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

Re: Some very basic grammar questions

CalifJim — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:40:49 GMT

They are all correct.

For lengthier discussions with lots of examples of the use of the past perfect tense after before,

see Re: before past perfect tense , past tense and Re: Past Simple or Past Perfect.

This is a common pattern for expressing "interruptive relationships" between actions. (Leaving university "interrupts" the normal course of events which would have led to exams; the sacking "interrupts" the normal course of events which would have led to an explanation of the behavior.) The main clause contains the "interrupting" action. The before clause contains the "interrupted" action. Because the interrupted action has not taken place, the past perfect may be considered a way of expressing a counterfactual, that is, it may be considered a subjunctive with family resemblances to the if clause of the third conditional, thus: if I had taken the final exam or if he had had a chance to explain.

Third Conditional

Df2006 — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:04:56 GMT

I saw the following third conditional sample sentences from an educational webpage:

1. If I had not gone to university in Spain, I would not be bilingual.

2. If you had attended the training seminar, you would be familiar with the new operational procedures.

3. If we had not felt we could trust each other, we would not be partners.

4. If we had ordered the equipment last week, they would be here now.

Please can anyone confirm if these are correct?

I always thought the verb pattern for third conditionals should be:

(if clause) past perfect tense; (main clause) would/could/should + have + past participle

For example:

1. If I had not gone to university in Spain, I would not have been bilingual.

2. If you had attended the training seminar, you would have been familiar with the new operational procedures.

3. If we had not felt we could trust each other, we would not have been partners.

4. If we had ordered the equipment last week, they would have been here now.

Thank you very much.

Re: Specific questions about translation of a CV

Feebs11 — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:28:40 GMT

Colombo wrote:
I'm trying to translate my CV into English, but I'm finding a lot of difficulties. Apart from the overall chronic style of the result, there are certain things that I find I don't know how to say. I'm copying a list here, in case someone can lend me a hand (for which I'd be immensely grateful). I am sorry to ask so many questions (I've tried to find the answers in dictionaries before asking), and I hope I'm writing in the correct forum (I think all my questions are more voabulary- than grammar-oriented).

- Should the names of institutions be translated? I don't do so, in general, but I wonder whether it could/should be done when the translation is literal and unequivocal (for example, like in "Polytechnic University of Madrid"), or when it might be useful to know what the institution is (like in "Programme for the Assessment of Teachers of the Spanish Office for the Assessment of Quality and Credentials"... Whatever that is - I hardly understand it, even in Spanish!) Not necessary to do so - if you feel there is a difficulty, put the translation in brackets.

- Which preposition must I use to indicate where I got a degree? "A degree from the University X"? Yes

- Talking of degrees, I'm not sure which one I've got. I know there are BSc, MSc and PhD, but I don't know very well how to determine whether what I've got is a BSc or a MSc. Does one choose between one and the other, or does one need to have a BSc in order to study a MSc? Here in Spain, one can choose between studying a short or a long degree (3 or 4 years in the first case, 6 in the second). After getting any of these degrees, one can start working towards a PhD directly (I mean, those people who have studied the short degree don't need to compensate by studying another couple of years before beginning their PhD studies). I've got one of the long degrees (6 years), so would that be a BSc or a MSc? I'd like to make it clear that it's been a long degree, but I don't know whether I should have made some kind of post-graduate studies in order to call it a MSc. And also, are the BSc and the MSc the same things in British and American English?   BSc = Bachelor of Science; MSc = Master of Science - the latter indicates you have taken a further degree. Put the Spanish name of your degree and explain its nature if asked.

- In these 6-year degrees, after one has passed all the subjects, a final research work must be done in order to get the degree. What's its name (if there's an equivalence) in the UK and the US? Post-graduate study/research.

- PhD degrees over here consist of two separate parts: two years of courses and two-to-infinite years of research work. Once you've finished the first of these parts, you get a certificate stating you've studied all those courses (in case someone knows the Spanish universitary structure, I'm taking about the "Diploma de Estudios Avanzados"). Is there anything equivalent in the British and American systems? I don't think I could call it a MSc, since this certificate's actually a part of the PhD degree. In the UK a university is free to admit anyone to a Ph.D. programme; however, in practice, admission is usually conditional on the prospective student having successfully completed an undergraduate degree with at least upper second class honours, or a postgraduate master's degree

- Is there any technical established term for a "course on work-related risks"? I've translated it directly from Spanish, but I don't know whether there is a better way to say it (although I think it's easily understood as it is). Not as such - there are many courses that include this topic, particularly those relating to Health and Safety or Physiotherapy.

- What is the technical term for a person who is in charge of a R&D project? "Head researcher"? Possibly "Supervisor".

- Is it right to say "Assistant PhD teacher" to indicate a job as assistant teacher for which a PhD degree is required (not a job as assistant teacher for PhD students). Not a term that is used in the UK. It would probalby be termed "Assistant Teacher. This post requires a PhD or equivalent."

- Another question about prepositions: does one play an instrument in an orchestra?   Yes

- Is it right to say something like "2003: beginning of studies of x"? "began studies relating to...."/"started studies of...."

- Could anyone tell me where I can find the "official" names of the subjects in a music degree? Or, more specifically, I need to know the name of a subject in which the different musical forms and structures are studied. Some sites for UK universities:   http://www.admissions.ox.ac.uk/courses/musi.shtml:
http://www.ukwebstart.com/musicdrama-colleges.html
Thank you very much in advance for your help! I would have copied here the whole CV, but I thought that would be too much...

Re: Check my translations,please

CalifJim — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:50:37 GMT

The items in red are errors. Those in blue are suggested changes.

1. I would like to ~~have~~ make a change in my life, in order to ~~learn~~ have new experiences.
You don't learn an experience; you have an experience.

2. A: Why haven't you gone home yet?
    B: Because nobody ~~comes~~ has come to pick me up.

3. From the below sentences, you make another sentence in a supposition.
     ??? I'm not sure what you mean here. Maybe:
    From the sentences below, make conditional sentences.
4. I am sorry that I disturbed you yesterday. I didn't know you were busy. Good.
- If I had known you were busy, I wouldn't have disturbed you. Good.

5. A: I was very sorry to hear about your wife's illness, . Mr. Jim. How is she doing?
    B: She is still in the hospital, but getting better now, and the doctor said she could go home
        ~~the~~ next week.
6. I have heard that you were awarded a scholarship at Oxford University. , Is that right?

7. Two minutes ago a friend of mine ~~gave me a phone call~~ phoned/called me, and I didn't answer (her call ~~telephone)~~. didn't answer her call or didn't answer or didn't answer [the / my] [phone/telephone].

She answers her phone when her phone rings.
You answer your phone when your phone rings.
If your phone is ringing, you don't answer her phone. To do that you would have to be where she is.
But if you were visiting her, and her phone rang, and she was too busy to come to the phone, you could answer her phone for her (in her place) and tell the caller to wait until she can come to the phone.

Afterwards she sent a message to me and ~~she~~ asked "Why didn't you answer (my call ~~telephone~~)?
Did you know you hurt my feelings?"

- Can I say ~~like~~ this to her or not? [Can I say this (to her) (or not)? or Can I say something like this (to her) (or not)?]
I didn't intend to hurt your your feelings at all. ~~The reason~~ I didn't answer (your call ~~telephone~~)
because ~~at that time I hadn't heard my mobile phone's voice.~~ I didn't hear the phone ring.

You have two choices:

I didn't answer because I didn't hear the phone (ring).
The reason I didn't answer was that I didn't hear the phone (ring).

CJ

Re: a question of "Simple Present Tense"

Mr. Profenglish — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:47:48 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Hi everybody,

I have a question about the Negative Form of "Simple Present Tense", please help me.

Can I use "I don't read the book right now" to express the meaning of "I'm not reading the book right now"?

Thanks a lot in advance.

***********

Here is a summary about the present simple tense with all the forms of it plus examples

* * *

Form

Examples

Notes

Affirmative( Positive ) form:

Base form

S- form

1. Water consists of hydrogen and oxygen.

2. The world is round

3. He always eats a sandwich for lunch

4. My classes begin at nine.

5. She prefers to stay at home.

6. He appears to be asleep.

7. That belongs to me.

8. I remember my first teacher.

9. If you study hard, you will pass the exam.

10. If he comes early, he will catch the bus.

Present Simple Tense is used :

i. to show general statement of fact

ii. to express habitual or everyday activity

iii. with verbs of: senses, mental activity, possession and attitudes

iv. with conditional clauses type one.

Remarks:

Â§ Singular subjects take the S-from

Â§ Plural subjects take the Base form

Â§ ( he, she, it ) + S. form

Â§ ( we, they, you, I ) + Base form

S. = subject

inf. = infinitive form of the verb

S- form = verb + s

Base form = verb without ( s )

Negative form:

(do, does + not + inf.

1. They do not work at the hospital.

2. She does not go to the university everyday

Contracted Negative form:

donât + inf.

doesnât + inf.

1. They donât work in a bank.

2. I donât recognize that man

3. She doesnât prefer to stay at home.

Wh- question form :

Wh- + ( do / does ) + S. + inf. + ...?

1. Where do you live?

2. When does she go to work everyday?

3. Why do I like that nonsense?

Yes/No question form :

(Do / Does ) + S. + inf. + â¦ ?

Do they need a help?

Does he mean that book?

Short Answer form :

Yes, + S. + ( do / does ).

No, + S. + ( donât / doesnât )

Yes, he does. / yes, they do. / Yes, I do.

no, I donât. / No, he doesnât / No, they donât.

***

Regards,

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Re: Which one is correct? (conditional clause)

Yoong Liat — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:20:26 GMT

Hi Goodman

I thought Amy's response to your 'in troubles' sentence would put an end to the whole discussion, but you still insist that you're right. I don't understand you. I don't pick on you, but any posters who, I believe, have posted the wrong answers will be queried by me and most of them either didn't bother to reply to my query, or admit that they had made a mistake.

I'm sure that I'm correct because I back up my belief with dictionaries and authoritative websites. However, you prefer to google for incorrect sentences and seem so proud to show them to me and, in so doing, mislead members who are weak in English.

If you use Google to "prove" that your sentence is acceptable, which Amy has already said is completely unnatural, I would like to let you know that if you google for 'unviersity' (the wrong spelling for 'university') you will get many hits.Does that mean that 'university' can be spelt 'unviersity'?

I would like the discussion to end here. I would also like to assure you that I'm not picking on you. I agree with you when your answers are, to me, correct. Remember recently when I agreed with your explanation to another member, I said, "I agee with what Goodman wrote."

Best wishes.

Re: Which one is correct? (conditional clause)

Goodman — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:56:34 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
Hi Goodman
I searched for 'run into troubles' but found 'run into trouble' instead. The following is just one of the extracts.

Oxford University Google Search

Oxford University > Search Oxford University > Search Results

powered by

Search the Web Search ox.ac.uk

Web Searched pages from ox.ac.uk for run into troubles. (0.06 seconds)

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
(If you run into trouble with this the simplest option is to abort the integral routine and try again!). You. may now have to adjust the slope of the ...
www.chem.ox.ac.uk/spectroscopy/nmr/PDFs/ac_user.PDF - Similar pages

Liat,

Fine, if you believe and insist that what you learned is true, I don't want you to change your opinion on my behalf.

I know you searched for "if you run into trouble...".Have you tried others? (when you..../ should you.../ in case you ...?

My point is, the book's answers don't always explain everything. In this case, "troubles" as in the plural context discussed, is just as valid as it's singular cousin.

One can have trouble with marriage, job and finance at the same time, so what is wrong with plurals, as in "having troubles"!

Re: Which one is correct? (conditional clause)

Yoong Liat — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:06:48 GMT

Hi Goodman

I searched for 'run into troubles' but found 'run into trouble' instead. The following is just one of the extracts.

Oxford University Google Search

Oxford University > Search Oxford University > Search Results


			powered by
Search the Web Search ox.ac.uk

Web

Searched pages from ox.ac.uk for run into troubles. (0.06 seconds)

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
(If you run into trouble with this the simplest option is to abort the integral routine and try again!). You. may now have to adjust the slope of the ...
www.chem.ox.ac.uk/spectroscopy/nmr/PDFs/ac_user.PDF - Similar pages

Re: past perfect vs past in if-clause in type 2 conditional

yulysess — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:05:12 GMT

Let's spread out the issue a little bit:

____ O ____

Type 2. Basic forms.

a. If we caught the 10 o'clock train, we would (could, might,

etc.) get there by lunch-time.

b. If I came into a fortune, I would give up smoking.

c. If I knew how it worked, I could tell you what to do.

In these sentences the conditional clauses represent what is a possible, b hypothetical/imaginary, or c contrary to the present fact. The verb form in the conditional clause represents the attitude of the speaker towards the condition; it does not represent time, which is indicated by other elements in the context or situation.

Sentence a is analogous to type 1 (If we catch..., we shall get...), but is more suppositional. The speaker either regards catching that train as improbable, or he wishes to put forward in a more tentative or "polite" way the suggestion of catching it. It does not necessarily follow that the condition is in fact unlikely to be fulfilled.

Sentence b, on the other hand, is much more hypothetical: it is a form of day-dreaming in which we all indulge at times.

Sentence c presents us with totally imaginary (or unreal) situation with reference to the time of speaking: it implies that I don't, in fact, know how it works, so I can't tell you what to do. Note that the past tense is used here to indicate present unreality.

The three sentences are formally identical: they all have the same sequence of tenses:

(if) past tense, (main) conditional.

However, contextually they are rather different. They represent three points on a scale of decreasing probability, from a suppositional or tentative but possible, to b hypothetical but not impossible, to c contrary to present fact, and hence unreal.

Note that the conditional tense is not used in the conditional clause.

As we saw in example "c", the idea of something contrary to present fact is conveyed by the use of the past tense in the conditional clause. We also use the past tense to refer to present unreality after the verb "wish" (if only, also expresses the wish of the speaker), and after expressions like "I'd rather" and "It is time":

a. I wish (that) I were rich! (If only I were rich!)

b. I'd rather you told me frankly what you think.

c. It's time (It's about time, It's high time) we left.

We never use the present tense or a future form after wish. We use either the past tense as illustrated above, or we can use would (not will) to indicate that people or events frustrate our desires.

Type 2. Variations.

a. If we were to miss the 10 o'clock train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

The use of were to in the conditional clause sometimes has the effect of emphasizing the suppositional nature of the condition and, is in some ways analogous to the use of should in conditional clauses in TYPE 1: we can often substitute "by any chance" without changing the meaning: If by any chance we missed the 10 o'clock train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

Were to is used for all persons, and this variation may be applied to any conditional clause of this second type.

b. If you would reserve seats, we would be sure of a comfortable journey.

In this sentence. would is not a part of a conditional tense; it is a modal verb, and represents a more tentative (or polite) form of WILL as used in conditional clauses of type 1. It introduces the idea of your agreeing, or being willing, to do what is suggested. We cannot use this construction in the following sentence:

If he got my letters in time, he would be able to change his plans.

We cannot say

*If he would get my letter in time, since "he" can hardly exercise any willingness or unwillingness to get it.

You must, therefore, be careful to use "would" in this way only where the context will support the idea of co-operation, agreement, or willingness on the part of the subject.

Type 2. Summary of forms.

1. (If) past tense, (main) conditional.

If we caught the early train, we'd get there by lunch time.

2. (If) were to + infinitive, (main) conditional.

If we were to miss the early train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

3. (If) would + infinitive, (main) conditional.

If you'd cook the dinner, I'd do the washing up afterwards.

Type 3. Basic forms and variations.

a. If we had caught the 10 o'clock train, we would (could, might, etc.) have got there by lunch-time.

This sentence is completely hypothetical, and represents what is contrary to past fact. In this case, the past perfect tense is used to indicate past unreality -we didn't catch the 10 o'clock train, so we didn't get there by lunch time.

This is analogous to the use of the past tense to indicate present unreality in type 2c, and tense usage after the verb WISH follows the same pattern: we use the past perfect to refer to something wished-for in the past:

I wish you had told me before (but you didn't)

Variations on a sentence "a" are not very common, though sentences like the following are occasionally met with:

b. If you were to have asked me, I would have been only too willing to help.

Bibliography

R. A. Close (1975). A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Longman.

B.D. Graver (1979). Advanced English Practice. OUP

S.M. Parkinson (1983). A University English Grammar for Spanish-Speakers. Ed. EmpeÃ±o

R. Quirk et al. (1979). A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman

W. Stannard Allen (1977). Living English Structure. Longman

M. Swan (1986). Practical English Usage. OUP

A.J. Thomson & A.V. Martinet (1982). A Practical English Grammar. OUP

______ O _______

Enjoy

Also look at the link Marius gave.

Re: subjunctive or past conditional

Goodman — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:03:25 GMT

Hi Bokeh,

Becasue of your reply, it made me take a second look at the original question. I also did some research and found this paper written on the subject of Semantic Composition of Subjunctive Conditionals by Michela Ippolito of MIT/TÃ¼bingen University. I am not completely sure if I understood all thwt he wrote, but I do agree whole-heartedly with his view from what I understood. It's obvious that there are several subjunctive moods and conditionals discussed in great legnth which was exactly the reason causing the confusions on this thread. I find it absoulutely useful so I've extracted a small portion which I beleive was related the posted question.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=type+of+subjunctive

michela@alum.mit.edu

3. The Semantic Analysis of Subjunctive Conditionals

In answering the question of what the correct semantic analysis of subjunctive

conditionals is we will raise and answer the following questions too: (1) What is the

difference between indicative an subjunctive conditionals? (2) What is the role of the

past morphology in the composition of the meaning of a subjunctive conditional? (3)

What is the contribution of the second layer of past to the meaning of subjunctive

conditionals? As Iatridou observes, the past morphology in subjunctive conditionals is

not interpreted temporally, as the event of playing baseball in example (2) is supposed

to take place in the future (tomorrow). What follows in this paper is inspired by her

work and by the intuition behind it, i.e. that the temporal morphology we see in modal

constructions actively contributes to the construction of the modal meaning. However,

I depart from her idea that tense morphology has a âcore meaningâ that can apply to

different kinds of entities (i.e. her idea that if it applies to times, it is interpreted

temporally; if it applies to worlds, then it is interpreted modally). My claim is that

tense (aspectual) morphology has a single, definite interpretation: the temporal

(aspectual) one. The way tense morphology contributes to the composition of modal

meaning is by being interpreted in different positions in the structure of a modal

sentence, i.e. either in the restriction or in the nuclear scope of the modal operator.

Recall that I am arguing that accessibility relations are of type <s<i<st>> (where i is

the type for times and s the type for worlds): the notion of accessible world is relative

not only to a world but also to a time so that a world will be accessible if it satisfies

certain conditions with respect to an evaluation world and an evaluation time. The

past that we see in subjunctive conditionals such as If Charlie played baseball

tomorrow, we would lose the game is the morphological realization of a perfect

operator interpreted in the modal domain. I will develop an analysis of the meaning of

subjunctive conditionals and show how it solves the puzzle of the presupposition

projection for subjunctive conditionals discussed in Heim 1992; finally, I will answer

the three questions I raised above.

3.1 Felicity Conditions for Conditionals

Recall what the puzzle was. The antecedent of a subjunctive conditional can be

inconsistent with the common ground, and consequently, the set of worlds the modal

operator quantifies over cannot be restricted to the worlds in the context set (the

epistemically accessible worlds) (see (19) below). Furthermore, this set cannot be the

empty context (W) either because, if it were, we would expect conditionals with

antecedents with presuppositions to be infelicitous since the modal base does not have

the right entailments. However, this is incorrect: subjunctive conditionals whose

antecedents have presuppositions are felicitous, which means that the antecedentâs

presuppositions can be entailed by the modal base (cf. (20)). In fact, they must (cf.

(21)).

(19) Jack is dead. If he were alive, he would come to the ceremony.

(20) Jack smokes. If he quit smoking tomorrow, which he wonât, he would run

the marathon.

(21) Jack quit smoking last year. If he quit smoking tomorrow, he would run

the marathon.

Heim 1992 concluded that the only way to reconcile these two requirements of

subjunctive conditionals is to stipulate that the modal base is neither the set of

epistemically accessible worlds (the main context) nor the totally empty modal base

W, but the (largest) set of worlds obtained by suspending all the speakerâs

assumptions except the presuppositions of the antecedent, which then remain entailed.

However, I showed above that this stipulation does not work for all subjunctive

conditionals: in particular, it does not account for the difference between one-past

subjunctive conditionals and mismatched two-pasts subjunctive conditionals, as

shown below.

(22) Jack died last year.

a. #If he came to the ceremony tomorrow, he would be proud of Sally.

b. If he had come to the graduation tomorrow, he would have been proud

of Sally.

We are back where we were: how is the set of worlds to which modal operators apply

selected? Clearly, the felicity conditions for indicative, one-past and two-pasts

subjunctive conditionals are all different. But what is the difference and how is the

difference determined?

It seems correct to hold that for a sentence to be felicitously uttered in the

context c, c must entail the presuppositions of . In the common ground theory of

presuppositions developed by Stalnaker (1973, 1974, 1975), the common ground is

the set of all the propositions known or assumed to be true by all the participants in

the conversation, and the context set is the set of worlds where all the propositions in

the common ground are true. Assertions are meant to update the common ground. If

the assertion is made and accepted, the common ground expands and the context set

shrinks. Thus, if a sentence presupposes p, then asserting requires that the

common ground entail p, i.e. it requires that the speaker assume that it is true in the

common ground that p, modulo accommodation.10 It is explicit in Heimâs context

change semantics (and implicit in Stalnakerâs idea of a derived context) that a clause

(that is to say, the structural description of a clause at the level of Logical Form) is not

always evaluated with respect to the context of utterance: the context with respect to

which a structure is evaluated depends on the level of embedding of the clause, the

most unembedded clause being interpreted with respect to the main (utterance)

context. We can then reformulate the principle above: what is responsible for the

felicity of a sentence is not whether its presuppositions are entailed by the utterance

context but whether they are entailed by the evaluation context (which may be

identical to the utterance time in some cases). Call this principle PREP.

10 Stalnaker (1972, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1988, 1998). Kartunnen (1974), Lewis (1979), Heim (1982,

1983, 1992), Thomason (1990) and von Fintel (2000) also contributed important work in the tradition

of the common ground theory of presuppositions.

3.2 What Looks Like Past is Perfect

I propose that the past morphology we see in subjunctive conditionals in English is

the morphological realization of a perfect operator. The English perfect, and

especially the present perfect, has raised a lot of interest in the linguistic literature

because of the properties that distinguish it from both the present and the simple past

tense. McCoard (1978) offers a survey of possible theories of the perfect: the current

relevance theory, the indefinite past theory, the embedded past theory and, finally, the

theory that he argues to be the best, the Extended Now theory. Very briefly, according

11 The claim that the presuppositions of the antecedent of a conditional have to be entailed by the

context is a standard claim of a dynamic approach to meaning (Heim 1992). However, we will see later

that the issue is more intricate and I will have more to say on this topic later on in the paper.