Search results for 'tag:Direct questions tag:Constructions' matching tags 'Direct questions' and 'Constructions'

Re: Let's see who finishes/will finish first.

CalifJim — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:03:49 GMT

Only one s in present!!!

You can't use will with the stative verbs in this construction: [Let's see / Let me know / Tell me] plus an indirect question. I would not call these relative clauses.

to finish first - an action.

how you are - a state - not an action.

get there first - same as arrive first - an action.

you think - an internal activity; having an opinion - not an action.

_______

Thus, with the indirect question in brackets { }, ungrammatical choices prefixed with asterisk *:

[Let's see / Let me know / Tell me] {who [finishes / will finish / gets there / will get there] first}.

[Let's see / Let me know / Tell me] {how [you are / *you will be / what you think / *what you will think]}

_______

Your example with make sure does not belong to the pattern above. There's no indirect question.

Make sure (that) you come back soon.

A make sure that pattern is not followed by a future (will).

______

You can save yourself a lot of headaches by using the present tense for all of these. Even in cases where will is possible, it's almost always the inferior choice.

Re: wish clauses

Yankee — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:22:29 GMT

Goodman wrote:
Yankee wrote:
Did you read the rest of my post, MrC? I attempted to make it clear why YL's sentence works.

The danger in stating absolute rules in prescriptive grammar is that doing so doesn't allow for legitimate exceptions.
For example, many grammar books state that the word 'would' may not be used in an IF-clause. That is incorrect. While that rule is usually true, there are times when using 'would' is perfectly acceptable and grammatical in an IF-clause.

Hi Amy,

We donât always agree on everything but I do respect your credentials in English. If you donât mind, I would like to hear your opinions. The correct usage of âwereâ and âwasâ with the âI wishâ construction definitely has become a heated debate. According to traditional English (the kind I have learned), the âI wish I wereâ or âifâ and several other conditional constructions are called âsubjunctiveâ which most native and learners are very familiar with. There are few of those who believe âI wish I was â¦â is also correct. Itâs true that many people use it this way, however, it doesnât mean itâs a changing trend, and therefore itâs correct to use. True, the user may say whatever he prefers. But when we are on this forum to discuss English, don't you think we all need to conform to the rules of the traditional English? Do you agree? Many respected grammar books now accept 'was' in addition to 'were' in Type 2 IF-sentences as well as in 'wish' sentences. Personally, I would still make it a point to use 'were' in a formal context, but the use of 'was' does seem to be on the rise -- especially in informal contexts.

Having said that, based on the principle of subjunctive, this âwas " usage is incorrect in my opinion, whether itâs accepted as mainstream English or otherwise. If something is accepted in mainstream English, why would you want to reject it completely? Obviously, even the English Authorities have varying degrees of opinions, some said itâs incorrect while some said itâs acceptable. My argument is not so much to find out who is right, rather, what the believersâ argument is based on. Clearly the âI wish I â¦..â is a conditional sentence, which is âsubjunctiveâ. So if one insists on using this âI wish I wasâ construction and to have the twisted attitude to ask why I keep insisting on the rules of subjunctive, I feel the warped discussion is over. If you donât mind, would shed some light on the subject? And would you call ithe "was" usage a changing trend and therefore itâs acceptable? Language is a living, breathing animal. It changes and grows with time. Parts of it sometimes die, new usages sprout. It changes because of actual usage, often in spite of what grammarians would have us do. If yo ufeel uncomfortable answering these direct questions, I do understand.

Thanks

Re: wish clauses

Goodman — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:04:13 GMT

Yankee wrote:
Did you read the rest of my post, MrC? I attempted to make it clear why YL's sentence works.

The danger in stating absolute rules in prescriptive grammar is that doing so doesn't allow for legitimate exceptions.
For example, many grammar books state that the word 'would' may not be used in an IF-clause. That is incorrect. While that rule is usually true, there are times when using 'would' is perfectly acceptable and grammatical in an IF-clause.

Hi Amy,

We donât always agree on everything but I do respect your credentials in English. If you donât mind, I would like to hear your opinions. The correct usage of âwereâ and âwasâ with the âI wishâ construction definitely has become a heated debate. According to traditional English (the kind I have learned), the âI wish I wereâ or âifâ and several other conditional constructions are called âsubjunctiveâ which most native and learners are very familiar with. There are few of those who believe âI wish I was â¦â is also correct. Itâs true that many people use it this way, however, it doesnât mean itâs a changing trend, and therefore itâs correct to use. True, the user may say whatever he prefers. But when we are on this forum to discuss English, don't you think we all need to conform to the rules of the traditional English? Do you agree?

Having said that, based on the principle of subjunctive, this âwas " usage is incorrect in my opinion, whether itâs accepted as mainstream English or otherwise. Obviously, even the English Authorities have varying degrees of opinions, some said itâs incorrect while some said itâs acceptable. My argument is not so much to find out who is right, rather, what the believersâ argument is based on. Clearly the âI wish I â¦..â is a conditional sentence, which is âsubjunctiveâ. So if one insists on using this âI wish I wasâ construction and to have the twisted attitude to ask why I keep insisting on the rules of subjunctive, I feel the warped discussion is over. If you donât mind, would shed some light on the subject? And would you call ithe "was" usage a changing trend and therefore itâs acceptable? If yo ufeel uncomfortable answering these direct questions, I do understand.

Thanks

Re: Relative Clauses and Indirect Questions

CalifJim — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:59:53 GMT

When I asked this, I thought you might reply that it relates to the term or idea of 'a location'. You surprised me by answering in my grammar the clause in bold is an indirect question, not a relative clause. I don't see it as any kind of question at all. Would you also see I know where the pen is as an indirect question? If not, then what would you call it and what would it relate to?

Same idea again.

I (don't) know where the pen is.

where the pen is is a fused relative construction AND an embedded interrogative (clause).

Fused relative interpretation:
I (don't) know the place [where / that] the pen is.

Embedded interrogative interpretation:
I can (cannot) answer the question: Where is the pen?

CJ

P.S. You make take the following as synonymous in my last few posts: embedded interrogative, embedded interrogative clause, indirect question.

comprehension: Rene

Hela — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:42:03 GMT

Dear teachers,

Would you please correct my answers? But before that Iâd like to ask you if I understood the meaning of the underlined expressions or ideas. Furthermore, Iâd like to ask British teachers if they confirm what she says about the âBritish thingâ and give me more elements about this British attitude. And what about Americans, is it true that they are more extrovert? Thank very much for your help.

TEXT: An interview with Rene Wyndham (How is "Wyndham" pronounced, please?)

Interviewer: So how did you come to write that song, Rene?

Rene: Well I wrote it a few years ago after Iâd been at a rather formal dinner party, sitting next to (1) a crusty old stick, a lady I knew, and I thought âThis is going to be a bit of an effortâ, and I plucked up courage and started chatting to her about herself and she said sheâd been in Egypt and various things. And I was following the line of the conversation and all of a sudden she stopped dead and looked at me and said: âIf youâd really like to know more about me I shall write out my curriculum vitae for you!â And I thought that was so rude after making that effort that I (2) looked around and thought âWell what are other people talking about?â And I realized that other people donât ask direct questions, itâs one of the things, unwritten laws of social etiquette. You skirt the issue if youâre trying to find out things, or you (3) make polite niceties and nice noises at dinner parties but you donât often say what your emotions are doing underneath.

Interviewer: Can I come back to something you said? You said something about people not asking direct questions. Why do you think that is?

Rene: I think itâs partly fear, that they feel that they themselves will be exposed if theyâre asked those questions, and there is some sense of losing face by showing too much of yourself. I think it might be a particularly (4) British thing because I was for instance in the USA with people Iâd never met before, went to a very large dinner party, and within seconds people were telling me what their psychiatrist had said about them and their problems with the grocer and so on. Things that nobody in England would (5) open out and do because there is fear, there is a protective barrier and a sense of inferiority for anybody who dares to disobey these social norms.

Interviewer: Rene, when we talked about this song I think once before, you mentioned something about the way people donât listen to one another, and that was one of the reasons that you had written the song, you were very concerned about this.

Rene: Certainly a lot of my songs are concerned with communication. I was initially very inspired by the works of Wesker and Pinter and Albee and the way they show the people talking past each other, through each other, but never with each other, and this is something that in different ways I try to show in a lot of my songs. I even try and find the gulf between the Third World, the developing world, and our own world, because some of (6) the things people talk about there miss each other by miles. And (7) we do this in our own... unless youâre really close to people and you have a total trust, very often you say things as much to defend yourself as to listen to them. Youâre so concerned with the kind of impression you ought to be making that you fail to be listening to whatâs coming back to you from them. (8) Weâre all guilty of it.

Interviewer: Right, especially in that situation.

Rene: Very much so, and the more you know somebody, the more you relax and probably allow yourself to listen properly to them. That does demand a lot more energy of living that they simply havenât got time to make space for another personâs being within them.

Interviewer: You mentioned your other songs just now. What sort of other things do you write about in you other songs? What themes?

Rene: Well one of the other themes Iâm very concerned about is the use of time. I wrote one for instance about the fact that you give people flowers long after theyâre gone, and when people are leaving a firm that theyâve been working for, you give them a drink and say: âWhat a jolly good fellowâ and so on. But at the time they were there perhaps youâd never noticed them, never took the time again to listen to them properly. (9) We always seem to be missing the mark as far as time goes. I hate the thought of time rushing past. I really want to live every single minute to the full. Some of the songs are expressing that. The fact that you never have anything but this second that youâre living in, that when youâre looking to the future or the past, that doesnât really exist at all. And yet a lot of us find it the hardest thing of all, to coincide with the second that weâre living in.

Interviewer: And well, perhaps a final question. Why do you write songs at all? Why songs? Why not poetry or novels or something else?

Rene: Itâs something to do with a sense of rhythm. Thereâs a terrifically enjoyable discipline about fitting into a nutshell your own thoughts. In a poem youâve got more freedom, youâre not restricted by the music. But music itself is a wonderful art from and it conveys emotion more directly than anything, to me anyway. More directly than painting. More directly than theatre or whatever. If I hear a piece of music, thatâs it, instantly, in the heart. Thereâs even music therapy and so on, which shows that it can do this. If one can convey by oneâs own creativity a mood in another person through the music, and then enhance it with a discipline of well-chosen words, then I think youâve got a perfect portrait of an instant communication.

VOCABULARY:

1) an unpleasant irritable lady?

2) left the old lady and listened to other peopleâs conversations?

3) use clichÃ©s and say things that would not upset anyone?

5) show their inner feelings?

6) Does she want to say that British people wouldnât understand the way people in the third world communicate with each other because they always talk about intimate problems even with strangers and donât feel guilty about it?

7) British people will do the same only with close friends or relatives?

(8) = weâre ashamed of it?

QUESTIONS:

1) How does Rene describe the old lady? As an unpleasant irritable lady?

2) What was the old ladyâs reaction to the way Rene was conducting their conversation? Explain.

Suddenly she thought that Rene was nosy, indescrete? By telling her if she wanted her curriculum vitae showed that it wasnât the thing to do.

3) How did the incident affect Rene and what did she learn from it?

Rene stopped talking to the old Lady and left her to hear other peopleâs conversations and noticed that no one was talking about personal and intimate things. She learned that for British people it is rude, unseemly to ask personal questions. It is a sign of bad manners. So if people wanted to know more of their interlocutors they needed to be more diplomatic and not so direct perhaps.

4) What does she mean by âa British thingâ?

This attitude is paculiar to British people who are introvert and inhibited. They never reveal themselves in their true colours because by doing so they may jeopardize themselves, become an easy target for criticism, which is a sign of weakness.

5) Is it also âan American thingâ? Explain.

This is not the case of Americans they are more extrovert, outright, spontaneous, and like talking about themselves.

6) In her reflection over social communication, why is she contrasting âtalk withâ and (/ with ?) other similar verb constructions?

She contrasts âtalk withâ with âtalk pastâ and âtalk throughâ to show that people do not really communicate: exchange ideas, expreriences, feelings and emotions. They only have a superficial contact with others, they do not touch their heart, do not learn anything from them and miss a lot by doing so.

7) What is the point she tries to make about âthe use of timeâ and how does it relate to human behaviour in society?

She says that she tries to take advantage of the present moment whereas people tend to look at the past or the future and do not give much importance to the moment they are living. They do not appreciate the company of the people they are with at the present and so miss very important things and can be left with regrets.

8) What main advantage do songs have over other art forms?

Music makes you feel emotions that otherwise you might not feel only with prose, poetry or drama. It touches the heart of people more instantly than any other form of art.

She prefers writing songs because she finds interesting the fact of being obliged to fit her own thoughts to a piece of music and being restricted by its rhythm. It demands a lot of discipline from the writer.

Thank you very much in advance,

Hela

Re: Is/Will

Elida — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 11:56:57 GMT

Rishonly wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

"i don't know when he'll..."...we can't use "will..".

Hi,

Your example is fine to me and it doesn't violate any grammar rules. The tricky part is identifying the function of "when" in sentences. If "when" is used as a time adverbial conjunction in a sentence, then "when...will" construction in the subordinate clause is wrong. Nonetheless, in your example, "when" is not a time adverbial conjunction rather it just begins an indirect question. So, it is OK to use "will" after "when" in the indirect questions. For example, the following sentences are indirect statements and "when" begins an indirect question. In these sentences, the usage of "when" after "will" is valid.

I don't know when he will.....

I am not sure when he will..

Ok. i'm clear about it.

Re: Is/Will

rishonly — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:34:45 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

"i don't know when he'll..."...we can't use "will..".

Hi,

Your example is fine to me and it doesn't violate any grammar rules. The tricky part is identifying the function of "when" in sentences. If "when" is used as a time adverbial conjunction in a sentence, then "when...will" construction in the subordinate clause is wrong. Nonetheless, in your example, "when" is not a time adverbial conjunction rather it just begins an indirect question. So, it is OK to use "will" after "when" in the indirect questions. For example, the following sentences are indirect statements and "when" begins an indirect question. In these sentences, the usage of "when" after "will" is valid.

I don't know when he will.....

I am not sure when he will..

Question marks?

Grammarfanatic — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:05:11 GMT

Regarding the subject of direct or indirect questions, I have seen on numerous occasions a construction where a direct question ending with a "?" follows a colon. Surely (I'm thinking) that would be an indirect question, so shouldn't end with a question mark, for example:

"Throughout the conference we will be asking the question: Where do we stand on tax cuts?".

Am I right in thinking that both the colon and the question mark are out of place here?

What would you suggest?

I hope you can help.

Re: when you have done

CalifJim — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:49:08 GMT

This is not a mandatory rule. It's something which is often done (thus, to me, optional), per Swan.

Which part is not mandatory? I may have misunderstood, but I'm assuming the rule you are referring to is: will cannot be used in a when clause where when is an adverbial conjunction. I don't believe there's anything that's not mandatory about it. Do you have an example?

(My comments below are to the effect that the examples are not cases where the rule applies.)

[The] day will come when I will get used to sleeping there when is a relative pronoun with antecedent day, not an adverbial conjunction.

no idea when I will get paid when in an indirect question, not an adverbial conjunction. When will I get paid?

I don't know when I will be able to see her when in an indirect question, not an adverbial conjunction. When will I be able to see her?

These are not

When I (*will) get used to sleeping there, the day will come.
When I (*will) get paid, I have no idea.
When I [am / (*will be)] able to see her, I don't know.

in the intended readings, i.e., the last two are not to be read as fronted object constructions.

CJ

Re: "When" clause containing future tense

CalifJim — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:03:27 GMT

I've recently learned that the future tense should rarely be used in a "when" or other clause indicating the future

The objection to future tense with when (and other subordinating conjunctions of time) only applies to the case where when introduces a subordinate clause (adverbial clause of time).

It does not apply to indirect question constructions, for example.

So your examples are perfectly fine with the future. There is little doubt that you are not saying when Saturday is (exists) in saying that it is when you will fix the faucet. Compare:

Saturday is when I will fix the faucet.
I am not sure when I will fix the faucet.
*I'll feel relieved when I will fix the faucet. (This won't do. It's an adverbial when clause.)
*Stay out of the kitchen when I will fix the faucet. (This won't do either - for the same reason.)

CJ