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

Re: Is it possible to use present perfect with "long ago"?

Yankee — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:55:13 GMT

Hi Goodman

I don't see the previous conversation as "fired up". On the contrary, I think it has been quite friendly.
I agree that 'ago' will generally not be found in the same clause with the present perfect, but I agree with Cool Breeze one thousand percent that it's dangerous to get too absolute when it comes to grammar "rules".

A good rule of thumb is always handy to have. However, most "rules of thumb" should be seen as rules that work much of the time rather than all the time.

Present perfect/simple past in since clause

Viceidol — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:17:59 GMT

Hello, everyone:

I've asked a question in http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionAboutTenseUsageSinceClause/gwxpb/post.htm , but I find out there are more than I need to ask, so I think it would be better to write a new post.

Recently I saw several sentences using simple past and present perefect in their since clauses. They are really confusing to me. I really hope you could help me comfirm their meaning. It may be very easy for you, but I've been wondering what their real meanings are for many days and couldn't find a clue. Please take a look at the following sentences:

1. It's a long time since he has lived there.

2. It's a long time since he lived there.

3. It is already 6 years since he have lived in New York.

4. It is already 6 years since he lived in New York.

I think those four sentences suggest "He doesn't live here/in New York now.", right? If my understanding is true, then please see the next pairs of sentences:

5. She has written to me frequently since I have been ill. (Does it suggest "I am still ill now"? If not, what does it suggest?)

6. She has written to me frequently since I was ill. (Does it suggest "I am not ill now."? If not, what does it suggest?)

If my understandings about sentence 5, 6 are right, then I think that's very tricky. Because sentence 1 and 3, which also use "have done" in their since clauses, suggest the same as sentence 2 and 4, which use simple past in their since clauses. However, although sentence 5 also uses "have done" in its since clause like sentence 1 and 3 do, sentence 5 does not suggest the same thing as sentence 6 does. Why is that? Is it because sentence 1, 2, 3, 4 use "It is + a period of time" structure? If so, I would be very amazed that simply a minor change like this would completely change the meaning of "have done" in the since clause. What do you think?

Here are some similar pairs of sentences:

7. Since she has been at Beijing University, it has gone through great changes. (I think it suggests "She is still at Beijing University now", am I right? If not, what does it suggest?)

8. Since she was at Beijing University, it has gone through great changes. (I think it suggests "She is not at Beijing University now", am I right? If not, what does it suggest?)

9. It's already 5 years since he has been in the army.

10. It's already 5 years since he was in the army.

I think sentence 9 and 10 both suggest "He is not in the army now", am I right? (Because "It is + a period of time" structure is used in the main clauses.) If not, what does it suggest?

11. They have been happy since they have lived in London. (I think it suggests "They still lives in London now", am I right? If not, what does it suggest?)

12. They have been happy since they lived in London. (I think it suggests "They don't live in London now", am I right? If not, what does it suggest?)

13. It's a long time since they have lived in London.

14. It's a long time since they lived in London.

I think sentence 13 and 14 both suggest "They don't live in London now", am I right? (Because "It is + a period of time" structure is used in the main clauses.) If not, what does it suggest?

I know those questions might be a piece of cake for native speakers, but they're totally confusing to me. I've searched all my grammar books for the answer but couldn't find one. I would appreciate it if you could help me solve my doubt. Thank you for reading this post!!

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

Viceidol — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:59:03 GMT

Mr Wordy

(But I notice you say "I didn't translate it very well". So, the explanation is not written in English? Is it possible that you're still mistranslating it?)

No, my understanding this time is right. Then I believe this part of my grammar book must be wrong.

I'd really like to ask further into this question. Allow me to write a new post to discuss it. Thank you, Mr. Wordy. You've helped me a lot!

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

Viceidol — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:41:06 GMT

Hello, Mr. Wordy, may I ask one more question?

One of my grammar boooks gives the following interpretation:

It's a long time since he lived there. (It suggests "He does not live there for a long time.")

It's a long time since he has lived there. (It suggests "He lives there for a long time.")

Is that right? What do you think?

Sorry to bother.

Re: while call & ...

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:16:30 GMT

At first glance,

I interpret the sentence as, "So, shouldn't we stop labeling the shark a killer, and call the lion a magnificent creature?"

Reads like two independent clauses.

I prefer "reasonable" to "within bounds", but that is a style question, and not a grammar question.

-A

Re: IN SPEECH

Clive — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:31:08 GMT

Hi,
I was listening to some types of speeches and have some questions.

1.When someone says this, does he have to make it known that it is quoted? Not if he doesn't want to. Such 'rules' are not governed by grammar. A teacher, for example, may insist that a student identify every quotation. I think the written version should be in quotation marks because not being in quotation marks doesn't make sense to me.

Next time is later again.<<< This doesn't make any sense to me. What does it mean?

2.Can we have a present perfect after a dependant clause like "After you heard it" in the past tense? It certainly sounds odd in this example. I can't think of another example in which it sounds OK, although I don't like to say an absolute 'No, never'.

After you heard it, you have decided to come back again. Thank you. Nice to see you all here again.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Position of clause- saying that they are

Marius Hancu — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:52:43 GMT

HOW did: that is adverb/adverbial, don't you see the question?

WHAT KIND OF: that is adjective/adjectival

This is everything and I won't add more. Read your grammar books. Make some searches at this site for

adjectival

adverbial

(top right Search box)

and read some of the resulting theads.

Re: Position of clause- saying that they are

bhikkhu1991 — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:57:40 GMT

Hello Marius Hancu,

I have recently found out that the English-Zone.com's exercise is similar to my example of the underlined words:

http://english-zone.com/grammar/adj-clz-34.html
3) a)	The rules that allow public access to wilderness areas need to be reconsidered.

b) The rules allowing public access to wilderness areas need to be reconsidered.

The following is my example that is similar to their 3) b) of the underlined words which qualifies as an adjective phrase:

I obtained the news from the newspaper saying they are the current happenings.

Could you please tell me whether your two following explanations are adverbial phrases or clauses?

I obtained the news from the newspaper, saying they are the current happenings. [you're saying ..Adverbial (how did I get??)

Saying they are the current happenings, I obtained the news from the newspaper. [you're saying ... Adverbial (how did I get??

Thank you.

With best wishes.

"...a kind of preface, "commenting" on the other clause, which contains..."

Peaceblinkfriend — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:52:26 GMT

The reporting clause becomes a kind of preface, commenting on the other clause, which contains the main message. (Quoted from the introduction of Collins COBUILD English Grammar )

How would you pronounce the word 'commenting' here? Would you put the stress on the first syllable, 'commenting' or the second, 'commenting'?

Thank you for your help.

PBF

'For example, although it is true to say that the noun group is the structure we choose for "the things" we want to talk about, it is not the only one.'

Peaceblinkfriend — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:35:18 GMT

For example, although it is true to say that the noun group is the structure we choose for the things we want to talk about, it is not the only one. Sometimes we want to talk about an event or an idea that is not easy to express in a noun group. Instead we can use a clause as the subject of another clause. e.g All I want is a holiday. (Quoted from the introduction of Collins COBUILD English Grammar )

I don't quite understand what it means by 'the things we want to talk about'. What is being referred to by 'the things'? For all it's worth, according to the glossary included in the grammar, a noun group is a group of words which acts as the subject, complement, or object of a clause, or as the object of a preposition. Also called nominal group or noun phrase.

Thank you

PBF