Search results for 'tag:Commas tag:Simple past' matching tags 'Commas' and 'Simple past'

Re: Tense mix-up overload

Clive — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:18:47 GMT

Hi,
My doubt concerns the way I've changed the tenses in each sentence.

"Nick sat down, thinking about all that had happened, wondering where it would take him, wondering if it made any sense to stay any longer. He took out his cellphone and began dialing a number, even as a million doubts assaulted him. A loud song blared out from the speakers but he didn't take note..."

Here, Nick "sat" is clearly a past tense. Yes.
But right after the comma I've used "thinking", then another comma, "wondering", and so on. So my question would be, what tense are those parts of the sentences in? He sat down in the past, but this thinking and wondering, at what time frame are they occurring in? I hope I'm asking the right questions here, I'm not very good with the terminology.
The words 'thinking / wondering / wondering' are just participles acting as adjectives which describe Nick. They don't involve any tense at all. The tense is supplied by the verb 'sat'. Consider these simple examples which illustrate this point.

Nick sat, thinking.
Nick sits, thinking.
Nick will sit, thinking.

And the next sentence again starts in a past sense.Yes, it's Simple Past. And then, the "began dialing" what tense would that be, past progressive? Yes. Basically I'm really confused. A little explanation would help. Simple Past focuses on the event that happened. Progressive stresses duration. There's nothing at all unusual about using these two tenses together.

eg I saw Tom yesterday. He was walking down the street.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Filipinisms/Filipinoisms? Ring a bell?

Mister Micawber — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 00:07:37 GMT

.
I would consider this exercise damagingly prescriptive; most are neither uniquely Filipino nor wrong. However (and my comments refer to AmE/BrE):

1. Free subscription of... (Free subscription toâ¦) - prepo issue-- AmE/BrE uses the collocation subscribe to.
2. Can I speak withâ¦? (May I speak withâ¦) - To sound more polite/ask permission?-- Both OK. 'Can' is more casual but just as common.
3. Come again? (I'm sorry I didn't get quite get that / Excuse me? / I'm sorry would you please say that again?) - English trainers discourage agents to use this because they say that it could mean 'cum again')-- The English trainers are nuts. Come again is common and casual. Your examples in parentheses are overly formal for most situations.
4. It's for free! (It's free. / It's free of charge. / We're sending it to you for free.) - Filipinos have been used to saying 'It's for free'. How do I say that it should be avoided? What makes it wrong?-- Nothing makes it wrong; it's fine.
5. Hold your line/For awhileâ¦ (Would you mind if I put you on hold for a second? / Please hold) - hold your line is absurd. any comment? what about for awhile?-- I agree that 'Hold your line' is not natural in AmE/BrE. 'Please hold' or 'Could you hold, please' is the usual.
6. Open/ close the light/computer (Turn on/off the light/TV/computer) - how do I explain this? it sounds like opening/closing the tv for repair.- This seems to be a direct translation from Spanish? Tagalog? At least, it is the same error that Japanese make.
7. Do you mind waiting? Yes, I'll wait. (No, not at all. / No, I don't mind at all.) - YES is the issue. wrong response. any other feedback?-- 'Yes' is logically wrong but common when the tag ( e.g. 'I'll wait') is also present; speakers seldom have the opportunity to stop and think about the 'Do you mind?' form, and this includes native AmE/BrE speakers.
8. Anything? (Is there anything I can do for you? / How may I help you?) - fragmented, seems vague?-- Yes, it seems vague and fragmentary out of context.
9. I'll ask her an apology. (I'll apologize to her. / I should make an apology.) - this sounds illogical?-- Not a natural AmE/BrE formation.
10. We take lunch. (We eat lunch. / We have lunch (every Sunday).)-- 'Take' seems to be an occasional replacement in this context in many Englishes. It is not an egregious variation.
11. We accept repairs. (This shop repairs cars/cellphones, etc.)-- Seems fine to me.
12. We accept painting jobs. (This shop does painting jobs.)- Quite common.
13. Tuck out (Untuck)- Odd.
14. He was salvaged. (He was assassinated.)-- A new meaning for the word for me, and it is not in the dictionary. Perhaps some confusion with 'savaged'?
15. She delivered her baby yesterday. (She had her baby yesterday. / Dr. Smith delivered her baby.)-- This is fine. From the dictionary-- 'to give birth to: She delivered twins at 4 a.m. '
16. Xerox (Photocopy)-- Very common in AmE at least. Among my generation, 'to xerox' is perhaps more usual than 'to photocopy'.
17. Oppositor (Opposition member)-- A new word for me. Not a bad formation, but perhaps difficult to understand by foreigners.
18. Hand carry (Carry - on luggage)-- A new word, but reasonable.
19. It's traffic today. (Traffic is heavy.) -- It seems vague and fragmentary
20. Senatoriable (Senatorial candidate) -- Odder than #17
21. At around 2pm (At about 2pm) - around is Am? about is Brit?- Very common in AmE; it also appears with this meaning in the Cambridge dictionary.
22. I failed in Accent training. (I failed accent training.)-- A common expression, though I prefer your alternative.
23. We were under Mr. Johnson. (Mr. Johnson was our teacher.) - Filipinos are used to saying 'That student is under my class' so this filipinism has started.-- In context, 'We were under Mr. Johnson' sounds fine, while 'That student is under my class' does not.
24. My brother is taking up law. (My brother is taking law. / My brother is studying law.) -- 'Take up' is common, but means the overall intention, not just the matriculation.
25. Where are you studying? (Where do you go to school? / What school do you go to?)- 'Where are you studying' is fine.
26. Pass by my office before you go. (Drop by my office before you go.) - Brit/Am phrasal?-- Not AmE, at least. 'Stop by' or 'Drop by'.
27. We have one participant only. (We only have one participant.) - should they say 'only one participant'?-- The 'only' can go in several places; at the end is one of those places.
28. I talked to her already. (I already talked to her.) - I need help on adverb order. This confuses all Filipinos and me too. Where should adverbs be placed?- Adverbs are relatively variable in their placement. In this case, both are all OK. More interesting is that AmE uses simple past more consistently with 'yet' and 'already' than does BrE, which prefers the perfect aspect.
29. Will you be at the office at 7am? Actually. (Will you be at the office at 7am? Yes.)-- Not AmE/BrE
30. Actually, I like Jennifer Aniston. (I like Jennifer Aniston.) - Actually/basically has become Filipinos expressions.-- I wouldn't say that it is unique to Filipinos; many AmE speakers develop the habit in various contexts. Too much is too much, however.
31. As per Paul, all request forms should be signed by him. (As per Paul's instructions, all request forms should be signed by him.)-- This is common bizspeak throughout the English-speaking world.
32. Wanted: Sewer (Wanted: Tailor or seamstress)-- Yes, it is certainly open to misinterpretation! But 'seamstress' is sexist.
33. Take home (Take it home / To go. / For take out)-- 'Take home food' seems like a regional variant of 'take out food'.
34. I felt kind of tired. (I felt rather tired.)-- 'Kind of' is very common in informal AmE.
35. As to the projectâ¦ (About the projectâ¦)-- A common formality in most Englishes.
36. Thank you for that/this one. (Thank you for the information. / Thank you.) - I need to send this in a few minutes and I still couldn't think of an explanation. Phrasing sounds awkward to me. But besides getting straight to the point, why did 'for that/this one' make it wrong?-- 'One' is wrongly used; 'information' is uncountable.
37. I do love playing basketball/volleyball. (I love playing basketball/volleyball.) - this may sound right depending on the flow of the conversation, right? e.g. you don't love playing... No, I do...-- You are correct. This is called the emphatic 'do'.
38. Currently, I live in Quezon City right now. (Currently, I live in Quezon City. / I live in Quezon City.) - redundant - now and currently.- Yes, redundant.
39. Actually, I like Microsoft, Symantec and Adobe (I like Microsoft Symantec and Adobe)-- The comma is necessary if Microsoft and Symantec are different softwares.
40. As per Mon, all request forms should be signed by him. (As per Paul's instructions, all request forms should be signed by him.)-- This is the same as #31, and OK.
41. I do apologize (I apologize.)-- This is fine indeed. It is the same as #37, and is more polite than your bracketed alternative.
.

Re: can someone correct this sentence for me plz? thanz a lot

Grammar Geek — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:19:37 GMT

No - At that time requires the simple past, and don't use a comma after discovered.

At that time, I discovered that what people had been saying about how time flies is true.

But try something like this: It was then that I discovered the truth of what people have always said: Time does fly!

Re: comma before 'when'?

Philip — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:10:37 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:
Yoong Liat wrote:
I'd not use a comma.

Hi Yoong Liat,

How did you interpret the clause 'when he killed his girlfriend in a car crash'?

I am troubled with when, particularly the verb kill is in simple past tense, because the whole sentence could mean 'as soon as he killed his girlfriend, he was convicted ...' Even if when is replaced with because, I would rather use had killed instead of killed.

Could you please share your thought?

Thanks,
Hoa Thai

I would use 'after' instead of 'when'.

Re: comma before 'when'?

Hoa Thai — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:26:20 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
I'd not use a comma.

Hi Yoong Liat,

How did you interpret the clause 'when he killed his girlfriend in a car crash'?

I am troubled with when, particularly the verb kill is in simple past tense, because the whole sentence could mean 'as soon as he killed his girlfriend, he was convicted ...' Even if when is replaced with because, I would rather use had killed instead of killed.

Could you please share your thought?

Thanks,
Hoa Thai

Re: was to have

EnglishRaven — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:28:12 GMT

Hi Newguest,

For a start, that sentence should really have commas around the inserted relative clause to show that the action that follows still applies to the main subject (experiment) - so:

In fact, the reactions of both groups were so intense that the experiment[,] which was to have lasted for two weeks[,] was broken off after six days.

Using "was to last" instead of "was to have lasted" sounds slightly strange to me in the new sentence. I think it is because the use of straight "was" sounds more definite, making the part that follows feel contradictory. "Was to have" shows me that it was the original plan that didn't come to pass. On the other hand, a word like "supposed" can do the same function more effectively, giving us either:

In fact, the reactions of both groups were so intense that the experiment[,] which was supposed to have lasted for two weeks[,] was broken off after six days.

In fact, the reactions of both groups were so intense that the experiment[,] which was supposed to last for two weeks[,] was broken off after six days.

Even there, the use of the perfect tense rings better for me in showing that it was an original planned action that did not happen, with the follow up information in simple past tense confirming the action that did happen instead.

Hope that helps,

Jason

Re: preposterous length

Clive — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:41:18 GMT

Hi,

One thing that tells us the simple past tense is correct, is that those who advocate otherwise, at preposterous length, cannot even avoid elementary grammatical blunders in their own writings.

I can't understand this sentence though I know the meaning of every word in this sentence. Particularly the use of comma confuses me. A comma should not be used there.

Could you rephrase in in a simple way?

those who advocate otherwise = those people who offer a different opinion

at preposterous length = and talk and talk and talk about it for a long time

Can you understand now, or do you need more help?

Clive

preposterous length

User_gary — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:59:39 GMT

One thing that tells us the simple past tense is correct, is that those who advocate otherwise, at preposterous length, cannot even avoid elementary grammatical blunders in their own writings.

I can't understand this sentence though I know the meaning of every word in this sentence. Particularly the use of comma confuses me.

Could you rephrase in in a simple way?

Re: Since young/he was young

Yankee — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:43:16 GMT

Interestingly, I would tend to interpret "since his youth" as older than "since he was very young".

Yes, the word 'since' is used as a time reference, but I still feel that native speakers (especially AmE) would find it irritating in combination with the simple past tense in the rest of the sentence. We should avoid such irritations to improve readability. To me it's similar to deciding whether or not to use a comma: we sometimes choose to use a comma soley to improve the readability of a sentence. Likewise, too many commas can prove to be more a distraction or irritation than an improvement.

Re: when - before

Mister Micawber — Sun, 27 May 2007 13:48:31 GMT

When he had shut the window we opened the door of the cage. Is it preferred to "When he shut the window we opened the door of the cage"? Any difference in meaning? -- Yes. Past perfect indicates that the window-shutting is finished first; past simple could mean that windoww-shutting and door-opening were simultaneous.

When she had sung her song she sat down. ('When she sang her song she sat down' might give the impression that she sang seated.) Do you agree with this? --Yes

He refused to go till he had seen all the pictures. Before we had walked ten miles he complained of sore throat.

Here the above mentioned writers say that the action in the simple past precedes the action in the past perfect. Actually correct as it might be, this is weird, isn't it? Is this sequence (Conjunction + Past Perfect + Simple past)? -- In the first sentence, going happens after seeing the pictures. The second is wierd, but in use. I forget why.

PS: Isn't it necessary to use commas when the conjunction is at the beginning of the sentence? Thanks in advance.-- Commas are generally called for, but not absolutely necessary with short and simple clauses.