ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

jack112 — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:10:28 GMT

I'm pretty sure you wrote this show me something but I don't see it. Can you tell me the importance of this? I don't really understand it. What do you mean by negative becomes positive?

You're doing great. Let's take a small step back.

TRUTH: 1. Jack didn't understand JTT's posting. RESULT: 2. He doesn't understand now.

JTT: Let's take a small step back. A 'counterfactual' is just the opposite, the flip side of a factual.

So, part 1, a negative ( - ) becomes a positive,

Jack didn't ( -) understand that posting. ----> If Jack had ( + ) understood then,

Part 2, a negative ( - ) becomes a positive,

He doesn't ( - ) understand now. ---> he would ( + ) understand now.

Part 1:
1. Truth: I was born in Canada.
If I were born in Canada, I would be Canadian.

2. Truth: I'm 54 years old.
If I were 54 years old, I would be retired.

3. Truth: I just finished eating some chocolate cookies and milk at 8:30 PM.
If I hate ate some chocolate cookies before 8:30PM, I would have watched TV.

4. Truth: My ex-girfriend's name is Belinda.
If my ex-girlfriend's name were Belinda, I would love it.

5. Truth: I used to live in Canada.
If I had lived in Canada, I would have bought myself that land.

6. Truth: I own some cattle.
If I owned some cattle, I would own a farm.

Part 2:
7. Truth: I was born in Canada.
If you were not born as me, you would not have been born in Canada.

8. Truth: I'm 54 years old.
If you were not born as me, you would not be 54 years old.

9. Truth: I just finished eating some chocolate cookies and milk at 8:30 PM.
If you were not born as me, you wouldn't have ate chocolate cookies and milk at 8:30PM.

10. Truth: My ex-girfriend's name is Belinda.
If you were not born as me, your ex-girlfriend's name would not be Belinda.

11. Truth: I used to live in Canada.
If I you were not born as me, you would not have lived in Canada.

12. Truth: I own some cattle.
If you were not born as me, you would not own any cattle.

Write six counterfactuals to these truths from your own perspective, Jack. Let the 'if' clause reflect, first, the counterfactual to, [truth] "You are not me".

Next, write again about the same truths, using as your 'if' clause, the counterfactual to, [truth] "You were not born as me."

You should have 12 counterfactual sentences when you finish. Then I'll check them.

I hope I'm following you. If I'm not, how can I re-write my sentences?

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

just the truth — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:41:35 GMT

A. The Unreal Conditional, focusing 1) on the past posting, a past action; and 2) on your normal, routine, habitual condition:

Jack's turn: If I hadn't [get] got something you posted, I would keep asking questions. BASICALLY PERFECT IN INTENT

I think this is right. I had some difficulties with this one. I thought about it for a while though even though I knew it was right. I guess it's the meaning. Maybe I didn't get which one to use, I thought about why not use conditional #2?

Like this one:
B. If I didn't get something, I would keep asking questions.

JTT: The whole point is they are right, Jack. Of course, you can use a second conditional in B because, at that time, when you spoke, that was your focus.

You're doing great. Let's take a small step back.

TRUTH: 1. Jack didn't understand JTT's posting. RESULT: 2. He doesn't understand now.

JTT: Let's take a small step back. A 'counterfactual' is just the opposite, the flip side of a factual.

So, part 1, a negative ( - ) becomes a positive,

Jack didn't ( -) understand that posting. ----> If Jack had ( + ) understood then,

Part 2, a negative ( - ) becomes a positive,

He doesn't ( - ) understand now. ---> he would ( + ) understand now.

+++++++++++++++++++

1. Truth: I was born in Canada.

2. Truth: I'm 54 years old.

3. Truth: I just finished eating some chocolate cookies and milk at 8:30 PM.

4. Truth: My ex-girfriend's name is Belinda.

5. Truth: I used to live in Canada.

6. Truth: I own some cattle.

Write six counterfactuals to these truths from your own perspective, Jack. Let the 'if' clause reflect, first, the counterfactual to, [truth] "You are not me".

Next, write again about the same truths, using as your 'if' clause, the counterfactual to, [truth] "You were not born as me."

You should have 12 counterfactual sentences when you finish. Then I'll check them.

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

jack112 — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:36:34 GMT

A. The Unreal Conditional, focusing 1) on the past posting, a past action; and 2) on your normal, routine, habitual condition:

Jack's turn: If I hadn't get something I posted, I would keep asking questions.

I think this is right. I had some difficulties with this one. I thought about it for a while though even though I knew it was right. I guess it's the meaning. Maybe I didn't get which one to use, I thought about why not use conditional #2?

Like this one:
If I didn't get something, I would keep asking questions.

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

just the truth — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:13:16 GMT

A. The Unreal Conditional, focusing 1) on the past posting, a past action; and 2) on your present condition:

Jack's turn: If I had understood what you meant, I wouldn't be wondering about this right now. PERFECT

JTT: You have used one option, correctly, I must add; you are certainly NOT restricted to this one option.

Okay, we're getting there. Keep your chin up, Jack. Rome wasn't built in a day. Once more, it's your turn. This time, the same 'if' focus but in the seond part shift the focus to the grammatical style that shows your normal, routine, habitual condition.

A. The Unreal Conditional, focusing 1) on the past posting, a past action; and 2) on your normal, routine, habitual condition:

Jack's turn: If I

=============================
JT:
You say you are puzzled by; "How do I know which one to pick?" Is this true?

Jack: Yes, This is especially true when I'm telling a story, not a past life experience story though. When I'm telling an imaginary story in the past, should I use a type 2 or a type 2 conditional?

JTT:
Let's say you have two choices in front of you, apple juice and orange juice. Which one do you pick? Well, of course, in normal circumstances, you pick the one you want. It's the same with these conditionals; you pick the one that expresses what you want to say.

Jack: I find it frustrating to pick one, I understand conditionals in life but when it comes to imaginary stories, I don't get it.

JJT: Let's leave this aspect alone just for a wee bit longer, okay?

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

jack112 — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:50:39 GMT

You say you are puzzled by; "How do I know which one to pick?" Is this true?

Yes, This is especially true when I'm telling a story, not a past life experience story though. When I'm telling an imaginary story in the past, should I use a type 2 or a type 2 conditional?

Let's say you have two choices in front of you, apple juice and orange juice. Which one do you pick? Well, of course, in normal circumstances, you pick the one you want. It's the same with these conditionals; you pick the one that expresses what you want to say.

I find it frustrating to pick one, I understand conditionals in life but when it comes to imaginary stories, I don't get it.

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

just the truth — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:39:44 GMT

A. The Unreal Conditional, focusing on your present condition:

If I understood this, I wouldn't be so frustrated. PERFECT

B. The Unreal Conditional focusing on the action at the time you finished reading the last post.

If I had understood what you wrote, I wouldn't have posted. PERFECT

JTT: We're making great progress, Jack. From your responses, you seem to understand it very well. Now let's mix them up.

A. The Unreal Conditional, focusing 1) on the past posting, a past action; and 2) on your present condition:

Jack's turn: If

=============================

You say you are puzzled by; "How do I know which one to pick?" Is this true?

Let's say you have two choices in front of you, apple juice and orange juice. Which one do you pick? Well, of course, in normal circumstances, you pick the one you want. It's the same with these conditionals; you pick the one that expresses what you want to say.

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

jack112 — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:19:19 GMT

A. The Unreal Conditional, focusing on your present condition:

If I understood this, I wouldn't be so frustrated.

B. The Unreal Conditional focusing on the action at the time you finished reading the last post.

If I had understood what you wrote, I wouldn't have posted.

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

just the truth — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:02:50 GMT

Jack:
I have read your post. I think I need some time to think about it.

JTT:

The Truth of this situation: 1) JTT explained it badly. 2) Jack doesn't understand now.

Your turn, Jack. Write the following, one sentence for each

A. The Unreal Conditional, focusing on your present condition:

If

The Truth of this situation: 1) JTT explained it badly. 2) Jack didn't understand when he finished reading the post.

B. The Unreal Conditional focusing on the action at the time you finished reading the last post.

If

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

jack112 — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:14:08 GMT

I have read your post. I think I need some time to think about it.

But for now, I really want to know why they used a type 2 conditional instead of a type 3? How did they know know which one to use? What does it mean when it's a type 2 and what does it mean when it's a type 3?

This fish is clear like the cool water and it will not be seen at all if it didn't have golden eyes.

How come you didn't use 'doesn't' instead of 'didn't' ? Are you trying to show me something? Because I don't see it. With 'didn't' I think you are trying to point out that these fish do have golden eyes. But why not just use 'doesn't'? It is more grammatical?

Thanks.

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

just the truth — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:45:10 GMT

Okay, Jack. You recognize that in the former, the focus is on the general condition, where 'I' work, whereas in the second the focus is on some work performed 'yesterday'.

So too, when we talk in an subjunctive/imaginary mood/manner about any given thing, we can focus on the general condition or we can focus on the "potential" finished action. These "potential" actions would, of course, only occur if we could actually operate in this fantasy world.

In some circumstances, with some word choices, it becomes virtually impossible to focus on both finished action or general condition, but in other cases, circumstances allow us to do so.

2. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not
for two golden eyes

Here the focus is on the general condition of the "golden eyes". Let's put this into an imaginary reality situation and say there actually is a fish that's totally clear, just like water. This requires you to put yourself into an imaginary situation wherein such a fish exists.

Now, we can talk about this "real" fish using present tense FORMS. Without its 'golden eyes', we can't see it in the water.

This fish (that I'm showing you) is clear like the cool water (it comes from) and without its two golden eyes, (I then cut them out) {sorry gang, it was already dead} when I put it back in the water, it disappears, you just can't see it.

This fish is clear like the cool water and it will not be seen at all if it didn't have golden eyes.

Now, staying in this imaginary situation, let's shift our focus to the finished action.

1. & 3. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not have been seen at all if it had not been for two golden eyes.

Now, we're back in a fantasy world. We know this because of the change in word choice. Past tense FORMS + 'if' mean doubtful to impossible. Here it obviously means impossible. But in 1 & 3, the speaker shifts their focus to the finished action.

1. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not have been seen at all (by us, this time) if it had not been for ITS two golden eyes (that the person is staring at in this imaginary situation).

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

jack112 — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:59:50 GMT

JTT: What do these mean, Jack?

I work in London.

Yesterday, I worked in London at a homeless shelter.

I work in london. (This means you work in london. It's the place where you work.)

Yesterday, I worked in London at a homeless shelter. (This means you worked at a homeless shelter in London yesterday. You were in London working. It doesn't say if you work in London for a fact.)

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

just the truth — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:12:39 GMT

I put some parts in bold. I hope this is clearer.

I changeD some of the parts and put them in bold. I hope this is clearer.

JTT: 'bold', to my knowledge, hasn't yet made it into English as a "recognized" verb, Jack. I know, I know, you can find it in Google, but it's not that common. And yes, ENLs have the "right" to make new verbs, even going so far as to fingerquote these new verbs {in fact, that's how we often mark new verbs}, but I'd recommend that you stay with the herd on this one.

I understood you completely in your first posting, Jack. But I'd like you to answer my questions below. While they may seem to be off the topic you've raised, I assure you that they are, dead on, the topic you've raised.

++++++++++++++++++++

JTT: What do these mean, Jack?

I work in London.

Yesterday, I worked in London at a homeless shelter.

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

jack112 — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:04:36 GMT

Part 1- The Fish

I don't get this part:

This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not
for two golden eyes.

Why did they use imgainary present conditional?

Why not this one:
1. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not have been seen at all if it had not been for two golden eyes.

What do these mean?
2. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not
for two golden eyes
3. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not have been seen at all if it had not been for two golden eyes.

I change the bolded parts. I hope this is clearer.

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

just the truth — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:47:49 GMT

Part 1 - The fish

I don't get this part:
This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not
for two golden eyes.

Why did they use imaginary present conditional?

Why not this one:
1. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not have been seen at all if it had not been for two golden eyes.

What do these mean?
2. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not
for two golden eyes.
3. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not have been seen at all if it had not been for two golden eyes.

============================

JTT: What do these mean, Jack?

I work in London.

Yesterday, I worked in London at a homeless shelter.

Re: Storytelling with Conditionals

jack112 — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:48:50 GMT

A Bedtime Story
by Gilles Pinette

1 Many moons ago, as Nanabush was ice fishing on the Great Spirit Lake, he caught a very
special fish. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not
for two golden eyes. And even these eyes were not visible when the fish closed her eyelids.

2 As Nanabush pulled the invisible fish from the water, she spoke to him.

3 âOh great Nanabush, spare me for I am nothing but a stinky clear fish and my body tastes like
the inside of a bearâs intestine. If you grant me freedom, I shall bestow two wishes on you.â

4 Nanabush considered this for a moment and after remembering his experience with eating
bearâs intestine, decided to give the fish her freedom. His two wishes were very simple. A
companion to share life with and an ice fishing shack with a heater.

5 However, Nanabush wanted to have proof of his remarkable catch, so he cut the eyelids off the
fish and then let her go. That is why to this day, fish have no eyelids.

6 The transparent fish was angered by this act of dishonour, but was wise beyond most mortals.
She decided to remind Nanabush and the rest of mankind of the qualities they lacked. She
released a great spirit to make mankind giving, caring, loving, compassionate, and kind every
year around the time she was caught. That day was the twenty-fifth of December and that
released spirit was the Spirit of Christmas.

I don't get this part:

This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not
for two golden eyes.

Why did they use imgainary present conditional?

Why not this one:
1. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not have been seen at all if it had not been for two golden eyes.

What do these mean?
2. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not be seen at all if it were not
for two golden eyes.
3. This fish was clear like the cool water and would not have been seen at all if it had not been for two golden eyes.

I have another one right here. I don't get the use of conditionals with stories. I don't get which one to use. I have included the story if you need it. I just don't get the bolded part.

Dear Cecil:

My sources tell me that water, when it spirals out of a drain, flows in one direction only in the Northern Hemisphere and in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere. Is this so? Why? Is the spiral especially pronounced at the poles? Subdued at the equator? If I carried a drain across the equator would the spiral reverse directions? How do drains work in outer space? I know this probably seems like a lot of questions, but I have an unquenchable thirst for learning. --Victor C., Chicago

Dear Victor:

Lucky you found me then. Given the limitations of a once-a-week column, it is maybe an exaggeration to describe myself as an everlasting fountain of knowledge. But I am definitely an unstoppable leak.

The erroneous bit of folk wisdom you refer to says that water always drains in a clockwise direction in the Southern Hemisphere, and in a counterclockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere. The supposed reason for this "fact" is the Coriolis effect, which has to do with the effect of the earth's rotation on moving objects.

Well, there is such a thing as the Coriolis effect. It explains why macroevents such as hurricanes rotate in a clockwise direction in the Southern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. However, when you get down to itty-bitty phenomena such as the water draining out of your bathtub, the Coriolis effect is insignificant, amounting to roughly three ten-millionths of the force of gravity (in Boston, at least, which is where they happened to do the measuring).

The boring truth is that water drains every which way no matter what hemisphere you're in, for reasons which have to do mostly with the shape of the drain, the way you poured in the water in the first place, and so on.

All this was demonstrated way back in 1962 by one Ascher Shapiro, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Shapiro filled a circular tank six feet in diameter and six inches high in such a way that the water swirled in a clockwise direction. (Remember, now, that Coriolis forces in the Northern Hemisphere act in a counterclockwise direction.)

Shapiro then covered the tank with a plastic sheet, kept the temperature constant, and sat down to read comic books or whatever scientists do while they wait for their experiments to percolate. When he pulled the plug after an hour or two, the water went down the drain clockwise, presumably because it still retained some clockwise motion from filling.

On the other hand, if Shapiro pulled the plug after waiting a full 24 hours, the draining water spiraled counterclockwise, indicating that the motion from filling had subsided enough for the Coriolis effect to take over. When the plug was pulled after four to five hours, the water started draining clockwise, then gradually slowed down and finally started swirling in the opposite direction.

Needless to say, unless you are a consummate slob, you do not wait 24 hours (or even 4-5 hours) to drain your bathtub. Hence the influence of the Coriolis effect may be safely described as slight.

But I'm sure the myth of the bathtub spirals will endure. Shapiro did his work in 1962 and I proclaimed it to the world in 1983. Yet next to the mystery of where all the baby pigeons are, this remains the commonest question I get.

4. ....if Shapiro pulled the plug after waiting a full 24 hours, the draining water spiraled counterclockwise, indicating that the motion from filling had subsided enough for the Coriolis effect to take over.

Why isn't it like this:
5. 4. ....if Shapiro had pulled the plug after waiting a full 24 hours, the draining water spiraled counterclockwise, indicating that the motion from filling had subsided enough for the Coriolis effect to take over.

What do #4 and #5 mean? How do I know what type of conditional to use for stories?

Thanks.