Search results for 'tag:Conditionals tag:Adverbs' matching tags 'Conditionals' and 'Adverbs'

Re: Lack of emphasis on NPs in ESL

Kooyeen — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:38:55 GMT

I obviously agree with Forbes: it depends on your first language. I have never had any problems with passive sentences, subjects and objects, the difference between countable and uncountable, etc. because those are all features I have in Italian too. It is not difficult at all for me to use conditional structures (= modal verbs) in polite requests, like in "Could you lend me 1,000 dollars?", because very similar structures are used the same way in Italian too. On the other hand, I know some Asian languages don't even have past or future tenses, so it's easy to imagine how much more difficult it must be for them to learn English.

So instead of focusing on noun phrases, shouldn't we rather focus on the real difficulties, which happen to vary from learner to learner according to their native language and past experience with languages in general?

Anonymous

How about this student?

<<I assume many of you have watched the cartoon "Totally spies", right?
I just wonder why it is "Totally" here. "totally" is always an adverb, so what do they imply when using "totally" here? How can it go with the noun "spies"?>>>

Heh, good question! I don't know! Could somebody tell me more about that, as a side note here without going completely off topic? Otherwise I will open another thread. I would say "Total spies", but if I suspect that "totally" in "Totally spies" is used informally in some dialects to mean "definitely", like in, like " Are you, like, coming to my awesome party tonight? - Oh, yeah, totally!"
If that is the case, then I don't think that "totally" has anything to do with proving learners have trouble with noun phrases. It would suggest learners have trouble with informal English, and if you ask me, that's true.

Re: would rather ....

Goodman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:47:51 GMT

This is my take:
The use of "would rather" is not restricted by time. In certain aspects, it contains a conditional element as well.
Here is some info. Hope that helps your question.

Rather than and would rather

Rather than is normally used in parallel structures: for example with two adjectives, adverbs, nouns, infinitives or -ing forms. When the main clause has a to-infinitive, rather than is normally followed by an infinitive without to. An -ing form is also possible.

I would prefer to leave now rather than wait.
You ought to admit your crime rather than defend it.
I would prefer to go in August rather than in July.
I decided to write rather than phone/phoning. (NOT â¦than to phone)
Would rather
Would rather means 'would prefer to'. It is followed by an infinitive without to.

Would you rather stay here or go home? (=Would you prefer to stay here or go home.)
Would rather + subject + past tense
We can use would rather to say that one person would prefer another or others to do something. We use a special structure with a past tense.

Donât come today, I would rather you came tomorrow. (=I would prefer you to come tomorrow.)
I would rather you posted this letter. (= I would like you to post this letter.)

To talk about past actions, a past perfect tense is possible

<EDITED by mod to credit your source.>

Re: conjunctive adverb with comma and semicolon

Clive — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:23:13 GMT

Hi,

I think you said the following do not need a conjunction because a semicolon establishes the connection.

She loved him with all her heart; she never told him. sounds OK

I took out the garbage; it was smelly. sounds stupid.

Can I write like these for those two examples of yours? Yes.

She loved him with all her heart; however, she never told him that.

I took out the garbage; as a result, the house is free from foul smells.

If I follow your explanations, 'however' and 'as a reult' would be unnecessary since a semicolon is providing the connection. Am I right? Generally speaking, yes, although the conjunction clarifies the nature of the connection, while a semi-colon by itself leaves the reader to think about what is being said and work out the connection for himself.

Also, the four words that you said is not conjunctions are from a list of conjunctive adverbs and I believe those words as many conjunctive adverbs do and can, if not all of them, function as simple adverbs.

Also, as to the fact that both a conjunction and a semicolon not being necessary, please tell me why many online help sources have examples that have both a semicolon and conjunction? Just because something is not necessary does not mean that you can't do it if you want to.

Nothing can be unconditional; consequently nothing can be free. (George Bernard Shaw) Would you say 'consequently' is not used as a conjunction here but as an adverb? I didn't say that 'consequently' was not a conjunction. My dictionary lists it as both a conjunction and an adverb. However, I personally see it as more of an adverb here. I would write it with a conjunction, thus. He loved her, and consequently he married her'. How would I know? My first reaction to ask why you need to know as long as you understand the meaning of the sentence.

"Always go to other people's funeral; otherwise, they won't go to yours." (Yogi Berra) Would you say 'otherwise' is an adverb, not a conjunction? My dictionary lists it as an adverb. I would write it with a conjunction, thus. 'Give me your money, or otherwise I will kill you'. How would I know? My first reaction to ask why you need to know as long as you understand the meaning of the sentence.

What do you say about this? Does it contradict any of the helpful points you brought out or do they fit right in? Can you tell me what it means here?

The conjunctive adverbs that connect two main clauses are usually separated (punctuated with) by a semicolon preceding the word or term. Except the one-syllable conjunctive adverbs and also, which is then have a comma after them. I don't agree. These words that you are calling conjunctive adverbs are used a lot. Semi-colons are not used a lot.

Here are a couple of closing comments.

First, I've said it before, but I would like to stress it. Semi-colons are not used as much as I think that you think they are.

Second, here is some advice. Try to think less about about where a semi-colon should be used, and more about why it should be used.

eg Why would you want to say

'She loved him with all her heart; however, she never told him.'

instead of 'She loved him with all her heart; she never told him.'

or 'She loved him with all her heart. However, she never told him.'

or 'She loved him with all her heart. She never told him.'

Best wishes, Clive

Re: conjunctive adverb with comma and semicolon

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:25:45 GMT

Thank you, Clive.

I think you said the following do not need a conjunction because a semicolon establishes the connection.

She loved him with all her heart; she never told him. sounds OK

I took out the garbage; it was smelly. sounds stupid.

Can I write like these for those two examples of yours?

She loved him with all her heart; however, she never told him that.

I took out the garbage; as a result, the house is free from foul smells.

If I follow your explanations, 'however' and 'as a reult' would be unnecessary since a semicolon is providing the connection. Am I right?

Also, as to the fact that both a conjunction and a semicolon not being necessary, please tell me why many online help sources have examples that have both a semicolon and conjunction?

Nothing can be unconditional; consequently nothing can be free. (George Bernard Shaw) Would you say 'consequently' is not used as a conjunction here but as an adverb? How would I know?

"Always go to other people's funeral; otherwise, they won't go to yours." (Yogi Berra) Would you say 'otherwise' is an adverb, not a conjunction? How would I know?

What do you say about this? Does it contradict any of the helpful points you brought out or do they fit right in? Can you tell me what it means here?

Thank you.

Re: if-clause (future)

Avangi — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:33:11 GMT

Welkins2139 wrote:

" if clauses " ( also called adverb clause of condition) present possible condition. The main clause express results.

1. If you study in a foreign country, what do you need to do? a present tense, not a future tense, is used in an if clause, even though the verb in the " if " clause may refer to a future event or situation.

2. If you are going to study in a foreign country, what do you need to do? in this case you need to change to past prgoressive tense " if you were not going to study " which is conditional

3. If you will study in a foreign country, what do you need to do? if you insist on studying in a foreign country.

three are three possible conditions " will " in if clause.

# 1 we can use if + will in polite requests. in this case, will is not a future auxillary; it means " are willing to " If you will come this way, I'll take you to the manager's office.

#2 stress will can also be used after if when it express the idea of insistence.

#3 " will " in if clause when it means " if it is true that " if it will help, I'll lend you some money.

Regarding your second number one, In polite society I often hear this used in a dependent clause which is allowed to stand alone: "If the meeting will come to order." "If the right honourable gentleman will kindly shut up."

Re: Another tense sequence in a conditional sentence

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:56:55 GMT

Thank you, Guru Geek. I appreciate your support.

My teacher's emphatic claim is that for instruction manuals, such as the assignment for which this introductory statement was drafted, the construction if you do..., you get... is how her previous editors have instructed her. She hammers home the removal of unnecessary future tense. This isn't the grammar rule I thought I learned, lo, those many decades past, but then comma before and in a list seems to have been eliminated and brought back since I learned my readin' and writin', and two spaces after period seems to have gone away for good, so I know rules are made to be bent.

I shouldn't leave you with the impression that ny teacher only criticizes. She did give my manual the highest score in the class on this draft, and she was kind enough to write, "Good writing overall," in the margin. To resolve the future tense issue, I think I'll just do what she says for the grade, then ignore her opinion unless I later meet many more like her.

In case you're curious, I've become comfortable with all those temporal modifiers; I think each adverb modifies a different verb, and together they convey an appropriate emphasis.

Thank you for pointing out the nearly adjacent occurences of pain. I now feel your pain, but am similarly at a loss.

This one sentence seems to have enough yellow flags that it's probably worth revisiting in a few days, if I can find the time.

Thanks again.

Regards,
yogaman

Another tense sequence in a conditional sentence

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:50:19 GMT

If you practice this series [of exercises] regularly, you will gradually experience more freedom from pain as you repair the root causes of your pain over time.

My technical writing teacher says will should not be in the sentence. It sounds wrong to me without it.

May I have your opinions, please?

For extra credit, is over time redundant? My teacher didn't flag this as a problem, but there are three temporal adverbs in that sentence, not counting as.

Thanks in advance,
yogaman

Re: what is the difference?

Clive — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:44:09 GMT

Hi.

Please tell me the difference.

What will you do tomorrow?

What would you do tomorrow?

To me, the second sentence carries the notion of asking for his willingness to do something; whereas the first one seems to be asking straight forwardly (adverb?? OK) the question of what he will do tomorrow literally (I know, this is not a vocabulary help section but if you will allow me, "Did I use the word 'literally' correctly here?" I used it to emphasize the action of what he will do tomorrow.

You don't appear to me to have the right understanding here. Let's consider a few simple statements, before we try to deal with questions.

He is going to cook dinner tomorrow. This sounds like he has a plan.

He will cook dinner tomorrow. This can have various shades of meaning, eg a spontaneous decision, volunteering, prediction, an expression of determination, a logical deduction, a statemnt of routine. A very simplistic way of thinking about this is 'use will when there is no plan involved'.

He would cook dinner tomorrow. 'Would' gets you into the realm of conditional statements, statements of probability, etc.

Please consider these comments, and then reword your questions if you still have any. OK?

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Please give me an example where an adverb modifies another adverb.

Grammar Geek — Wed, 02 May 2007 16:01:31 GMT

No, if the arrival is still in the future, then use will.

You can use "would" like this.

I [had] thought that when I arrived, they would be cold and distant, but they were so welcoming! Next time I go, I know that as soon as I arrive, I will be welcomed with open arms.

To use "would" you need a conditional (If I were able to to make the journey, I believe I would be welcomed) or a situation other than what actually happened, as above.

Re: Adverb and conditional sentences

Bomber229 — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:51:31 GMT

Thanks a lot. How about the 1sh question? Could anyone help me??

Moreover, How about using verb after "to" and "for"?

Example: "Sorry for interrupt you." or "Sorry for interrupting you." .Which one is correct?

"Sorry to my mistake." or " Sorry for my mistaking."

Thanks for your help in advance.

Joe