Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Conversations' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Conversations'

Re: if you hadn't

CalifJim — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:00:42 GMT

You and Clive had a conversation going and I didn't want to interrupt that.

But I don't understand your sentences anyway, so I don't know how to help.

-if you haven't understood it yet I was willing to do it

-if you haven't understood it yet I would have been willing to do it if you had asked

if you haven't understood it yet I was willing to do it if you asked (can I use if with that past)

I don't understand what the first if-clause refers to. It doesn't seem to relate to the rest of the sentence.

Nevertheless, these are correct:

I would have been willing to do it if you had asked.

I was willing to do it if you asked. (A sort of abbreviated way of saying the same thing as the first one. The first is "more correct" in my opinion.)

Re: I think it will be better if we can meet tomorrow

Avangi — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:02:00 GMT

Jackson6612
I think it will be better if we ~~can~~ meet tomorrow or the day after ~~tomorrow~~. I believe Jane will also be there because she has some leaves before he her next exam. I ~~will~~ would prefer to meet in the evening , and I believe this will also be your preference ~~because at that time you will have some spare time~~. We can meet at the Station because your home is located nearby. Please let me know if this suits you.

Hi Jackson, I notice that many posters use expressions like "she has some leaves." I'm not sure if this is British, or if it comes from translation. In the US, "leave" used to be common in the military, and we use it for special purpose time off, like "administrative leave" or "pregnancy leave" (I can't think of the right adjective) or "bereavement leave." Otherwise, we usually just say, "time off."

The clause about the spare time seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

You may wish to keep the "can," depending on what conversation has gone before. If this is the first mention of an evening meeting, the "can" would probably be more polite. If the possibility of an evening meeting has already been acknowledged by your correspondent, I think it's better without it.

Best regards, - A.

Re: Is it possible to use present perfect with "long ago"?

Yankee — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:55:13 GMT

Hi Goodman

I don't see the previous conversation as "fired up". On the contrary, I think it has been quite friendly.
I agree that 'ago' will generally not be found in the same clause with the present perfect, but I agree with Cool Breeze one thousand percent that it's dangerous to get too absolute when it comes to grammar "rules".

A good rule of thumb is always handy to have. However, most "rules of thumb" should be seen as rules that work much of the time rather than all the time.

Re: A question about tense usage in "since clause"

Mr Wordy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:03:41 GMT

You might get different opinions on some of these, but here's my take.

It is three years since I have been here. / It is three years since I was here. -- The use of "here" implies that I'm in that place now, and I understand both these to mean "I'm here now, and I was here three years ago, but I haven't been here at any time during the intervening three years." Some might argue that it's more correct to say: It's (been) three years since I was last here.

It is three years since I left here. -- Here there is more of a sense that I inhabited or frequented this place (say a house, or a town) until three years ago (then I left, and now I've returned again).

We visit my parents every week since we bought a car. -- I think it should be "We have visited my parents...", though I suppose "We visit" is passable in everyday conversation, even if strictly speaking it might be grammatically suspect. This sentence means that we bought a car at some time in the past, and every week since then we've visited my parents. "We visit" implies that this pattern of behaviour will continue into the future, whereas "We have visited" is neutral on that point. (It is also possible to interpret "since" as meaning "seeing as", as explained below, but this interpretation doesn't come very naturally to me here.)

We visit my parents every week since we have bought a car.-- "Since" in the sense of a duration of time doesn't work so well for me with "have bought", so here I tend interpret "since" as meaning "seeing as". In other words, having a car enables us to visit our parents. (If the writer didn't mean that, then why did he not just say "bought"?). This changes the meaning significantly.

Re: Conjunction beginning a sentence

Cool Breeze — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:56:55 GMT

1. Because is a conjunction which begins a subordinate causal clause. A subordinate clause should normally be accompanied by a main clause. A main clause can stand on its own; it is not necessary to accompany a main clause with a subordinate clause.

Examples:

Main clause - subordinate clause. I didn't go out because/as/since it was raining.

Subordinate clause - main clause: Because/As/Since it was raining, I didn't go out. (Note the comma!)

Main clause: I didn't go out.

A subordinate clause without a main clause is usually incorrect: Because/As/Since it was raining. (WRONG!) You may use clauses like this in conversation but avoid them in serious writing.

2. Many style guides suggest that it is usually not good style or advisable to begin a sentence with and. Marius has already given you good advice about that. Even is not a conjunction and nothing prevents you from beginning a clause or a sentence with it:

Even the poorest people in that town own a car.

Even my stupid friend understood what was being said.

Re: Follow-up to "Nagging conditional problem"

Mr Wordy — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:23:40 GMT

Anonymous

If you happen to have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some? [this is more about present -- if the if-clause is in present tense, can we use the modals 'could' and 'would'? Does the phrase 'happen to have' make any difference here?

Should you have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some? ["chancy" should -- To me, 'should' here is functionally equal to "if", so the sentence could be read:

If you have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some?

The first sentence means essentially the same as "...can/will you lend me some?", but "could/would" has the effect of "softening" the request -- making it seem less direct. The use of "happen to have" (as opposed to just "have") makes no difference to the point you're asking about.

In the second sentence there is, to me, no tangible difference in meaning between "should" and "if". However, the version with "should" is more formal (or even slightly old-fashioned), and, in my part of the world, is much less likely to be heard in ordinary conversation. (In fact, in real life, I would in this context usually say "If you have any money...".)

Re: is nosier than

Avangi — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:37:36 GMT

I don't think either one works. In making this sort of a comparison I believe the adjectives should be parallel. Noisier (check spelling) is a comparative. Quiet and lonely are not. Make them both one way or the other: The city is noisy, but the village is quiet. The city is noisy but the outskirts are lonely.

You'll probably hear native speakers use the two comparatives in casual conversation, but I don't think they should be used formally: The city is noisier but the village is quieter.

It would probably be correct to place the comparative in the second clause only: The city is noisy but the village is quieter / more quiet.

comma to link separate, yet related clauses?

Believer — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:00:22 GMT

Hi,

I think you can use a comma to sort of link two separately written, yet very related-in-content clauses like this:

Thank you, it was good to receive a gift of appreciation by you last week.

I think 'Thank you' and what follows can be thought of as two separate clauses yet can be linked by a comma.

That was his decision, deciding to support his care his aged father by himself and not put the father somewhere difficult to care for was the right thing to do. -- Since the underlined clause contains an element, which is 'decision'. that is further elucidated by the longer clause that followed, I think it could be argued a comma is correclty used. Right?

But you wouldn't agree this use of a comma is correct, would you?

That was thrown abruptly, he could not have anticipated its coming while quite immersed in his conversation with his old friend. -- 'it' refers to a ball, in this case.

Are there a guideline as to this use of comma (if it is in fact correctly used)?

Would

New2grammar — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:24:26 GMT

Avangi, I know you said you would rewrite if clause in present tense. However, I'd like to understand why you wrote it in the present tense followed by woulds. I'm sure your structure is correct and natural and by understanding it, it'll help me understand native speakers better and follow native speakers' conversations better.

Believe it or not, I've tried to understand this type of structure many times but am still lost.

Please help thanks!

If you just say, "I'm gonna be late," you probably would(3) have already tipped the person off that you would(4) need to end the conversation soon, and as you suggest, you would(5) still expect to be on time if you left immediately.

confused about 'would'

New2grammar — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:10:33 GMT

I know 'would' carries many meanings. My problem is sometimes I find it difficult to tell which meaning the speaker uses. I think I understand its hypothetical usage, and in some contexts, its politeness usage. Below is a post that has several woulds I have trouble interpreting. I also copied a post on would by CalifJim for reference.

Your analysis is good. Context will determine if you're using the expression as an excuse to break off what you're doing. If you're calling the people you expect to meet, then you would (1)tell them the truth. You can say, "I'll be about five minutes late," or "I may be a little late." If you're speaking to someone who is about to make you late for an appointment, the expression would(2) mean, "Hey, I'm gonna be late if I don't split right now!" If you just say, "I'm gonna be late," you probably would(3) have already tipped the person off that you would(4) need to end the conversation soon, and as you suggest, you would(5) still expect to be on time if you left immediately.

1) I don't thing politeness is the intended meaning here. To my ear, it carries the meaning of preference.

2) would here means possible? I have zero confidence in this one.

3) it doesn't look like hypothetical usage to me because the if clause is in present tense

4) and 5) should follow the same reasoning for #3, whatever that is.

Please help! Thanks in advance!

CalifJim's explanation on would
Yes. I thought maybe that's what you were referring to.
would in an if clause is possible when the would or the entire if-clause is part of a formula of politeness. if you would be so kind is a typical example of if with would in a "politeness phrase". This formula is equivalent to please. This sort of if-clause does not even have to be classified as a true conditional even though it contains the word if.

The phrase would like as a polite way of saying want, and it too can appear in an if-clause. Note that the idiom would like counts as a present tense for purposes of tense combinations. That is, it may combine with the imperative or the future. The idiom would rather has the same property.

If you would like to have dinner with us tomorrow, please call and let us know before noon.
I'm sure that if he'd like to go with us, he'll tell us. (If he would like to go, he will tell us.)
If you'd rather wait until tomorrow, [just say so / I'll understand].

if-clauses that are part of an indirect question structure are also exempt from the rule about combining if and would:

I wonder if he would object to this procedure.
I don't know if I would agree.
We had not decided if we would go along with the plan.

With the exception of the indirect question structure, which is quite common, these are just a very, very small number of situations where if and would occur in the same clause. The main rule for 99.99% of cases is 'never' to place if and would together!