ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: tense-hadn't

MrPedantic — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:50:40 GMT

Newguest wrote:

if he hadn't done boxing

As a footnote:

The phrase above has a slightly different meaning from the one you intended. Thus:

1. I have done boxing = I have taken a lesson (or course) in boxing.

2. I'm done with boxing = I am tired of boxing, and so have given it up. (Informal.)

Best wishes,

MrP

Re: tense-hadn't

Newguest — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:05:39 GMT

Hmm, I think it's pretty clear now.

Thank You

Re: tense-hadn't

Yankee — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:50:35 GMT

Newguest wrote:
HI
HI !

IS IT REALLY A BIG MISTAKE TO PUT A COMMA AFTER "ALI?" It is a little mistake.

WHY CAN'T WE SAY "A BAD LUCK" The word 'luck' is uncountable. You cannot use 'a' with an uncountable noun. You can say something such as 'a bit of bad luck' or 'some bad luck', however.

I WROTE "TODAY" AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE CAUSE, BUT MAYBE I'M WRONG, HE'S STILL ALIVE, THAT'S WHY I WROTE "HE WOULD SUFFER"

I KNOW THERE IS SOMETHING LIKE MIXED CONDITIONALS. I WROTE "HE HADN'T BEEN A BOXER" BECAUSE HE'S NOT ONE ANY MORE, That doesn't change the fact that you have begun a Type III conditional. The unchangeable fact is that he was a boxer and therefore the condition ("wasn't/hadn't been a boxer") is impossible to fulfil -- whether or not he is still a boxer is basically irrelevant. AND "HE WOULD SUFFER" CAUSE HE'S STILL ALIVE. As I see it, the problem with "would suffer" in your sentence is that, even with the word 'today' added, it could be interpretted as a reference to only now and the future.

THANKS

By the way, typing in all CAPITAL letters is known as "shouting" and is often seen as UNFRIENDLY.

Re: tense-hadn't

Newguest — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:22:31 GMT

IS IT REALLY A BIG MISTAKE TO PUT A COMMA AFTER "ALI?"

WHY CAN'T WE SAY "A BAD LUCK"

I WROTE "TODAY" AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE CAUSE, BUT MAYBE I'M WRONG, HE'S STILL ALIVE, THAT'S WHY I WROTE "HE WOULD SUFFER"

I KNOW THERE IS SOMETHING LIKE MIXED CONDITIONALS. I WROTE "HE HADN'T BEEN A BOXER" BECAUSE HE'S NOT ONE ANY MORE, AND "HE WOULD SUFFER" CAUSE HE'S STILL ALIVE.

THANKS

Re: tense-hadn't

Yankee — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:40:42 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:
The "had" part is correct.

I agree with GG.
That's also known as a Type III conditional, Newguest. Type III if-sentences refer to the past and contain a condition that is impossible to fulfil. It is impossible to change the fact that Muhammed Ali was a boxer.

Re: tense-hadn't

Grammar Geek — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:06:05 GMT

The "had" part is correct.

You can try "even if he hadn't boxed" or "even if he hadn't been a boxer." I prefer both of those to "hadn't done boxing."

However, there are a couple other problems:

We all know the example of Muhammad Ali. However, we don't know if his illness is connected with all the blows he received to his [the is okay too] head, or maybe he just had bad luck, and even if he hadn't been a boxer, he would have suffered from the same illness anyway.

Re: tense-hadn't

Zenah — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:49:41 GMT

The correct tense is hasn't because he has not done it, therefore it should be "even if he hasn't done"

tense-hadn't

Newguest — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:42:26 GMT

Hi everybody!

"We all know the example of Muhammad Ali, however, we don't know if his illness is connected with all the blows he received on the head, or maybe he had just a bad luck and even if he hadn't done boxing he would suffer from the same illness today."

Do you think that it is OK to write "...even if he hadn't done.." maybe it should be "if he didn't do"???

Thank You