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

Re: I thought a spider is/was an insect

CalifJim — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:30:44 GMT

Pter
And universal falsehood. What a phrase! This is important because we are not talking about something that is always true. As a result, we can only use the past tense in sentences starting with "I thought it was". The "was" is not the result of backshifting. It is used instead to indicate that the believe was hold true in the past but is now found to be false.

My apologies for introducing a joke! The "universal falsehood" reference is a complete joke! It doesn't matter whether what is reported is universally true or unversally false. What's important is that in the speaker's mind it is universally (or eternally, if you wish) true. In that way, in the right context, you can even have the reported speech: The scientist said that the earth is flat.

Consequently, the "was" truly IS the result of backshifting after "thought". It has nothing to do with beliefs considered true in the past but false in the present. You can banish all such logic from your mind. You came to believe some of these things because I put you off the track with my joke.

I don't know which sample sentences you are referring to, but after thought, knew, hoped, believed, and felt, you always need a past tense.

____

I didn't notice that it was not reported speech. (natural, normal)

I didn't notice that it's not reported speech. (also possible, less used)

You may find that each main clause verb has its own idiosyncracies with regard to backshifting. notice acts a little like a reporting verb. What you noticed may still be quite noticeable to your listener, and you may want to emphasize this fact. Nevertheless, keep this is mind: Backshifting is never wrong.

____

OK. I went back and found these. I think these are the samples you were referring to. The first choices shown are the ones that came to my mind first. It's not really more complicated than that. The second choice is also perfectly grammatical except as noted in the second sentence, where backshifting is required.

My professor said that spiders are (were also possible) insects! I didn't think they were (are not possible). I think he is (was also possible) wrong.

Re: comma splices

Tanit — Sun, 27 May 2007 09:29:50 GMT

Hi,

The whole sentence was a joke. One of the mods (sorry, can't remember who ... MrP?) was basically saying that instead of money or presents, they get loads of mistakes for Christmas.

Here are two good pages for comma splices and dangling modifiers .

Here are two examples:

- comma splice: "Italy is well known for its monuments, there are amazing churches in Rome" (two independent clauses separated by a comma).

- dangling modifier: "Being in a dilapidated condition, I was able to buy the house very cheap." (this example is not mine ! who is in dilapidated conditions? the house or I?)

Re: Though one word would be insufficient to describe you...

Jackson6612 — Thu, 03 May 2007 03:44:09 GMT

Stannum wrote:
Jackson6612 wrote:

Dear Stannum,

Why did you delete your post? There was no need, I read it. I know you find my questions stupid. Perhaps they are. But I don't post them here for fun. I don't get Dollars for posting them. As far as that hysteron proteron is concerned, I don't even know its meaning. I don't have any wrong intentions or motives. I am just here to learn. I love all these people including you who help me in everything. I do wish them all the best. They are just like family to me. We are friends here. G_d bless you all. I know you don't need G_d's blessings, therefore you can ignore them. I'm again sorry for offending you. Hope I get my second chance.

Best Wishes, Jackson

Dear Jackson,

Thank you for understanding me and thank you for responding to clear the air.

I did not delete my post.

This was deleted by a very well meaning moderator who just didn't understand waht was going on. I am sorry that it was deleted but I do understand why it was done. There is no real harm from the deletion and I am quite content. I have been yelled at in private by well meaning moderators in the past and it will probably happen again.

I am an artist and a writer and sometimes some people don't get me. I can't be cross when this happens. If I want to be totally understood all the time I can write like a photocopying machine and use words and ideas that someone eles wrote before but that is not me and it is no fun and I am fascinated to meet real people like you on the internet. It is really hard to know who is real and who is creepy. You are real and you are not creepy and I am honoured to meet you and so is my daughter.

I now understand that you were just making a joke.

I am sorry that I was offended but I was genuinely offended. I am no longer offended and I am no longer suspicious of you.

Thank you for understanding that I was in no way attacking you.

Thank you for understanding that I was not flaming you.

Thank you for caring enough about my feelings to go to the trouble and effort of explaining yourself so honestly and openly in a language that is not your native language.

I can see far more honesty in your slightly garbled words than in the most erudite rationalisation possible.

You are fair dinkum and I am sorry that I hurt your feelings a little bit but I know that I didn't hurt you much because you always knew that you were fair dinkum so I was basically yelling at you because of a mistimed joke on your part. I imagine that you were more confused than insulted by my response to your joke.

In any event I have no desire to insult a proper person as you have revealed yourself to be.

May this day bring you something that you forgot to hope for,

Peace be with you.

Robert

P.S. If you feel the need to clear the air any further or if you would like my daughter or myself to assist you with your Chemistry we are both at your service and you may write to me at my home e-mail address. You have that address already.

P.P.S. The Collins dictionary,

hysteron proteron n 1 Logic, a fallacious argument in which the proposition to be proved is assumed as a premise. 2 Rhetoric, a figure of speech in which the normal order of two sentences, clauses, etcetera is reversed: bred and born (for born and bred) . [C16: from Late Latin, from Greek husteron proteron the latter (placed as) former]

Idiomatically this means

1 An embedded question.

2 to put the cart before the horse.

May your road rise up to meet you, mate.

Dear Stannum,

I'm more than happy to know that you have no problem with me anymore. Thank you very much for giving me a second chance. I swear I didn't choose that nick intentionally. Perhaps I was trying to be little funny, but now I know I was terrible. As you know English is not my native language and my words don't exactly represent my ideas and intentions as I want them to. Everything I know about English, I owe it to Englishforums. I don't like people such as the one who I chose in my nick. If you ask me, I don't even consider them humans. The following is an excerpt from my post which I wrote months ago:

''Martin Luther did many services to Christianity. He also wrote extensively againt Jews. If you ask me, I don't think he was a true Christian. If you ask me, I don't think he was a good human being. Adolf Hitler used M. Luther's writings to support his agenda to kill Jews. Did Christianity teach Hitler to kill Jews? Did Jesus somewhere in Bible ask him to kill Jews? Then, who are these people to do such things? They only do such things for fortune and glory.''

You didn't offend me or hurt me. You are my father's age, therefore I took your words as advice, and tried to find good side of them if I didn't like any of them. I'm grateful to you for forgiving me. I once again promise, I will never do such an act through my entire life. The best thing I liked about you is that you speak your mind and that's very good thing. When anyone speaks his mind, only then problems can be solved. Please also say sorry to your daughter on my behalf I offended her too. If you go back to my posts which I wrote in the start when I joined this Englishforums, you would find ''Vijay'' as my signature. My forum nick has nothing to do with that beast. I chose my forum nick as ''Jackson6612'' because I have my e-mail ID which is almost the same as my forum nick. I made that e-mail account years ago. I came to know about that beast few months ago, when I saw movie From Hell starring Johnny Depp. As far as name Jackson is concerned, I just chose it when I made that e-mail ID. There is no specific reason for choosing that name. I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson and I have never heard any of his songs. I personally don't like him because he made himself white by surgery. Such a cheap act, he made all other members of his race embarrassed by such an act. Why I chose number 6612 in my nick, there is an explanation for that too. But I couldn't be able to explain it here. When it came to my notice very first time, I changed my profile immediately. I was at fault. You shouldn't be sorry for anything. You corrected and I'm grateful for that. That day I e-mailed you because neither you nor me has the facility of Private Messaging. Therefore, there was no other way for discussing such an issue. There was no intention of disturbing you. You can check all my posts, I never make officious remarks to anyone. Members here are like family to me. Most of the time, I spend my time alone. People here are extremely nice. If you ask me, I would say all the Western people are very kind people. I'm not in some kind of inferiority complex that I like Western people much more than my own people. I have never been to USA but I know Grammar Geek, CalifJim, Yankee, Goodman, Philip, and many other Englishforums' members live there, therefore I take USA as a country of good people. I do not think about what people say about USA and Mr. George Bush. As far as my questions are concerned, they sometimes sound stupid to me too. But what else could I do when I have a problem except asking them here? Why would I ask them if I know the answers? I have here in my town nobody to help me. I use my uncle's computer, who lives not very far away from my home. These days he is on vacation with his family to some other town. I don't have my own computer. I have keys to my uncle's home and he has letted me to use his computer anytime. Therefore, I'm using this opportunity to the fullest. That's the reason why I keep on flooding the forums with my questions. But this won't happen for much longer because when my uncle comes back, I would only be able to use his computer occasionlly. I got no English books. In a way you could say all I have is internet. Sorry, if you find something officious in my writing, that was completely unintentional. I wish you and your daughter all the best. Peace be with you and your daughter throughout the entire life. Wishing you good health and many years of happiness.

Kind Regards and Best Wishes, Jackson

Re: Though one word would be insufficient to describe you...

Stannum — Thu, 03 May 2007 02:15:29 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:

Dear Stannum,

Why did you delete your post? There was no need, I read it. I know you find my questions stupid. Perhaps they are. But I don't post them here for fun. I don't get Dollars for posting them. As far as that hysteron proteron is concerned, I don't even know its meaning. I don't have any wrong intentions or motives. I am just here to learn. I love all these people including you who help me in everything. I do wish them all the best. They are just like family to me. We are friends here. G_d bless you all. I know you don't need G_d's blessings, therefore you can ignore them. I'm again sorry for offending you. Hope I get my second chance.

Best Wishes, Jackson

Dear Jackson,

Thank you for understanding me and thank you for responding to clear the air.

I did not delete my post.

This was deleted by a very well meaning moderator who just didn't understand what was going on. I am sorry that it was deleted but I do understand why it was done. Flame wars on public forums are very unpleasant for all concerned and any decent moderator will be very aware of this and step in to nip it in the bud. This was just nipped one post too soon, no big deal. There is no real harm from the deletion and I am quite content. I have been yelled at in private by well meaning moderators in the past and it will probably happen again.

I am an artist and a writer and sometimes some people don't get me. I can't be cross when this happens. If I want to be totally understood all the time I can write like a photocopying machine and use words and ideas that someone else wrote before but that is not me and it is no fun and I am fascinated to meet real people like you on the internet. It is really hard to know who is real and who is creepy. You are real and you are not creepy and I am honoured to meet you and so is my daughter.

You passed the test with your colours flying and responded as an honourable bloke would respond - as I would respond.

I now understand that you were just making a joke.

I am sorry that I was offended but I was genuinely offended. I am no longer offended and I am no longer suspicious of you.

Thank you for understanding that I was in no way attacking you.

Thank you for understanding that I was not flaming you.

Thank you for caring enough about my feelings to go to the trouble and effort of explaining yourself so honestly and openly in a language that is not your native language.

I can see far more honesty in your slightly garbled words than in the most erudite rationalisation possible.

You are fair dinkum and I am sorry that I hurt your feelings a little bit but I know that I didn't hurt you much because you always knew that you were fair dinkum so I was basically yelling at you because of a mistimed joke on your part. I imagine that you were more confused than insulted by my response to your joke.

In any event I have no desire to insult a proper person as you have revealed yourself to be.

May this day bring you something that you forgot to hope for,

Peace be with you.

Robert

P.S. If you feel the need to clear the air any further or if you would like my daughter or myself to assist you with your Chemistry we are both at your service and you may write to me at my home e-mail address. You have that address already.

P.P.S. The Collins dictionary,

hysteron proteron n 1 Logic, a fallacious argument in which the proposition to be proved is assumed as a premise. 2 Rhetoric, a figure of speech in which the normal order of two sentences, clauses, etcetera is reversed: bred and born (for born and bred) . [C16: from Late Latin, from Greek husteron proteron the latter (placed as) former]

Idiomatically this means

1 An embedded question.

2 to put the cart before the horse.

May your road rise up to meet you, mate.

Re: Correct idiomatic usage.

Grammarian-bot — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 04:21:46 GMT

Clive wrote:
I was trying to be funny. You can't study 'the mobile phone industry in Victorian times' because the Victorians had no mobile phones. Ha-ha!

When you say "The time we are living (in) may be one of the most fascinating times to study" it, it makes me wonder what you think the other fascinating times to study it would be. Roman times? Greek times? The Middle Ages? Ha-ha! As I said, I'm trying to be funny, because what you wrote sounds funny to me.

Also, why have you used in in the above victorian example.

In effect, I spoke of 'studying . . . in . . .Victorian times'. It's like saying 'I was studying in 2005'. You wouldn't say 'I was studying 2005'. You need 'in'.

Best wishes, Clive

Sorry my fault. Actually the problem is that when I am studying english, I am very careful not to miss out any new rules. That's why whenever I encounter anything new or something that is in doubt I ask. But next time I'll keep my guards down to enjoy soe of the good jokes on the forum. And yes... thank you for clearing the "studying in" problem. Now I can see clearly. just remove the modifying clause and the sentence makes sense.

GB

Re: Tense with "when"

Pastsimple — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:13:33 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
In actual practice, the use of the past perfect quite frequently violates the mathematically precise timelines set out for it in grammar books! It is merely an indicator that something happened in the context of something past. Now the problem is that this past point of view has to be established somewhere to begin with, so you can't just begin a conversation with a sentence in the past perfect tense! On the other hand, the past point of view does not even have to be in the same sentence with the past perfect verb. It may have been established earlier in the text. Also, in narrative fiction, just about everything is in the past tense, so what is past from the viewpoint of the story-teller may be given in the simple past, while what is past from the viewpoint of the characters of the story may be given in the simple past or in the past perfect, depending on how the author wants the reader to understand the time relationships in his story. These factors cause for a great deal of confusion.

In the sentence now under the grammar microscope, it seems to me that the when clause is used to establish the past point of view. A suggestion was made in the past -- past with respect to Langdon's understanding of the events surrounding that suggestion. Thinking back to the time of that suggestion, Langdon ('now') saw/felt/understood that Fache had looked smug ('then'). When? When the suggestion was made.
The author considers the reaction to the suggestion the main event - not the suggestion itself. The making of the suggestion is no more than a temporal signpost to which the reaction can be related.

Compare:
I recalled quite vividly how they had laughed when I told that joke.
Jerry was absolutely convinced that they had stolen the money when he left the room to answer the phone.
The Robertsons were shocked at how thoroughly their new puppy had destroyed the sofa when he was left alone for the day.

That said, all of these examples, including the one in the original post, could have had the verb in the when clause in the past perfect tense! But it's unnecessary for understanding the time relationships, and it is somewhat inelegant stylistically -- too many "had"s, maybe?

CJ

That's a truly informative post and I agree with your observations. But you've left one question unanswered :

Could the sentence contain all three verbs in the past simple?

The only thing Langdon understood at the moment was why Fache looked so smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer by name.

My comments as to why I'm convinced it's possible are in my first post.

Actually, what about:

I recalled quite vividly how they laughed when I told that joke.
Jerry was absolutely convinced that they stole the money when he left the room to answer the phone.
The Robertsons were shocked at how thoroughly their new puppy destroyed the sofa when he was left alone for the day.

Sounds completely OK to me but there's this I'm-not-a-native-speaker problem.

Re: Tense with "when"

CalifJim — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:15:25 GMT

In actual practice, the use of the past perfect quite frequently violates the mathematically precise timelines set out for it in grammar books! It is merely an indicator that something happened in the context of something past. Now the problem is that this past point of view has to be established somewhere to begin with, so you can't just begin a conversation with a sentence in the past perfect tense! On the other hand, the past point of view does not even have to be in the same sentence with the past perfect verb. It may have been established earlier in the text. Also, in narrative fiction, just about everything is in the past tense, so what is past from the viewpoint of the story-teller may be given in the simple past, while what is past from the viewpoint of the characters of the story may be given in the simple past or in the past perfect, depending on how the author wants the reader to understand the time relationships in his story. These factors cause for a great deal of confusion.

In the sentence now under the grammar microscope, it seems to me that the when clause is used to establish the past point of view. A suggestion was made in the past -- past with respect to Langdon's understanding of the events surrounding that suggestion. Thinking back to the time of that suggestion, Langdon ('now') saw/felt/understood that Fache had looked smug ('then'). When? When the suggestion was made.
The author considers the reaction to the suggestion the main event - not the suggestion itself. The making of the suggestion is no more than a temporal signpost to which the reaction can be related.

Compare:
I recalled quite vividly how they had laughed when I told that joke.
Jerry was absolutely convinced that they had stolen the money when he left the room to answer the phone.
The Robertsons were shocked at how thoroughly their new puppy had destroyed the sofa when he was left alone for the day.

That said, all of these examples, including the one in the original post, could have had the verb in the when clause in the past perfect tense! But it's unnecessary for understanding the time relationships, and it is somewhat inelegant stylistically -- too many "had"s, maybe?

CJ

Re: other vs. others

Mister Micawber — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 16:54:16 GMT

A joke, of sorts. Tunnel vision is being preoccupied with what is directly in front of you, and noticing nothing of the surroundings. I was focussed on your other / others problem and did not notice the lack of concord between the verb and the subject in the dependent clause. California Jim, that practical man of language, caught it immediately.

"if it be"

Anonymous — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:52:54 GMT

Hi,
Upon reading English newspapers I have many times come across if-clauses formed with "if" plus "be (infinitive)". I do not find any such rule in my Grammar books. Example: "If music be the food of love, download". Why does it say "be" and not "is"? I understand that such "if - be - phrases" are more often found in old or literary texts, but the above joke from an Indian newspaper shows that this does not seem to be a general rule. Would be happy if you could clarify.
Thanks, Burkhard

Re: Verb Tense in Clause after Sensation Verb

CalifJim — Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:55:54 GMT

"see", "hear", (and others) are catenative verbs which take the base form of the verb in catenative constructions. They often can take the gerund form as well.

I saw the car go into the woods.
I heard the neighbors take out the trash.
I saw the car moving toward us.
I heard the neighbors telling jokes.

A "that" clause is typically necessary to use the fully inflected form of the second verb:

I saw that the car [went / was going / had gone / had been going] into the woods.
I saw that the car [was moving / moved / had been moving / had moved] toward us.

CJ