Search results for 'tag:Accents tag:Past tenses' matching tags 'Accents' and 'Past tenses'

Re: âThere is always a toastâ or âthere was always a toastâ?

Clive — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:11:51 GMT

Hi,

There is a passage in my English textbook. In this passage there are two sentences with the simple present tense, in which I think the simple past tense should be used, and they are the following:

1. âthere is always a toastâ

2. âMany parties, social and political discussions and family gatherings take place hereâ

In order to show the context of the two sentences, the whole passage has been copied below with the two sentences in question italicized (the two sentences are also in bold type together with the title of the passage)

A Russian Experience

It was almost midnight, yet the streets were bathed in a soft, shimmering light. The sun had just gone down and twilight would soon give way to night. We were strolling along the Nevsky Prospekt, a wide avenue stretching four kilometres and filled with people, music and street entertainers. This was St Petersburg in August and it seemed the city was out to celebrate the long summer nights. We had just left the home of newly found Russian friends and after a wonderful traditional dinner decided to have some exercise before going to bed.

ãIt has always been my dream to visit St Petersburg. Absorbed by Russian history since childhood, I wanted to see it all for myself. Now, thanks to Perestroika, tourists are welcomed into Russia and St Petersburg with its rich, cultural history is a popular choice.

ãWe flew in from Stockholm and from the air immediately noticed a well-planned city with apartment blocks built in semi-circles with central courtyards and gardens. Not only did this seem practical, but the idea behind the design was to shelter residents from the fierce winter winds. The city was built by European architects in the 18th and 19th centuries and remains one of Europe's most beautiful cities. Straddling the wide River Neva, the city is made up of almost 50 islands connected by some 310 bridges. No wonder the sight of elegant buildings along the canals reminded me of Paris, Amsterdam and Venice.

ãI hadn't met many Russian people but I had an intense love for their country and traditions and was passionate about art and literature. Russian writers such as Pushkin, Tolstoy, and Dostoevsky reach the very soul of ordinary Russians, and this I find intriguing. It was no different when I finally found myself in Russia. People were openly friendly and eager to discuss any aspect of their lives in their beloved Motherland. No matter how bad the economy, somehow these people have the ability to see the positive aspects of their lives, whatever their circumstances. We met an attractive woman from Moscow, and we fast became friends and it was she who invited us into the home of some dear friends of hers.

ãThe apartment block was in an elegant area of St Petersburg and was probably a palace in the past but now converted into apartments of four floors. The entrance through a narrow hallway was dark and dull and there was an old fashioned lift on the ground floor with steel folding gates that clanged shut, after which the lift moved very slowly upwards. It was quicker to walk up the staircase.

ãOur host, Yuri Petrochenkov, himself an artist, warmly greeted us at the door. He was tall with gray hair pulled into a tail. His open, friendly manner and twinkling eyes showed a sense of humor and his English with a thick accent made him an entertaining host. Nelly, his wife, spoke little English but understood a great deal more.
ãWe were ushered into their main room, which served as a living-room, dining room and TV area. There was an air of intimacy in the room, as though it was the core part of this family. Many parties, social and political discussions and family gatherings take place here.They did, and they still do. The present tense suggests that this visit was not long ago, and that the same custom of toasts exists 'today', ie at the time of writing. We were honored to be there and I felt ashamed that I had absolutely no Russian language to attempt to communicate in. Why is it that people of the English-speaking world take for granted that the rest of the world should speak English? I had always meant to learn Russian and had enrolled for courses in the past but they never started because of lack of numbers.

ãOur meal was a feast in itself. We weren't offered wine, just vodka in little shot glasses and before drinking there is always a toast. Here, it seems to be a similar idea to the above, but I'd prefer the simple past here myself. Another interpretation is that the writer is trying to make the reader feel that he is present at the meal, but in that case I'd use present tense for the whole sentence, and maybe even the whole paragraph or the whole narrative. Some nine vodkas later, Yuri was in fine form and had found a drinking partner in my husband!

ãWandering along the river, we agreed that not only had we found new friends, but we had just spent probably the most enjoyable experience of our trip to Russia. This is what travel is all about - to get to the heart and soul of the people and to try to understand and experience a little of what makes others tick

Best wishes, Clive

âThere is always a toastâ or âthere was always a toastâ?

Liveinsea — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:58:49 GMT

There is a passage in my English textbook. In this passage there are two sentences with the simple present tense, in which I think the simple past tense should be used, and they are the following:

1. âthere is always a toastâ

2. âMany parties, social and political discussions and family gatherings take place hereâ

A Russian Experience

ãOur host, Yuri Petrochenkov, himself an artist, warmly greeted us at the door. He was tall with gray hair pulled into a tail. His open, friendly manner and twinkling eyes showed a sense of humor and his English with a thick accent made him an entertaining host. Nelly, his wife, spoke little English but understood a great deal more.
ãWe were ushered into their main room, which served as a living-room, dining room and TV area. There was an air of intimacy in the room, as though it was the core part of this family. Many parties, social and political discussions and family gatherings take place here. We were honored to be there and I felt ashamed that I had absolutely no Russian language to attempt to communicate in. Why is it that people of the English-speaking world take for granted that the rest of the world should speak English? I had always meant to learn Russian and had enrolled for courses in the past but they never started because of lack of numbers.

ãOur meal was a feast in itself. We weren't offered wine, just vodka in little shot glasses and before drinking there is always a toast. Some nine vodkas later, Yuri was in fine form and had found a drinking partner in my husband!

Re: can't understand WOULD

CalifJim — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:55:01 GMT

I think they're using would instead of will because it's in the context of a past tense.

had an accent / saw a girl

CJ

Re: Please, take a look at this.

Goodman — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:19:13 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Could you please, check if all the sentences below are correct ?

a) In the end of the week, my friend returned home;

b) After the visit, my friends told me that my country impressed them most;

c) The sport classes take me lots of time! (or:...take lots of my time) ?;

d) Since my arrival in this city, I have been having a big number of experiences;

e) Listen! He has many interesting books to show to everybody;

   Finally is it correct to say: She is loving this place, here. (the idea is that while the person spends some time in a city, she's enjoying it so much, that she's loving it).

   Thanks in advance,

Hi Samara, CB already gave you his view, and am going to share my 2 cents toward the questions

Ok bear with me, I am going to be a little long-winded with your questionsâ¦

a) In the end of the week, my friend returned home. The tone doesnât sound right. Itâs past tense (returned) but there was no indication of which week but I presumed itâs last week. So I would rewrite is as âMy friend came home last weekâ, in the past tone; period. But You can say âmy friend will return home at / by the end of the week, not [in].

b) After the visit, my friends told me that my country impressed them most. When we use âmostâ in this context, we are making a contrast of things which impressed us, some more, some less and the âmostâ.

c) The sport classes take me lots of time! (or:...take lots of my time) ?; âtake up a lot of my timeâ

d) Since my arrival in this city, I have been having a big number of experiences; I have experienced a lot of the city since my arrival

e) Listen! He has many interesting books to show everybody- [to] is superfluous in this context.

Finally is it correct to say: She is loving this place, here. Itâs grammatically correct but idiomatically uncommon. McDonald says âI am loving itâ which is used as a catch phrase because of itâs awkwardly uncommon sound, not because itâs correct. We can cay â she loves this cityâ which implies now, thatâs how she feels.

Sometimes, we just canât explain why that is. We definitely can say to our friend âyou are looking strikingly goodâ to accent the point. But typically, â you look good todayâ will do the job.

Hope my answers don't confuse you more...

Re: albeit

paco2004 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:27:01 GMT

OED explains 'albeit' like this.

albeit, conj.

[prop. a phrase 'all be it (that)'; in full, 'all though it be that'. This is only a particular instance of 'all' with a verb in subjunctive (see all adv. 10), in which the conjunctive phrase becomes a quasi-word. The nom. pron. it was also often dropped, whence the shorter 'all be', 'albe'. Before the synthesis was complete, 'all be it had', in past tense, 'all were it'.]

1. Even though it be (that); admitting (that).
[c1460 Fortescue] Albeit that the frenche kyng's revenuz be..miche gretter. [1603 Knolles] Albeit that a great number of them were slain, yet fell they out againe. [1862 C. Stretton] From that day to this we have never metâalbeit that he has had my best wishes.

2. That omitted: Even though it be that; even though, although, though.
[c1385 Chaucer] I may well leese a worde on yow, or letter, albeit I shal be never the better. [c1420 Chron. Vilod]. He had gret fere, albut thaw hit ner no nede. [1532 Tindale Wks]. All bee it he coulde not saye naye. [1611 Shakes] A worthy Fellow, Albeit he comes on angry purpose now. [1805 Southey] I shall live to see the day, albeit the number of my years well nigh be full. [1878 Lever] Their voices, too, albeit the accent was provincial, were soft and musical.

3. In contr. clause: Even though, even if, although.
[1795 Southey] And I am well content to dwell in peace, albeit inglorious. [1847 Thackeray] When a certain (albeit uncertain) morrow is in view. [1853 Kane] The sun, albeit from a lowly altitude, shone out in full brightness.

paco

Re: get/have sth. P.P.

paco2004 — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:35:29 GMT

S have/get O done

This construction has three usages from semantic viewpoints: [1] causative, [2] suffering and [3] completion.

Causative Sense

The accent comes on "have"/"get"
GET constructs sound stronger than HAVE constructs.
HAVE constructs are preferred in formal/polite speech.
GET constructs are preferred for imperative use.
HAVE constructs are preferred in past tense sentences.
(EX-1) [to oneself] I have to get my hair cut at the barber.
(EX-2) [to one's own son] Get your fingernails cut! (=Clip your fingernails!)
(EX-3) [at a laundry] I'd like to have these things dry cleaned.
(EX-4) [at a store] I'd like to buy this. Could you have it delivered?

Suffering Sense

The accent comes on "done".
GET is more common when S has any responsibility of the suffering.
(EX-5) He got his leg broken while he played rugby. "He broke his leg" is more common.
(EX-6) We had our roof blown off in the gale.
(EX-7) She had a book stolen from the library. "Someone stole a book from the library" is more common in this case. Furthermore, one might take the sentence to mean "She carried a book that had been stolen from the library" or "She made someone steal a book from the library" if the accent comes on "had" instead of "stolen".

Completion Sense

The accent comes on "done".
(EX-8) She worked hard to have/get the work done. "To finish the work" is more common.

Usage of Intransitive Verbs (GET only)

(EX-9) Let's get him started.
(EX-10) She seems relieved to get him gone.

Re: British vs. American English

frenchfry — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:22:57 GMT

Sorry, this will probably be a really long post. My mission? To dispell false notions about American English

First, we do NOT say "drug" as the past tense of "drag." It's dragged! There are only three kinds of Americans who would say this: Young children who have not yet mastered the grammatical nuances of English, lazy teenagers, or uneducated adults. We do say "burned" as the past tense of burn, but when we are describing something, it is correct to say burnt, not burned ("I hate burnt toast."). That is not to say that some Americans do not say burned...

We do not hold that it is correct to say, "I didn't phone the doctor yet." Of course, we'd say "call", not "phone", but that's another story. A few people do say the aforementioned phrase, but an AmE teacher would probably tell you that that is incorrect.

No one under the age of thirty-five would say "I've got a really nice car." They would say "I have a really nice car," or, "I own a really nice car." We do say "has gotten" rather than "has got."

Americans say poTAYto, and Canadians say poTAHto. I guess that's how it got into the song

French fries, or chips, whatever you call them, are not called "freedom fries" (Although since Brits aren't supposed to like the French, maybe it would make you more fond of us ignorant Americans better if we did call them that. I suppose a few rednecks from a certain Southern state (we won't mention which one) suggested that they be called freedom fries, but... Oh, and I have nothing against Southerners--I'm related to them, after all

I guess we change the spelling because it is more convenient. "Color" is takes less effort to spell than "colour" and serves the same purpose. "Colour" looks like it wants to fall down the page anyway...Well, never mind that. I have to admit, though--there's something charming about "gray" being spelled "grey." Much less generic. That's the word for AmE spelling--generic!

I didn't know British people used the word "suck"--lol!

In general, Americans do not make the word "school" into two syllables. They do say "scho-ol" in the South, though. They tend to draw out words and add diphthongs so that one-syllable words are made into two-syllable words. I'm afraid we all reverse, leave out, and add syllables many times, however (i.e. "nucular"--ahhh!). The Philadelphia-area accent is absolutely disgusting in that respect--I can say that cuz I am Philadelphian. Someone needs to come over here and teach Americans how to read

Unfortunately, the AmE that you hear on TV really is standard for some American, somewhere (although there is extra profanity on TV. However, the English you hear on TV isn't always considered correct, just widely used. We really are lazy in our speech--we'll say something incorrectly just because it is easier to do so. Then there are the people who have to talk the wrong way to avoid being mugged by their peers (moi?). Some of the slang used on TV is used in urban areas, and not usually outside of cities and the TV--for instance, "bling-bling" or "fa-shizzle."

America has a ton of English dialects (though those are slowly dying) and accents. I personally think that our accents are more intelligible than most British accents (although I'm biased), but British accents of any kind definitely sound prettier (with the possible exception of Cockney--does the Cockney accent really sound like it does in My Fair Lady?). Then there are the American accents I have a hard time understanding.

Now for my (probably idiotic-sounding) questions. Is "bloody" considered to be BrE profanity, or just a somewhat impolite word (like suck)? Also, is asking for a ride asking for something...unmentionble in BrE? I think we ask for a ride when you'd ask for a lift...

Re: Hardest Language To Teach?

Guest — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:51:39 GMT

[Hello, All]

Being a Korean-Chinese (More Korean Blood),

I find Chinese rather easy in a way, yet very difficult in the other. It's easy to learn for its simple structure. Chinese does not have a past tense - present tense - future tense law.
For example: In English, we say "I [ran] yesterday."
In Chinese, it basically goes "I run yesterday."

However, It is very difficult to learn for its 4 major accents (Goes Upwards towards the end of pronunciation for the letter, Starts from High and stays in High, Starts from Low and remains in Low, and Starts from High and ends Low). Another major difficulty is its letters. There are approximately 40,000 "commonly" used characters, and many other minor characters that many people do NOT know about. The easy thing with letters is that one can create many sentences using the same letters.

For Example:

?=Me
?=To Be
?=No/Not
?=Han Dynasty
?=Country
?=Big/Grand/Giant
?=Citizen (cant think of a word for it, so using "Citizen" which is the closest)
?=middle, central, inner
?=same as above
?=Money/Silver
?=To move/Go around/Travel/Etc
?=person

Using these, we can create lots of sentences

????????????
?????=I am Korean.
??????=I am not Korean.
????=I am the bank.
?????=I am not the bank.
???????=I am Korean (longer term)
and So on...

Currently, I Find Finnish Most Bizarre Language To Learn.
Having so many noun-conjugations, I find it very difficult to learn. In addition to this, there is nothing similar to other languages.

Korean has one of the most simple characters, yet it is VERY difficult to learn for its verbs, nouns, words, pronunciation, and grammar. Grammar is very simple yet very confusing.

I personally think there is no such thing as "hardest language" to learn/teach. Each langauge has its pros and cons. To some people, for example, Spanish might be easy. To others, however, it might be impossible.

Regards.

Re: To Pedanticus

MrPedantic — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:23:30 GMT

It was a curious business. It made things very awkward for foreign businessmen who, when faced with a few stumbling words of French or German from their British counterparts, were put in the difficult position of deciding how to guide the conversation gently back to a language that was comprehensible to both parties. I'm not quite sure what started the vogue, or why it just as suddenly ended. The odd fact remains: for a brief few years, you could see several people with pursed lips learning foreign languages, in the average British railway carriage. Now you see none.

But the English relationship with the French language is in itself quite curious, and probably requires a thread of its own. For instance, even a phrase as common in English as 'raison d'Ãªtre' should never be pronounced with an 'authentic' accent, except in burlesque. It must be pronounced as badly as possible. Whereas with Spanish or Italian words and phrases, an attempt at an authentic pronunciation is acceptable; except in the case of foodstuffs. With foodstuffs, it would be regarded as pretentious: thus 'taggly-a-telly', for instance. (And in England you can buy one 'panini'.)

But back to the matter in hand:

1. I would myself use 'searched' and 'stopped'; but it is very difficult to explain. Even native speakers are sometimes uncomfortable with the past tense in this situation, and 'mis-correct' it to the present. It seems to be required by the 'past tense' in the 'if' clause of the 'second conditional', and has the same function of expressing the unreal, rather than the truly 'past'.

2a. Here perhaps 'included caveats' would be better.
2b. Either 'issue', if the caveats are forcefully put; or perhaps again simply 'some of the caveats he includes elsewhere'.

3. I'm not sure 'book' works here; maybe 'work of philosophy', 'philosophic treatise', 'philosophic text'.

'Curing by argument' is unusual; the 'curing' seems to demand an object.

Atootaleur,
MrP

Re: American English subjunctive help

CalifJim — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 05:26:25 GMT

Hi, Miriam!

Thanks so much for your reply. Of course I'm still interested!

1. Sometimes when examples are given, certain forms begin to sound more acceptable. Strangely enough, only your example with "wish" still seems weird to me! The other two don't really sound that formal to me. I can imagine reading them in a newspaper from time to time. I need to revise my opinion slightly.

2. Well, God is a special case! -- as is the Queen, I suppose! But note that a command is still a command, even when we are extra polite and say "please". Please open the door, Oscar. Please save the Queen, God. Please live long, King. OK. Maybe I'm stretching it a bit with these paraphrases, but the form of the mandative subjunctive is the same as the form of the imperative. In fact, all present subjunctive forms are the same as the imperative. I don't find this unusual since subjunctive is so often associated with the idea of one person exerting his will upon another, whether gently or forcefully (urge vs. demand).

3. Whoooooo! I find this one astounding: Incorrect >>

Ramsey, in A Textbook of Modern Spanish (revised by R. K. Spaulding) gives the sequence of tenses you cite as correct, and adds another section just after (in Section 24.16) stating: "A single exception to the principles stated with regard to the past tenses of the subjunctive is that the '-ra' form ... may take the place of the conditional in all types of conditional tenses." He gives the following example, both variants of which he considers correct:

Si V. no hubiera acudido generosamente en mi ayuda, ya habria (or hubiera) muerto de hambre.

Butt and Benjamin, in Grammar of Modern Spanish, write (Section 14.5.2) "The -ra subjunctive may be [used as] a stylistic variant for the conditional ... This is normal in all styles with the auxiliary 'haber : habria sido mejor / hubiera sido mejor' "it would have been better". And again at Section 16.1.1.b: "[The -ra form] regularly replaces the conditional of 'haber'."

Since this isn't a Spanish Forum, I guess I'd better "cool it". Isn't it interesting how native speakers can end up with a totally different impression of their own language compared to those who "studied" it from books as an outsider?

Best regards,
Jim

P.S. I read Spanish quite well and can understand nearly 95% of the television news. I can't say the same for my speaking ability, although I managed a trip through Spain without much trouble. Once I accidentally used flash in a museum where it was forbidden. I understood everything they said to me about how I should be thrown out for such an infraction, etc., etc., but I feigned incomprehension and an even worse American accent than I actually had, and they took pity on me and let me stay! (Be sure to remember that trick when you visit the U.S.)