" also had to be served'. Wrong formulation. You should have said: In my opinion , in the above it was incorrect to write ' that the bank's "best interests" also had to be served'. And you'd have been wrong anyway. The original is correct. Study it and think about it. When you see something in the press, that has been normally reviewed by editors, and those guys know better English than most other people, sorry.

Has to be served

Rex — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:28:33 GMT

The board has the power to dismiss Mr Wolfowitz, and will meet again on Wednesday to consider his fate. "You still have the opportunity to avoid long-term damage by resolving this matter in a fair and equitable way that recognises that we all tried to do the right thing," Mr Wolfowitz said, according to a statement released by his lawyers. Earlier on Tuesday, the White House said it still supported Mr Wolfowitz, but added that all options were still open. "We've made clear that we support Paul Wolfowitz," said spokesman Tony Snow, adding that the bank's "best interests" also had to be served. After the hearing in Washington Mr Wolfowitz's lawyer Robert Bennett his client's performance justified "the full...