Search results for 'tag:Learning English tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Learning English' and 'Clauses'

Re: Unreal condition in the past

Anonymous — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:37:03 GMT

Hi,

This is part of what Roger Woodham said when responding to a question. This is from BBC Learning English about mixed conditionals.

Roger Woodham said this in her response to a question:

mixed second / third conditional

The other possibility, though I think this is less common, is when we have a type 2 conditional in the if-clause (if + past simple) followed by a type 3 conditional (would've + past participle) in the main clause.

With this combination, we are describing ongoing circumstances in relation to a previous past event. Consider these examples:

If you weren't such a poor dancer, you would've got a job in the chorus line in that musical.

If you weren't so blind to his faults, you would've realised that he was out to swindle you.

He's old enough to come home by himself, but can you just see him across the busy road?

I am particularly puzzled by the part "describing ongoing circumstances." Should it be for only ongoing circumstances??

Re: third conditional

Anonymous — Mon, 19 May 2008 10:33:11 GMT

Thank you, Mr. M and Marius. Can anyone shed some light on what Roger Woodham is saying here to a question about a third conditional in BBC LEARNING ENGLISH?

Now, Elena, as well as talking about things that didn't happen, we also use the third conditional to talk about things that did happen but that might not have happened. In other words, we use it to both to describe past action and to regret past inaction. If we are referring to things that did happen, we need a not in the if-clause of the following conditional sentence. Compare the following:

I received some really excellent training for this job. Had I not been trained in this way, I wouldn't have survived in the job for very long.

When my car broke down, I had to run very fast all the way to the station. If I hadn't run so fast, I would surely have missed the train.

Re: scope

blackcheetah — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:34:09 GMT

well ,I think the When-clause is within the scope of that-clause.as for reasons , I can't find a better one, just by felling.

However, Learning English sometimes needn't know the stucture and meaning of sentences very exactly. Some sentences in all the language can have two or more meanings.To guess the exact one,the best way is by infer it through context.

Classifying Sentences

Tumbling — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:56:56 GMT

Will someone please check my homework. If I am doing it wrong will you please correct me and tell me what I am doing wrong before my quiz tomorrow.

Ex 1

Classifying Sentence according to structure

Underline each subordinate clause in the paragraph below. On the line before each sentence classify the sentence by writing simp for simple, comp for compound, cx for complex or cd. -cx for compound-complex

(11) CX Juan Gonzalez plays for the Texas Ranger, in the American

League.

(12) CX When he was only twenty-three years old, he hit his

one-hundredth career home run.

(13) CD. - CX He is proud of his Puerto

Rican heritage and on his Rangers cap, he wears a pin that shows a tiny

Puerto Rican flag

(14) Comp His native language is Spanish, and now he

is learning English, because many American sportswriters keep asking him

for interviews.

(15) Comp He wants to cooperate, but he often turns

down interview request.

(16) Comp He feels that his English is not yet

good enough, and he fears that he will be misunderstood or misquoted.

(17) SIMP The fans who are most important to Juan Gonzalez are

young people.

(18) CX Because he wants to help young people, he

spends a lot of time with children.

(19) SIMP He does this in the United

States and in Puerto Rio.

(20) SIMP He believes that sports stars should be good role models for their young fans.

Re: would / used to ?

Philip — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:23:49 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Hello! I've got a question about a word usage. Hope someboy to help me.

There would be a big tree near the pond. ----1 This is the beginning of a conditional sentence, so an if-clause is necessary.

A grammar test book says that the above sentence is wrong. It should be,

There used to be a big tree near the pond. -----2TThThis sentence is correct

When I read the two sentences, I think # 2 sounds better. But why is the # 1 wrong?

If anybody knows the reason, would you please help me?

thank you ...

I believe that what you are alluding to is the use of either 'would' or 'used to' to describe habitual action in the past. "When I was a child, I would/used to get up much earlier than I do now". It is unfortunate that we use the two constructions to say the same thing, when 'would' has another use that is altogether different. It makes it very difficult for those learning English as a second language. It's an example of what I affectionately call "sloppy English".

Re: at though she is / were

Goodman — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:38:25 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:

1. She walks as though she is drunk.

2. She walks as though she was drunk.

3. She walks as though she were drunk.

What is the difference between the three sentences? I believe #2 and #3 have the same meaning.

This website may be helpful in answering your questuions:

Learning English | BBC World Service

Like though, as though and as if are subordinating conjunctions. We use as if or as though when we want to give an explanation for something which may not ...
www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv136.shtml - 31k -

Kenneth G. Wilson (1923â). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993.

as if, as though (conjs.)


These two are currently interchangeable in meaning in Standard English, and the verbs in the clauses they introduce may now be either indicative, as in He looked as if [as though] he was going to cry, or subjunctive, as in He looked as if [as though] he were going to cry, apparently without effect on level. See also LIKE (2).	1

Re: Change English As You Wish

Cool Breeze — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:20:32 GMT

Thank you to all those who have posted their suggestions to my little imagination game. Some have taken it very seriously thinking they would have to relearn English after the 'changes'. This was meant to be just a game, not for those wo take everything seriously, and of course in this game everybody automatically speaks and writes the new English fluently without having to learn anything.

In the colonial days several European languages got exported as taking peoples' lands from them was considered a virtue and something to be proud of. This resulted in some languages being more dominant than others. Spanish and French were the most important languages till the end of the 19th century when the USA rose to be No. 1 in world politics and commerce. The foundation for English as the lingua franca had been laid.

The world should be thankful. There is no such thing as an easy language; every language is difficult if the learner aims at perfection. However, there are grammatically and structurally far more complicated languages than English, and we should consider ourselves lucky it's only the spelling that drives us nuts about English, not inflections.

Here are the changes I would make to English:

A. Spelling: Grammar Geek, Alienvoord and Englishuser would all make changes to the spelling, and indeed so would I. I think Englishuser puts it nicely: "I'd certainly change the spelling of words with an 'irregular' spelling, that is, words whose pronunciation can't be determined basing on how they're spelt." I would also accept more than one spelling for a word in many cases.

There isn't enough space and I don't have enough time and patience to cover all the tens of thousands of words this entails, but here are some examples of new spellings:

OLD                                 NEW
fight                                  fite
perceive                           perceive, percieve
tough                                 tuf
though                              tho
knight                                 nite
caste                                 cast
pace                                 pace, pase
write                                 rite

B. Grammar: English grammar is so uncomplicated due to 500 years of simplifying foreign influence (200 years of Vikings and 300 years of Normans) that English grammar really couldn't be made much simpler even if it were an artificial language. However, as a foreigner I'll continue the foreign influence and enforce the following changes.

1. I will get rid of the third person singular s and has. Henceforth we will say: He speak English. He have a car. He have asked it twice. The s is a totally needless relic and Swedish, another Germanic language, needs no verb endings for any person even though it is more complicated than English in other respects.

2. There will be no irregular verbs from now on with the exception of to be and the defective or modal auxiliaries, which will remain unchanged. Examples of new English:

OLD                                 NEW
He saw us.                        He seed us.
He has written a letter.    He have rited a letter.
Who wrote it?                   Who/Hu rited it?
I haven't hit him.               I haven't hitted him.
I ran too fast.                    I runned too fast.

3. I'll return English to its pre-Shakespearean state with regard to questions and negations. Henceforth, English will be like the other Germanic languages and questions will be asked without the totally unnecessary do auxiliary:

OLD                                  NEW
Do you speak English? Speak you English?
I didn't see him.                  I seed not him.
Did you do it?                   Doed you it?

4. All past participles can be used attributively before nouns: a rited report, a catched fish, two asked questions, a surrendered country.

5. There will be no irregular plurals for nouns:

OLD                                     NEW
two men                               two mans
many children                      many childs
these phenomena              these phenomenons
two geese                           two gooses

6. Any uncountable noun can be used as a countable if the need arises:

OLD                                    NEW
two pieces of advice         two advices
two news items                  two newses

7. I'll leave the articles, pronouns, numerals, adjectives and adverbs as they are. There are countless idioms where the articles are used contrary to reason and logic, but non-natives' incorrect usage seldom gives rise to misunderstandings. Besides, who am I to deprive English of all its fascination?
Those who don't like sentences like He runned too fast have my permission to say He runned too fastly if they prefer that.

8. Since there are so few inflections, the word order will just have to remain as it it with a few exceptions. For the sake of clarity, some minor changes will take effect: You Only Live Twice has to be renamed (and rerecorded) You Live Only Twice. (Fortunately Nancy Sinatra is still alive, she can rerecord it next week!)

9. Some changes in clause equivalents would make English more exact, but I am reluctant to make them. I'll let English remain somewhat inexact. It is plain impossible to make it exact in every respect without more inflections, and more inflections would make learning English a more laborious task for non-natives.

Consider these examples:

Having said that, he left the room. (After he had said that, he left the room.)
"Having said that, he did win Wimbledon two years ago." (A tennis commentator has said something slightly negative about a player, then decides to mention a positive thing about him. The sentence does not usually mean: After he had said that, he won Wimbledon two years ago. But of course it could mean that, too.)

English abounds in ambiguity and native speakers disagree on what common verbs such as the defective auxiliaries mean in some contexts. I'll let all that be as it is, I know when to give up.

Vocabulary: I'll add some short words that can be used to indicate surprise, disbelief etc. in spoken English in sentences like: He goed there? You like not it! Haven't you seed it? I won't write the words here, though, I just think English could and should have more finesse and be more expressive and colorful.

I won't delete a single word from the vocabulary, on the contrary, I'll add a way of forming a word denoting a person from a town or a village. English already has many such words but on the whole they are rather impractical: a Liverpudlian, a Memphian. Some are easier: a Londoner, a New Yorker. But what do you call a person who lives in Timbuktu?

From now on, the ending will always be er: a Liverpooler, a Memphiser, an Uppsalaer, a Hong Konger, a Tokyoer, a Timbuktuer. This will add hundreds of thousands of words to English. I'll also let you call a Swede a Swedener and a Thai a Thailander if you wish.

I have simplified the grammar a little and that should help non-native learners in particular. I have left the basic structure of the language untouched except for the disappearance of do in questions and negations. But even this is actually a minor thing since it just returns English to the early 16th century.

I have increased the vocabulary a great deal. Every three-year-old Finn knows what to call a person from Timbuktu once he is told there is such a place. English-speaking kids should be able to do the same.

Cheers
CB

Re: Can this stand alonewithout a semi-colon?

Clive — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:24:32 GMT

Hi Pinenut,

Thanks for the response. I seem to have given you the impression that grammar is not important to me. That certainly was not my intention. My interest in grammar is why I participate in this forum and try to help people. I do the best I can to clarify things rather than to spread confusion.

I don't think we are disagreeing over how to put words together to make satisfactory English. We are debating the definition of gramatical terms. I'm sure such things evolve and change to some extent over time, and to reflect trends in linguistic thinking, so it's quite possible that my approach might be characterized as being more traditional.

I certainly find it hard to consider seriously that 'to be or not to be' consists of two clauses.

I find that the students who enter my class after several years of learning English have the same general idea about clauses as I do, and together we can build on this foundation to enhance their English. In other words, it works for me and for my class and seems to enable us to produce a satisfactory end-product. It seems to me that's the final test, is it not?

Best wishes, Clive

Re: have or get

rishonly — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:01:51 GMT

Milky wrote:
Bamtori wrote:

"Usually when you have a boob job, you get these two big blobs in the middle of nowhere,..."

Teachers,

After all this time of learning English, I'm still having trouble with when to use "have" and not "get" and vice versa.

Please help~

In the first clause, you can use either. Formally, we use "have" in such situation when we arrange to have something done to or for us. Informally, we can use "get". The second clause talks about the result and we can use "get" or expressions such as "end with" or "end up with".

Formally: "I'm having a boob job." (Arranging to have a boob job.)

Informally: I'm getting a boob job." (There, "getting" could also mean "purchasing", but probably means "arranging to have".)

Other examples:

I having/getting my hair cut.

She having/getting the house painted next week.

He had/got his car fixed so we can now go away for the weekend.

I [am] having/getting my hair cut.

She [is] having/getting the house painted next week.

These sentences are missing "am" and "is", respectively.

Re: have or get

milky — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:36:38 GMT

Bamtori wrote:

"Usually when you have a boob job, you get these two big blobs in the middle of nowhere,..."

Teachers,

After all this time of learning English, I'm still having trouble with when to use "have" and not "get" and vice versa.

Please help~

In the first clause, you can use either. Formally, we use "have" in such situation when we arrange to have something done to or for us. Informally, we can use "get". The second clause talks about the result and we can use "get" or expressions such as "end with" or "end up with".

Formally: "I'm having a boob job." (Arranging to have a boob job.)

Informally: I'm getting a boob job." (There, "getting" could also mean "purchasing", but probably means "arranging to have".)

Other examples:

I'm having/getting my hair cut.

She's having/getting the house painted next week.

He had/got his car fixed so we can now go away for the weekend.