Search results for 'tag:Clauses tag:Present perfect' matching tags 'Clauses' and 'Present perfect'

Re: IN SPEECH

Clive — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:31:08 GMT

Hi,
I was listening to some types of speeches and have some questions.

1.When someone says this, does he have to make it known that it is quoted? Not if he doesn't want to. Such 'rules' are not governed by grammar. A teacher, for example, may insist that a student identify every quotation. I think the written version should be in quotation marks because not being in quotation marks doesn't make sense to me.

Next time is later again.<<< This doesn't make any sense to me. What does it mean?

2.Can we have a present perfect after a dependant clause like "After you heard it" in the past tense? It certainly sounds odd in this example. I can't think of another example in which it sounds OK, although I don't like to say an absolute 'No, never'.

After you heard it, you have decided to come back again. Thank you. Nice to see you all here again.

Best wishes, Clive

IN SPEECH

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:17:49 GMT

Hi,

I was listening to some types of speeches and have some questions.

1.When someone says this, does he have to make it known that it is quoted? I think the written version should be in quotation marks because not being in quotation marks doesn't make sense to me.

Next time is later again.

2.Can we have a present perfect after a dependant clause like "After you heard it" in the past tense?

After you heard it, you have decided to come back again. Thank you. Nice to see you all here again.

Re: Passive sentences-it

CalifJim — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:55:59 GMT

The "rule" of not mixing active and passive only applies where it is possible to make all the parts active or all passive. Further note that the example on that website is of a sentence of two independent clauses joined by "and". I don't think the "rule" necessarily has to apply to subordinate clauses.

There is no passive sentence possible when there is no object in the active sentence. Because of this "it does not rain" does not have a passive form. ("it has not been raining" is not passive. It is simply a different active tense -- present perfect continuous.)

Re: If you haven't .... I woud

CalifJim — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:01:18 GMT

Anonymous
I hope you've seen it, but if you haven't, I want to run it for you tomorrow.

I think the above two are a type 3 conditional.

No. Type 3 has "If ... had ..., ... would have ...".

... if you haven't, I want to run it for you tomorrow is a modified Type 1 -- modified because the if clause has a present perfect instead of the usual present.

Re: If you haven't .... I woud

Liveinjapan — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:31:41 GMT

CalifJim
Doesn't it bother you that a present perfect tense in an if clause is used with would?
Isn't the past usually used with would in that case?
It is unusual.

Thanks, CJ. I understand would love = want to.

You pointed what I'm stuck with.
I think the sentence is technically not a conditional, because Steve is going to run the ad here whether the audience has seen it or not. Actually he does, I've seen it on iTunes.

I remember that my grammar book says similar cases:
"I'm going to get a beer if you want some" and "I'll get a beer if you want some" are a bit different in meanig.
The former indicates the speaker is going to get a beer whether the listener wants some or not, while the latter indicates it's up to the listener that the speaker will get a beer.

Whew! What do you think?

Re: If you haven't .... I woud

CalifJim — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:24:01 GMT

Doesn't it bother you that a present perfect tense in an if clause is used with would?

Isn't the past usually used with would in that case?

It is unusual. The reason it's OK is that would like to (or would love to) is an idiom equivalent to want to (a present tense).

So it's like

I hope you've seen it, but if you haven't, I'd love to run it for you now. ~

I hope you've seen it, but if you haven't, I want to run it for you now.

Re: tense - why wrong?

CalifJim — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:41:04 GMT

Anonymous
How about this: "The World Court today threw out the conviction of a minor and ordered his immediate release. The High Court had on July 1, 2003, found the boy, then aged 12, guilty of murdering the 11-year-old girl at her house in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur, by stabbing her 20 times with a sharp object on May 30, 2002"

Perfectly grammatical. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, the past perfect is the tense for cases when the events are not being told in the order in which they occurred.

Actual order of events: The High Court found the boy guilty. (Later,) the World Court threw out the conviction.

Told in reverse order:

The World Court today threw out the conviction of a 12-year-old boy. The High Court had found the boy guilty on July 1, 2003.

That the exact date is mentioned in the same clause as the past perfect tense is irrelevant. It's "before today". That's all that counts.

The restriction to cases where an exact time is not mentioned applies to the present perfect, not to the past perfect. For example, the following is incorrect:

*The High Court has found the boy guilty on July 1, 2003.

conditional

Anonymous — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:44:17 GMT

Hi,

A:How is it different? Is the zero conditional and the second and third ones type 1? I think CalifJim told us that the modal 'can' counts as present.

1.If you can make money, please use the money to help people.

2. If you can make money, use money to help people.

3. If you can make money, you will be able to help people.

Can we use a modal verb like can, may, should in the if-clause or the main clause, as well as going to future or present continuous future, as well as a present perfect in the if-clause for both zero and first conditionals? We can't seem to be able to use all those for type 2 and 3 conditionals. sorry for asking many questions.

B:Does this mixed conditional show ongoing circumstances in relation to a event happened in the past OR does it indicate a past result by a present hypothetical situation as I thought it was?

If you weren't such a bad singer, You would have gotten a job as a professional singer.

If you weren't so occupied with you work, you would have seen him trying to steal your money.

Re: tenses

Newguest — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:11:54 GMT

Grammar Geek

As it is, the original has a comma splice - an incorrect joining of two independent clauses with a comma.

I would also keep the tenses consistent. I've never had my own flat. I've always rented rooms, and that's what I'm still doing.

If you remove that comma before "and" you will have THREE independent clauses joined by commas - two comma splice errors in the same "sentence."

So, you suggest GG that it's best to write it in two sentences (like you did it) instead of in one.

You wrote: I've always rented..... Was my version: I've been renting.. worse? I only wanted to stress that I'm still doing this, and using the present perfect would imply (if I didn't add: I'm still doing this) that I do not do it any more?

Re: Tense questions

Ant_222 — Sun, 04 May 2008 10:50:50 GMT

  "1. Please tell me why it has to  be  in  the  present  tense.
   Please look at 'says' at the Final Line."

  It doesn't have to. Another possibility could be to  use  Past
  Simple.  It  is  allowed  to  omit  tense  shifting  when  the
  subordinate clause contains an actual statement or  a  general
  truth:

  "Holmes didn't know that Earth revolves about the Sun"

  "Why is it has to be in present perfect?"

  Again,  Past  Simple  is  also  possible,  but  it   wouildn't
  encourage thinking of the book as a _result_  of  a  long  and
  hard work that has at last been finished and presented to  the
  reader.