Search results for 'tag:Marriage tag:Prepositions' matching tags 'Marriage' and 'Prepositions'

Re: ended up with/in divorce

Clive — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:36:28 GMT

Hi,

They got married last year, but ended up with/in divorce.

Do both with and in fit in the above and mean about the same to you?

The basic sentence does not sound terribly natural to me. I suggest these versions.

They got married last year, but ended up divorced. ie adjective . . . adjective

Their marriage last year ended up with/in divorce. ie noun . . . noun In this version, both prepositions are OK but I think 'in' is a lot more common.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Goodman — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:13:52 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:

Dear all,

First, I would like to thank you in advance for reading this rather lengthy post of mine. I do need to lay out my thinking and reasoning as wide as I can so you can best help me to untangle my own confusion knot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a whole day contemplating on freeing myself from this closet of my mind regarding the choice between grammatical correctness and expressional naturalness, I would like to re-explore the marriage between the simple past tense and present perfect - one more time.

As CalifJim clearly explains in one of his writings, simple past represents time specificity; while present perfect serves time non-specificity (i.e., sometime in the past, including the recent time frame). Obviously, âspecificâ and ânon-specificâ cannot be the same. However, in terms of time, a ânon-specific time setâ does include a âspecific time elementâ (e.g., yesterday afternoon is âspecificâ in the time scale between the moment of big-bang and this very moment).

In addition to that, we all know a ânon-specific recent pastâ does not include a âspecific far pastâ â distinctively, the former is younger than the later.

Therefore, (I think) the distinction between âinclusionâ and âseparationâ must have contributed to the way people express themselves.

Moreover, when âthe lastâ enters a picture â as we often compare âthe last yearâ with âlast yearâ â even though, it symbolizes the last one of any sequence (i.e., non-specific), its nature conveys time-specificity â all are before it and none is after it.

In comparing to âthe lastâ - âthe bestâ or âthe worstâ is quality-based and time-unbiased â none or more are before it and none or more are after it; and they are all inferior. However, the superlative âtheâ does indicate a uniqueness, so when it happens, the time involved is specific!

After the above postulation, I can reason that:

âWhat was the best movie you have ever seen?â means âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the best?â - and that must be logical and natural since âall movies you have seenâ covers the time you saw the first one to the time you saw the last one (time non-specific) and âthe bestâ associates with one point in time (time specific). Time inclusion is in play. (Note that: âWhat is the movie you have seen best?â makes little sense).

Now comes the expression that raised different opinions in the earlier thread (Post: 441847 ):

âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â â If we think it means âWhat was the movie that you have seen last?â, then we are trapped in a time conflict because âyou have seen lastâ combines time non-specific present perfect âhave seenâ and time specific âlastâ to support the same object, the movie.

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation?

If we allow the interpretation of â Among â¦you have ...., which one was the â¦â, then we can conclude that simple past and present perfect can comingle provided that we look at the sentence from the âtime inclusionâ point of view.

Now letâs move on to the next angle of this marriage dealing with the name of great grandmothers (GGMs).

If a GGM passed away far back in the past, should we ask âWhat is her name?â or âWhat was her name?. Some say, âName is name - dead or alive!â thus, âWhat is her name?â is fine. However, some might disagree - âName is not mortal; it is buried with the dead!â (side note: in some part of the world, the dead is given a new name since people would not dare to call out the old one disrespectfully); thus, they would go with âWhat was her name?â

For the first set of people, they would prefer this question: âWhat is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â For the second set of people, âwasâ should replace âisâ.

Question #2: If âwasâ is the better choice, do we face the same problem like that of âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â

Letâs compare âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â and âWhat was the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â Structurally, the two sentences are very similar, except that âhave livedâ comes with preposition âwithâ. (I think) that difference must have allowed us to easily accept the second one. Intuitively, we must have associated âhave livedâ with the GGM and âwasâ with the name.

In other words, if what I think is acceptable, then the âobject separationâ gives the sentence its naturalness and logical weight. Meanwhile, it seems odd to us to associate âhave seenâ with the movie and not with its title! The âobject uni-identificationâ causes us to question. (Side note: sometimes, we have seen a movie and remembered the actors and its story but its title). The difference between âtime inclusionâ or âtime separationâ in fact enters into our mind as a byproduct but not the cause for our confusion. Take a look at this question: "What is the title of the last movie you have played with?" Can you tell any difference between that one and "What is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?"

Finally, for those of us who believe the addition of the word ârecentlyâ would provide the âtime separationâ between ârecentlyâ (present perfect) and âwasâ (simple past) in order to resolve the seemingly faulty logic, (I think) it would not make any difference. In short, if we can convey âWhat was the movie you have seen recently called?â to mean âTell me about the movie you have seen recently â What was it called?â, then it should be acceptable â the movie becomes a whole, and the title is a part.

Thatâs it! Thank you all for trying to understand what has been going on in my mind. I am anxiously looking forward to your comments since I hope that your generosity will help me advance to a new gate on my learning journey.

Best Regards.
Hoa Thai

Hi Hoa Thai,

Let me be the brave one in the attempt to tackle this long thread, if no one already posts a reply by the time I am done with writing You obviously have a high degree of the English language and I can comfortably say most will agree. But you seem to have been bothered by what had been said in the previous posts about the mixed usage of simple past and present perfect. The problem to me really has more to do with one's logic and persepctive, rather than his grammatical knowledge, and you seems to be stuck at the sentence which you posted 2 days ago. "What was the last movie you have seen?â can not be a viably grammatical sentence no matter how we dress it. The rules I learned told me that simple past and present perfect just can't be married and expected to sound happily together. Consider this sentence "when was the last time you have talked to your ex-husband?". Do you agree or not agree that this is not a sound sentence? If you say "I haven't talked my your ex-husband after the devorce but I e-mailed him", then the conjunction [but] will validate the use of mixed tenses. But they can not exist in the same frame of sentence sturcture.

Your questions:

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â I don't think so, "what" usually requires a defined answer and "among" offers alternatives in my opinion. If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation? "Ever" in this context does not sound right. "Last" is an adjective, but not a comparative adjective as in "What was / is the most scary/ borning/ bloody movie [that] you have ever seen?" Because we are associating movies by their names which do not change even as time passed, we can use either past or present [was/ is] to refer to the movies with resepct to the rest of the context in present perfect.

By the same token, we often hear people say soemthing like: "what was the lady's name we have just met?" which is fine either with [was / is] becasue "was" paints a picture of the time she was introduced to you, and "is" paints a picture of her face with her name in general.

Other than that, I really don't know how to break it down further.

And regarding â recentlyââ¦

Itâs not a proprietary word to mean present perfect, if there is any hint / notion that this is the case, itâs not true.

"I recently took a business trip to Washington DC". Simple past with no defined time. âRecentlyâ here defined it only as short time ago.âOk

inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Hoa Thai — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:07:10 GMT

Dear all,

First, I would like to thank you in advance for reading this rather lengthy post of mine. I do need to lay out my thinking and reasoning as wide as I can so you can best help me to untangle my own confusion knot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a whole day contemplating on freeing myself from this closet of my mind regarding the choice between grammatical correctness and expressional naturalness, I would like to re-explore the marriage between the simple past tense and present perfect - one more time.

As CalifJim clearly explains in one of his writings, simple past represents time specificity; while present perfect serves time non-specificity (i.e., sometime in the past, including the recent time frame). Obviously, âspecificâ and ânon-specificâ cannot be the same. However, in terms of time, a ânon-specific time setâ does include a âspecific time elementâ (e.g., yesterday afternoon is âspecificâ in the time scale between the moment of big-bang and this very moment).

In addition to that, we all know a ânon-specific recent pastâ does not include a âspecific far pastâ â distinctively, the former is younger than the later.

Therefore, (I think) the distinction between âinclusionâ and âseparationâ must have contributed to the way people express themselves.

Moreover, when âthe lastâ enters a picture â as we often compare âthe last yearâ with âlast yearâ â even though, it symbolizes the last one of any sequence (i.e., non-specific), its nature conveys time-specificity â all are before it and none is after it.

In comparing to âthe lastâ - âthe bestâ or âthe worstâ is quality-based and time-unbiased â none or more are before it and none or more are after it; and they are all inferior. However, the superlative âtheâ does indicate a uniqueness, so when it happens, the time involved is specific!

After the above postulation, I can reason that:

âWhat was the best movie you have ever seen?â means âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the best?â - and that must be logical and natural since âall movies you have seenâ covers the time you saw the first one to the time you saw the last one (time non-specific) and âthe bestâ associates with one point in time (time specific). Time inclusion is in play. (Note that: âWhat is the movie you have seen best?â makes little sense).

Now comes the expression that raised different opinions in the earlier thread (Post: 441847 ):

âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â â If we think it means âWhat was the movie that you have seen last?â, then we are trapped in a time conflict because âyou have seen lastâ combines time non-specific present perfect âhave seenâ and time specific âlastâ to support the same object, the movie.

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation?

If we allow the interpretation of â Among â¦you have ...., which one was the â¦â, then we can conclude that simple past and present perfect can comingle provided that we look at the sentence from the âtime inclusionâ point of view.

Now letâs move on to the next angle of this marriage dealing with the name of great grandmothers (GGMs).

If a GGM passed away far back in the past, should we ask âWhat is her name?â or âWhat was her name?. Some say, âName is name - dead or alive!â thus, âWhat is her name?â is fine. However, some might disagree - âName is not mortal; it is buried with the dead!â (side note: in some part of the world, the dead is given a new name since people would not dare to call out the old one disrespectfully); thus, they would go with âWhat was her name?â

For the first set of people, they would prefer this question: âWhat is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â For the second set of people, âwasâ should replace âisâ.

Question #2: If âwasâ is the better choice, do we face the same problem like that of âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â

Letâs compare âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â and âWhat was the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â Structurally, the two sentences are very similar, except that âhave livedâ comes with preposition âwithâ. (I think) that difference must have allowed us to easily accept the second one. Intuitively, we must have associated âhave livedâ with the GGM and âwasâ with the name.

In other words, if what I think is acceptable, then the âobject separationâ gives the sentence its naturalness and logical weight. Meanwhile, it seems odd to us to associate âhave seenâ with the movie and not with its title! The âobject uni-identificationâ causes us to question. (Side note: sometimes, we have seen a movie and remembered the actors and its story but its title). The difference between âtime inclusionâ or âtime separationâ in fact enters into our mind as a byproduct but not the cause for our confusion. Take a look at this question: "What is the title of the last movie you have played with?" Can you tell any difference between that one and "What is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?"

Finally, for those of us who believe the addition of the word ârecentlyâ would provide the âtime separationâ between ârecentlyâ (present perfect) and âwasâ (simple past) in order to resolve the seemingly faulty logic, (I think) it would not make any difference. In short, if we can convey âWhat was the movie you have seen recently called?â to mean âTell me about the movie you have seen recently â What was it called?â, then it should be acceptable â the movie becomes a whole, and the title is a part.

Thatâs it! Thank you all for trying to understand what has been going on in my mind. I am anxiously looking forward to your comments since I hope that your generosity will help me advance to a new gate on my learning journey.

Best Regards.
Hoa Thai

Please take a look at my sentences!

Anonymous — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:07:25 GMT

Hi!

Please, take a look at my sentences and check if they are right:

1) When I'm at home I usually sits around.

2) In a business world some actions are taken based on the spot decisions.

3) As he didn't have money to buy a new suit, he wound up going to the marriage with the old one.

In the following sentence what's the grammar explanation for the absence of preposition:

" I thought you were( - no preposition here) downtown".

Thanks,

Dandara

Help needed!!!

Pradi — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 11:33:39 GMT

Kindly Help me in modifying with the errors in the following sentences

Instructions:

Please complete the exercises given below.
Then rename the file by adding â_your full nameâ.

e.g., Editing Test_TeenaGunt

Use the âTrack changesâ option. This will indicate any insertion or deletion made within the document in a different color.
To put this option on:

Click on âToolsâ on the main toolbar.
Select âTrack Changesâ in the drop down menu.

Â§ Save the document with the âtrack changesâ on.

Please make a note of the time taken to complete each exercise.
The objective of this exercise should be to have an output that
reflects a high standard of English while retaining the original meaning.
You may use a dictionary and/or thesaurus.

Exercise 1:

Instructions

The following is a list of sentences from documents to be published in international academic journals. Edit each sentence by correcting all errors (grammatical, typographical, etc.) and awkward constructions and modifying all informal/colloquial expressions.

1. Another example is that, when Japanese prepositions are compared with other languages, it can help students deepen their knowledge of Japanese grammer.

2. The age-related labor-force rate of women in Philippines demonstrates an M-shaped curve. This is because many married women exit their jobs following marriage and re-enter the workforce when some years are passed.

3. In the end of Fiscal Year 2004, Canadian life insurers held 32 million dollars of domestic stock, while this figure stood at a mere 20 million dollars in the end of fiscal year 2003.

4. This paper comprises of three main parts: first, we provide the findings of our study; second we describe the proposed method and third; we list results achieved though this method.

5. These observations suggest that chemical shift of the atom incorporated into the phosphole skeleton is not due to an inductive effect but a conjugated effect of the phosphole moiety.

6. Doubtlessly, students were noticed to get higher scores after following the learning pattern recommended.

7. We are hard to define the complex relation between modernity in the capitalist society and Modernism in culture only from the view of English literature because of nature of popularization.

8. If Product X was first introduced in 1995, then Product Y is believed to have been manufactured before Product X.

9. The Chinese-Indian projectâthe first of itâs kindâmet moderate success. However, the possibility remains that the interaction between two neighboring countries will have favorable consequences.

10. It reminded me of Brianâs voice, who is my cousin, and also of my fathers voice.

11. The old system, which was developed during the years of high economic growth rate has been discontinued since 2003.

12. In this study we synthesized a wide variety of polymers and their photochemical behavior was investigated.

13. Bearing this theory and the fact that sherds are very rare in the Proto-Hassuna levels of Seker al-Aheimar in mind, such a situation as in the Khabur basin may not have been unlikely to be the case in southern Iran as well.

14. The main question that should be asked is when and why does the choice of creating a new division become advisable.

15. The functions of the new machine are same as the old machine, expect for slight improvement in speed.

16. Among factors that have influence to the strategic decision of companies, researchers have proposed that the two following factors are the most influential of all.

Exercise 2:

Instructions

The following is an excerpt from a book entitled âExotic Birds of Brazil.â Edit this passage by correcting all errors (grammatical, typographical, etc.) and awkward constructions and removing all informal/colloquial expressions. Do not hesitate to rewrite entire sentences or paragraphs.

3.1 Give-and-take relationships among mixed-species flocks of birds

Through the study, we observed the seven species of birds in the flock. For each of these seven species, half of the times that I observed they were in company of other species. Or else they folaged alone. It is different from the situation of birds living in temperate forests, such as Africa, where such behaviour is seen during non-breeding season only, and not during the breeding. The reason is because during this period the birds become busy with building nests. But in Brazil despite of this, seven species were spending half each day in mixed-species flock. I already knew from books and papers that in the tropical forests, mixed-species flocks are present through the year, but to see it at first hand I wondered just why this occurred.

Not only in appearance but also the foraging technique at which each bird was respectively most proficient, was unique to each. However, comparing the technique used when each species was or was not foraging in mixed-species flock revealed the technique used to be different in six of the seven species (Figs 3, 4). The species, which showed the greatest difference, was the Crested Parrot. When foraging together with conspecifics or solitarily, the Crested Parrot sat on branches at a height of >6 ms, and flew and nabbed small insects for example bees and flies. Well, after joining a mixed-species flock the Crested Parrot comes down to a height below 6 m and starts to forage for caterpillars, centipedes, and spiders. Paradise Kingfisher also changed its foraging method from principle method of flying into air to catch insects on the wing, to one where he hovered by fluttering to catch insects residing in the foliage.

I often witnessed the Crested Parrot observing and following Red Tailed Starlings which were picking insects from the ground surface. It seems the Crested Parrot was trying to cacth the food that the Red Tailed Starling failed to capture. But, I was unable to confirm if the Crested Parrot was successful in catching any food in that way. Perhaps because in this relationship the Red Tailed Starling is aggressively dominant, the Crested Parrot could approach the Red Tailed Starling only to within a certain distance, and to have done so any closer might trigger an attack.

Re: Preposition?

Grammar Geek — Thu, 10 May 2007 02:28:13 GMT

We are going to a family wedding would be my choice. You can use "marriage ceremony" if you prefer. The preposition to use is "to."

Re: Preposition?

Hungry — Thu, 10 May 2007 01:18:25 GMT

Let me put it this way:

a. We are going to a family marriage ceremony.

b. We are going into a family marriage ceremony.

c. We are are going in a family marriage ceremony.

Which one is correct?

Preposition?

Hungry — Thu, 10 May 2007 01:11:33 GMT

Is it correct to say "We are going in a family marriage ceremony."? I am confused about the preposition. Don't I need "to/into" in the place?

Re: Antonia: squeal

Antonija — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 13:40:18 GMT

Hello everybody especially Clive,

I am going back to this thread because I again need your help. If I incorporate ''inflamation'' in the sentence, which preposition should I use?

Would not the marriage without a mistress heel, tilt and drown? Is not the mistress the hidden inflamation of adultery as well as of marriage, virus and vaccine?

Thank you

Re: Please help with wedding invitations

Philip — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:27:08 GMT

Rvw wrote:
Dictionary.com has a transitive and an intransive definition of share that might work:

v. shared, sharÂ·ing, shares
v. tr.
To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.

v. intr.
To have a share or part.
I favor the transitive definition and would therefore say ... share the joy....I would use "their" instead of "the" in this case.

I would say at the marriage. This refers more clearly to the marriage ceremony. In the marriage makes me uneasily wonder how long the guests are going to hang around. .

Great way of putting it! I believe that "marriage" used to refer only to the state of matrimony, "wedding" to the ceremony itself. "Marriage" seems to have taken over. So, the correct preposition is essential.