http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aConditionals+tag%3aSynonymsSearch results for 'tag:Conditionals tag:Synonyms' matching tags 'Conditionals' and 'Synonyms'en-USCSMOD (Build: 3248.36859)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Tenses/3/dglxz/Post.htm#283463Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:11:40 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:283463Tam SadekHi Tanit, <br /> <br />No I wouldn't say that for me personally that mixed conditionals are never acceptable in writing - however, written and spoken English do display different characteristics. <br /> <br />I think that many native speakers feel that when they commit something to paper or the computer screen, then all of their English classes that they had often ignored as a youth come back to haunt them and they suddenly realise that things don't either make sense or 'sound good' when they look at them; due to them changing their ideas midstream as J Lewis mentioned. <br /> <br />Therefore they often go back to the drawing board and start editing and changing what they have written. <br /> <br />This is why writing and speech are very different as writing allows us to edit what we want to say, look for synonyms, etc whereas in speech we can't do this 'after the fact', but only in advance before when have spoken - which is much more difficult. <br /> <br />Don't forget that the main difference with writing is that the communicator is usually not present when it is being read, therefore everything must be clarified using grammar in advance; whereas during a conversation, as the communicator is present, he or she can clarify as they go along, when asked for clarification, or when the other person they are speaking to looks confused. <br /> <br />This is why spoken English is much less grammatically complex (i.e. using fewer tenses), but shows a higher frequency of lexical chunks or blocks of language, and is full of things that if transcribed would be classed as 'errors' when compared to the 'rules' of written grammar. <br /> <br />Remember that spoken English isn't just written English 'said out loud', but operates under different 'rules', many of which we are now only just beginning to understand, as until recently we have never had the means to record the sheer volume of natural speech and to start analysing it... <br /> <br />A step in the right direction to understanding these differences is the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English', published a few years ago, which is the beginning of the (long) process of mapping the differences between these two distinct forms. <br /> <br />Hope that helps...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ToPedanticus/lncv/post.htm#57838Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:39:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:57838sextusHi MrP, how’s it going? <br /> <br />1) I finally thought of this possibility, which I reckon eliminates the problems: <br />“Thus, it seems that we must not put the emphasis on the fact that a shadow always and necessarily follows a body when the body blocks light, but just on the fact that in these circumstances there has been a close connection between them. Sextus’ intention is then to emphasize that at least up till now the Skeptic’s epoche has been closely followed by the state of ataraxia.” <br /> <br />2) “For if Sextus thought that ataraxia [is][> was] by nature good and that epoche necessarily [entails][> entailed] it, he would certainly assert that epoche too [is][> was] something good in itself, since it would be precisely that state of mind which [brings][> brought] about ataraxia.” The point is that here I’m using the second conditional and, as I’m using the present everywhere when referring to Sextus’ point of view, I reckon I can keep the present. Is it clear what I mean? <br /> <br />3) “A common way of accounting for the texts in which Sextus seems to be espousing negative dogmatic views consists in applying to them some of the clarifications he sometimes makes.” <br />Could you think of a synonym for “clarification”? Maybe “elucidation”? <br /> <br />Maybe you’re right about Borges. I don’t know if you know that he was bilingual. I think one of his grandmothers was British. So he learned the language when he was a kid. He also knew a lot of English literature. Well, he knew about almost any kind of literature. But I believe it’s also possible to detect a strong influence of Spanish literature, not only in the subjects he treated, but also in the way of writing. By the way, there’s a tale in Ficciones entitled “El fin”, which you can only understand completely if you know “El Martín Fierro” by José Hernández, an Argentinian writer from the 18th century. It’s precisely a book about the “gauchos”. The book is just excellent: it’s written in verse and it’s precisely the story of a “gaucho”, but the vocabulary is quite difficult, even for us. Well, that tale intends to be the “end” of the book. Maybe you already knew all that. <br /> <br />Cheers, <br /> <br />Sextus