Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Clauses'

Re: has been open or has been opend

CalifJim — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:37:56 GMT

Avangi
I just broke the lightbulb. Look! See the broken lightbulb!

The problem is that with most verbs, including break, the past participle (broken) also serves as the adjective. So there's no difference between these:

The lightbulb has been broken since 1999. (adjective - in the state of being broken)

The lightbulb has been broken since 1999. (verb - caused to be broken)

open is a different case because we have both the past participle opened (for use as a verb) and an adjectival form open. So there is a difference between these:

The store has been open since 1999. (adjective - in the state of being open)

The store has been opened since 1999. (verb - caused to be open)

The second version of each is a little weird with the since clause. They force an unusual reading.

Re: The difference between a phrase and a sentence (Chris)

Anonymous — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:15:11 GMT

i think this may be benificial

http://cc.ysu.edu/~tacopela/Phrases-and-Clauses.htm

because in a noun (nominal) clause and because in an adverbial clause ?

Luke23 — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:08:16 GMT

Hi! Was just wondering whether somebody could explain to me what is the difference between the two because-clauses in (1) and (2):

(1) He punched the wall because he was angry

(2) It is because he is angry

Is it that the because clause in (1) is an "adverbial clause" and that the because clause in (2) is a noun or nominal clause?

It's just that I've read countless times that because introduces an adverbial clause, and never seen it written that because can be part of a noun clause.

THanks for the help,

Luke

Re: Please, help me with this question

CalifJim — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:17:31 GMT

Anonymous
... I have read a magazine * today ,how to explain that we don't use the Simple Past, but the Present Perfect tense here? Because the action of reading a magazine happened today, time is definite! ...

The present perfect shows indefiniteness with respect to time, yes. But you can restrict the indefiniteness with a since clause.

I have read a magazine since I saw you last.

today is a special adverb that can be used in place of a since clause with the present perfect, because (unlike adverbs like yesterday) it includes the moment of speaking:

I have read a magazine [since the beginning of this day / today].

Anonymous
... what's the difference between:

I read a magazine today. ... and I have read a magazine today. ...

The difference is subtle. The present perfect is conceptually a step removed from the real action of the simple past. The present perfect is indirect compared to the direct simple past.

I read a magazine today expresses what happened. It tells what I did directly.

I have read a magazine today expresses the existence of a state resulting from what happened. It tells what I have on my list of 'things done today'. It tells what I did, but only indirectly through the implication of what's on 'my list', which is what the sentence is really focusing on.

Re: The difference between 'who' and 'whom'

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:30:40 GMT

I'm sorry but I think that this example is incorrect. Since 'Max' is the subject of the clause (with 'given' being the verb and the 'book' the object), it would then translate to Who was given the book? If the original sentence had been, Casi gave Max the book then it would translate to To whom did Casi give the book? Since Casi would become the subject of the clause. A good trick for remembering whether to use who or whom, incidentally, is to replace the word who or whom with he or him and see which one sounds right. Whom, of course, corresponds to him. So, for example: Who arrived first or whom arrived first? Obviously, using this method, he arrived first sounds much better than him arrived first so the correct word to use would be who. On the other hand, Whom do I love or who do I love? I love him sounds better than I love he so the correct word to use would be whom.

Re: what's the difference between hate+tov and hate+v-ing?

CalifJim — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:07:43 GMT

Anonymous
What is the difference between the two sentences in meaning?

There are exceedingly few cases where there is any difference. On rare occasions, the gerund form allows an interpretation with a generic subject (anybody) that is different from the subject in the main clause.

He hates to lie, cheat, and steal can only mean he hates these things when he does them.

He hates lying, cheating, and stealing can mean he hates these thing when he does them, or it can mean that he hates these things when anybody does them.

Re: The difference between these two sentences (about "can/could" )

CalifJim — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:49:48 GMT

It's a run-on sentence. It should be two sentences or two independent clauses separated by a semi-colon.

Come when you like; I can see you any time.

With the imperative (Come when you like) I would use only the present can.

I would not mix the tentativeness of could with the openness of any time.

I find the following sentence more in keeping with the idea of could see you. Note that there is a restriction here -- a condition. (This is the so-called Second Conditional.)

I could see you tomorrow if you came before noon.

Re: what's the difference between "although" and "even if"

Cool Breeze — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:33:37 GMT

china.hyh
And in what situation should I use B but not A?

Use even if in a clause with a subjunctive when the main clause has a conditional:

Even if I knew him better, I wouldn't tell him anything about this.

Re: before clause + will or (be going to) ??

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:10:53 GMT

before to etudy I am going to the library

Magic79

My question is regarding the difference between "will" and "be going to" in an if clause.

I know the differences between them in normal sentences which are related to:

1- planned action (be going to)

2- spontaneous action (will)

3- prediction (will or be going to)

My question asks about the difference between those two forms in if clauses.

For example:

1- If it rains tomorrow, I am going to stay home.

2- If it rains tomorrow, I will stay home.

Do the differences between "will" and "going to" carry on to other clauses?

I hope that you could help me with that.

I am an non-native English teacher.

Thanks.

Re: truncation possibly this but not that

Avangi — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:38:41 GMT

Hi Anon, I was intrigued by this issue, as I too could see no substantial difference between the examples.

I think it comes down to a simple misunderstanding. The Anon said, "The dilemma how to know what and how much to truncate, Mr.M."

When we say,"There is Superman, up in the air," there may be two stages of truncation:

"There is Superman, (1)~~who is~~ (2)~~flying / hovering~~ up in the air."

You added, "There is Superman, flying up in the air.

Mr. M. said, "Those are OK too-- but they're not necessarily truncated. If they were they could be: There is superman, hovering up in the air."

What is meant by "they're" and "they"?

Mr. M. goes on to compare Anon's original up in the air to I have a hole in my pocket, saying they're just phrases (no evidence they were once clauses and have been truncated.)

When you truncate "who is" (relative pronoun and linking verb) it's fairly obvious what you've truncated. It sounds to me like Mr. M. is saying that if flying had been truncated you would have no way of knowing the word had been "flying," and it could just as well have been "hovering."

I believe you're taking Mr. M.'s words to mean that Anon's "flying" addition is not a correct example of a word that might have been truncated, while "hovering" is.

So to answer your question, there is no grammatical difference between "flying" and "hovering."

Regards, - A.