Search results for 'tag:Conversations tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Conversations' and 'Clauses'

Re: A question about tense usage in "since clause"

Mr Wordy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:03:41 GMT

You might get different opinions on some of these, but here's my take.

It is three years since I have been here. / It is three years since I was here. -- The use of "here" implies that I'm in that place now, and I understand both these to mean "I'm here now, and I was here three years ago, but I haven't been here at any time during the intervening three years." Some might argue that it's more correct to say: It's (been) three years since I was last here.

It is three years since I left here. -- Here there is more of a sense that I inhabited or frequented this place (say a house, or a town) until three years ago (then I left, and now I've returned again).

We visit my parents every week since we bought a car. -- I think it should be "We have visited my parents...", though I suppose "We visit" is passable in everyday conversation, even if strictly speaking it might be grammatically suspect. This sentence means that we bought a car at some time in the past, and every week since then we've visited my parents. "We visit" implies that this pattern of behaviour will continue into the future, whereas "We have visited" is neutral on that point. (It is also possible to interpret "since" as meaning "seeing as", as explained below, but this interpretation doesn't come very naturally to me here.)

We visit my parents every week since we have bought a car.-- "Since" in the sense of a duration of time doesn't work so well for me with "have bought", so here I tend interpret "since" as meaning "seeing as". In other words, having a car enables us to visit our parents. (If the writer didn't mean that, then why did he not just say "bought"?). This changes the meaning significantly.

Re: Conjunction beginning a sentence

Cool Breeze — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:56:55 GMT

1. Because is a conjunction which begins a subordinate causal clause. A subordinate clause should normally be accompanied by a main clause. A main clause can stand on its own; it is not necessary to accompany a main clause with a subordinate clause.

Examples:

Main clause - subordinate clause. I didn't go out because/as/since it was raining.

Subordinate clause - main clause: Because/As/Since it was raining, I didn't go out. (Note the comma!)

Main clause: I didn't go out.

A subordinate clause without a main clause is usually incorrect: Because/As/Since it was raining. (WRONG!) You may use clauses like this in conversation but avoid them in serious writing.

2. Many style guides suggest that it is usually not good style or advisable to begin a sentence with and. Marius has already given you good advice about that. Even is not a conjunction and nothing prevents you from beginning a clause or a sentence with it:

Even the poorest people in that town own a car.

Even my stupid friend understood what was being said.

Re: Follow-up to "Nagging conditional problem"

Mr Wordy — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:23:40 GMT

Anonymous

If you happen to have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some? [this is more about present -- if the if-clause is in present tense, can we use the modals 'could' and 'would'? Does the phrase 'happen to have' make any difference here?

Should you have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some? ["chancy" should -- To me, 'should' here is functionally equal to "if", so the sentence could be read:

If you have money (with/on you), could/would you lend me some?

The first sentence means essentially the same as "...can/will you lend me some?", but "could/would" has the effect of "softening" the request -- making it seem less direct. The use of "happen to have" (as opposed to just "have") makes no difference to the point you're asking about.

In the second sentence there is, to me, no tangible difference in meaning between "should" and "if". However, the version with "should" is more formal (or even slightly old-fashioned), and, in my part of the world, is much less likely to be heard in ordinary conversation. (In fact, in real life, I would in this context usually say "If you have any money...".)

Re: is nosier than

Avangi — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:37:36 GMT

I don't think either one works. In making this sort of a comparison I believe the adjectives should be parallel. Noisier (check spelling) is a comparative. Quiet and lonely are not. Make them both one way or the other: The city is noisy, but the village is quiet. The city is noisy but the outskirts are lonely.

You'll probably hear native speakers use the two comparatives in casual conversation, but I don't think they should be used formally: The city is noisier but the village is quieter.

It would probably be correct to place the comparative in the second clause only: The city is noisy but the village is quieter / more quiet.

comma to link separate, yet related clauses?

Believer — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:00:22 GMT

Hi,

I think you can use a comma to sort of link two separately written, yet very related-in-content clauses like this:

Thank you, it was good to receive a gift of appreciation by you last week.

I think 'Thank you' and what follows can be thought of as two separate clauses yet can be linked by a comma.

That was his decision, deciding to support his care his aged father by himself and not put the father somewhere difficult to care for was the right thing to do. -- Since the underlined clause contains an element, which is 'decision'. that is further elucidated by the longer clause that followed, I think it could be argued a comma is correclty used. Right?

But you wouldn't agree this use of a comma is correct, would you?

That was thrown abruptly, he could not have anticipated its coming while quite immersed in his conversation with his old friend. -- 'it' refers to a ball, in this case.

Are there a guideline as to this use of comma (if it is in fact correctly used)?

Would

New2grammar — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:24:26 GMT

Avangi, I know you said you would rewrite if clause in present tense. However, I'd like to understand why you wrote it in the present tense followed by woulds. I'm sure your structure is correct and natural and by understanding it, it'll help me understand native speakers better and follow native speakers' conversations better.

Believe it or not, I've tried to understand this type of structure many times but am still lost.

Please help thanks!

If you just say, "I'm gonna be late," you probably would(3) have already tipped the person off that you would(4) need to end the conversation soon, and as you suggest, you would(5) still expect to be on time if you left immediately.

confused about 'would'

New2grammar — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:10:33 GMT

I know 'would' carries many meanings. My problem is sometimes I find it difficult to tell which meaning the speaker uses. I think I understand its hypothetical usage, and in some contexts, its politeness usage. Below is a post that has several woulds I have trouble interpreting. I also copied a post on would by CalifJim for reference.

Your analysis is good. Context will determine if you're using the expression as an excuse to break off what you're doing. If you're calling the people you expect to meet, then you would (1)tell them the truth. You can say, "I'll be about five minutes late," or "I may be a little late." If you're speaking to someone who is about to make you late for an appointment, the expression would(2) mean, "Hey, I'm gonna be late if I don't split right now!" If you just say, "I'm gonna be late," you probably would(3) have already tipped the person off that you would(4) need to end the conversation soon, and as you suggest, you would(5) still expect to be on time if you left immediately.

1) I don't thing politeness is the intended meaning here. To my ear, it carries the meaning of preference.

2) would here means possible? I have zero confidence in this one.

3) it doesn't look like hypothetical usage to me because the if clause is in present tense

4) and 5) should follow the same reasoning for #3, whatever that is.

Please help! Thanks in advance!

CalifJim's explanation on would
Yes. I thought maybe that's what you were referring to.
would in an if clause is possible when the would or the entire if-clause is part of a formula of politeness. if you would be so kind is a typical example of if with would in a "politeness phrase". This formula is equivalent to please. This sort of if-clause does not even have to be classified as a true conditional even though it contains the word if.

The phrase would like as a polite way of saying want, and it too can appear in an if-clause. Note that the idiom would like counts as a present tense for purposes of tense combinations. That is, it may combine with the imperative or the future. The idiom would rather has the same property.

If you would like to have dinner with us tomorrow, please call and let us know before noon.
I'm sure that if he'd like to go with us, he'll tell us. (If he would like to go, he will tell us.)
If you'd rather wait until tomorrow, [just say so / I'll understand].

if-clauses that are part of an indirect question structure are also exempt from the rule about combining if and would:

I wonder if he would object to this procedure.
I don't know if I would agree.
We had not decided if we would go along with the plan.

With the exception of the indirect question structure, which is quite common, these are just a very, very small number of situations where if and would occur in the same clause. The main rule for 99.99% of cases is 'never' to place if and would together!

Re: Help proofreading "A Doll's House"

Mister Micawber — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:53:58 GMT

I have underlined some problem areas:

The Woman Within the Doll

The Baltimore Sun wrote that back in 1879, âA Doll's Houseâ by Henrik Ibsen âshocked and offended people wherever [it] was played,â and that the dramatist assured it was not about a woman, but about âanyone who had to live according to the rules created by othersâ (Hyder). Society thought to be outrageous that a woman would get involved in manly things, for her role in society was exclusively to care for the family and please her husband. Women did not enjoy the rights women do now. They were not taken seriously, and decisions were made by the man who was and still is considered the head of the family. Nora's choice to become free, independent and leave her husband, along with some of the characters' actions made this play to be scandalous for its time.

Ibsen wrote in a letter that the story in âA Doll's Houseâ was about a woman who feels:

" Oppressed and bewildered by belief in authority, she loses her faith in her own moral right and ability to bring up her children... [She is bittered because,] like certain insects, (ought to) go away and die when she has done her duty towards the continuance of the species... [she shakes] off of cares, [but then she feels] a sudden return of apprehension and dread. She must bear it all aloneâ (Doll).

Nora had a beautiful life, she had a husband, beautiful children, and everything she wanted. Earlier in her marriage, his husband suffered of an illness of which he needed to recover somewhere in the south, but this was concealed from him by the doctor and Nora. Not having the means to afford a trip so costly and out of love and desperation, Nora decides to ask for a loan without letting Tolvard know. She forges her father's signature to obtain the loan because she does not want to trouble her father either, who is very ill himself too. However, she is responsible and works secretly from home in order to make the payments. Eventually, Tolvard finds out about her secret and feels that his life, happiness and reputation will be lost once Krogstad, who lent the money, publishes the then scandalous situation out of revenged for having fired him from the bank he now manages. He quickly turns against her. That is the moment when Nora starts to understand things she did not understand before; she realizes she does not love Tolvard anymore just as he does not really love her as she thought, and decides to leave for good to discover herself. [Too many pronouns-- I don't know who's doing what to whom]

The scenery consists of the Helmer's apartment and nowhere else. The description of the apartment depicts the decision that Nora will have to make. There is a door to the right which leads to the entryway and another to the left which leads to Helmer's study. Nora will have to decide which door to take: freedom or Helmer [Tolvard / Helmer: we don't know if they are one or two]. The place is not âexpensively furnishedâ, but it is comfortable, just like Nora's marriage, she lives a comfortable life, but there are certain things she lacks that are more important than riches. No woman could even consider back in the 1800s doing such a scandalous things as to leave not only the husband, but her children too.

The main character in the story is Nora, a seemingly selfish, materialistic woman who cares a lot about money and in living a good life. This is to be expected since her father liked to spend money himself and live a life he could only could afford with credit. He used to called her his âdoll-child, and he played with [her] the way [she] played with [her] dollsâ (Ibsen 1041). She was obviously very protected and spoiled by both, her father and her husband, who provided anything she needed or wanted. Her father raised her not think for herself and just play her role in society. âWhile [she] was at home with [her] father, he used to tell [her] all his opinions, and [she] held the same opinions. If [she] had others [she] said nothing about them, because he wouldn't have liked itâ (1041) [All the bracketed pronouns are distracting; it would be better to give the exact quotes]. This repeated again as a married woman; she would not express her opinion to Tolvard, for they never talked seriously, but seemed to have trusted Dr. Rank better. Norah was greatly misunderstood. She was a loving person, she loved her husband so much that she was willing to forge her father's signature to obtain a loan to take her husband south in order for him to recover from a deadly illness [You said all this before; cut it.]. She is willing to do anything for him. Eventually she realized she does not have to play the doll anymore. One can only imagine people's reaction throughout the play's events.

Tolvard Helmer seemed [Be consistent in verb tenses] to be an ideal husband. He is loving, admirable, honest, ethical, hard-working and successful, but there seems to be a dark side of him. He is a prideful man, he won't ask for money to anyone, to [Commas are not conjunctions.] do so would be humiliating. To him, honor and appearances are more important than family. He does not believe people can change and become good, as he did not believe Krogstad was a good person although he had been honest for a long time already. Also, he is so affectionate that makes one wonder of his sincerity; he calls Nora diminutive names such as featherbrained, spendthrift [These are not diminutives.] , a squirrel, a song-bird, lark, strange little being all the time (994). One cannot think of a woman who would like being called like that and who would not be affected emotionally. Tolvard's reaction after finding out Nora's secret is amusing. He had told Nora that sometimes he wished â[she] was in some terrible danger, just so [he] could take [his] life and soul and everything, for [her] sakeâ (1038), yet he quickly turns against her calling her a wretched woman, a criminal, unprincipled, untrustworthy of raising her children, incapable, etc. His hypocrisy is clearly revealed when as soon as he realizes that Nora's mistake won't affect his reputation he forgives her (1039-1949). There's a saying that goes something like a good friend is hard to find, specially during difficult times; Tolvard was nor a good friend neither that perfect husband he seemed to be. He loved to have control of his wife's life, and his conversations usually tend to imply that Nora would be lost without him; that she needed his guidance and teaching. Tolvard did not love Nora, â[he] thought it fun to be in love with [her]â (1041).

Dr. Rank is in love with Nora, and that seems to have been the main reason he visited the Helmer's house. This character is not essential in the play, but it causes outrage when he dares to reveal Nora his secret. This is almost vulgar for him to do, and very dishonorable, specially during those times in which people were very conservative. It is as if he had taken advantage of the trust the family had in it and ended up tarnishing his reputation.

Mrs. Linde is one of Nora's old friends from school. She gave up her true love for money, but in the end things did not turn out the way she had expected. Her husband died leaving her in a terrible financial situation making [On the other hand, commas are essential for separating dependent clauses.] it necessary for her to work in order to sustain her mother and brothers. After her mother passed away and her brothers did not need her help she left town. Not to have someone to take care of made her feel âcompletely alone in the worldâ, and it frightened her âto be so empty and lostâ (1032). She needed âsomeone to take care ofâ, she wanted to be a mother and wanted the companionship of a husband. In the end, she was supposed to have helped Nora hide her secret. She could have convinced Mr. Krogstad to get the letter back, but she did not intercede (1033). She might have been envious of Nora, after all, Nora had all she was longing for; a husband, beautiful children, and a good life.

Lastly, Krogstad is the one who lent Nora money to save her husband, and threatens her to tell her husband if she does not convince Tolvard to let him keep his job at the bank, but just as Nora did, he once made a mistake, which caused him to loose his reputation. He was a man who seems to have been harden by life's difficulties. When he was left by the woman he dearly loved âit was as if all the solid ground dissolved from under [his] feetâ (1031). This might have caused him to become the âhalf-drownedâ kind of man, as he refers to himself. After finding love in his life he turns from the revengeful person into a forgiving one.

In conclusion, Nora realized of her true value as a human being and as a woman. She decides to leave everything and everyone, husband, children, luxuries to a journey to liberate herself. To do such thing was unthinkable at that time and caused turmoil, but it was the best choice she could ever make. To leave one's children is a terrible things to do and was not necessary, but looking beyond that, without prejudices, it is not hard to understands she is trying to figure out who she really is and what she believes in. This is essential to one's happiness; therefore she is determined to make necessary changes in her life even if people think bad of her. It seems that daring to do so back in the 1800s was just as bad as selling drugs or prostituting oneself.

Re: was or is

MrPedantic — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:03:29 GMT

Hello FH,

My comment was only half-serious. Consider these examples:

1. A said that B is pretty.

2. A said that B was pretty.

In ordinary conversation, you will hear both forms; and in both forms, the addressee will understand that "B = pretty" represents the opinion of A at the time of speaking. The tense of the verb merely reflects a difference in preference between a speaker who "backshifts" in a subordinate clause (e.g. who reports "is" as "was") and a speaker who doesn't.

In other contexts, the difference in tense may imply a real difference in meaning:

3. A said that Homo sapiens is primarily a fruit-eating mammal.

4. A said that Homo sapiens was primarily a fruit-eating mammal.

Here, the addressee might not be sure whether B related only to a period in the past; whereas in A, there is no such doubt.

All the best,

MrP

Re: indicative/subjunctive moods help

Avangi — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:38:33 GMT

Hi Gary,

W. Somerset Maugham said, "The subjunctive mood is in its death throes, and the best thing to do is to put it out of its misery as soon as possible."

I personally love it, but I'm in my seventies. I don't think it or I can last much longer. It will take a lot of work to really learn it and few people bother to use it. It's used to describe things which are not true, using if clauses and swapping some verb forms around, like shall and will. Many people have quit using shall altogether, so you're in for a certain amount of frustration if you expect to recognize it in everyday conversation.

On school bus trips we used to sing a song, "ninty-nine bottles of beer on the wall." (It had a nice rhythm.) "If one of those bottles should happen to fall," - - - - (That's subjunctive.)

When I couldn't see something which was "right under my nose," my mother used to say, "If it were a bear it would bite you," or "Were it a bear it would bite you." Indicative mood is the everyday speech we use to describe factual things. "It is a bear." "It was a bear."

Correct my grammar mistakes if there are any. Correct my grammar mistakes if any there be. A lover of the subjunctive would use the second version. Need I go on?

Use the search function to check out a few threads - if clauses, etc.

Regards, - A.