Search results for 'tag:Past perfect tag:Adverbs' matching tags 'Past perfect' and 'Adverbs'

Re: would rather ....

Goodman — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:47:51 GMT

This is my take:
The use of "would rather" is not restricted by time. In certain aspects, it contains a conditional element as well.
Here is some info. Hope that helps your question.

Rather than and would rather

Rather than is normally used in parallel structures: for example with two adjectives, adverbs, nouns, infinitives or -ing forms. When the main clause has a to-infinitive, rather than is normally followed by an infinitive without to. An -ing form is also possible.

I would prefer to leave now rather than wait.
You ought to admit your crime rather than defend it.
I would prefer to go in August rather than in July.
I decided to write rather than phone/phoning. (NOT â¦than to phone)
Would rather
Would rather means 'would prefer to'. It is followed by an infinitive without to.

Would you rather stay here or go home? (=Would you prefer to stay here or go home.)
Would rather + subject + past tense
We can use would rather to say that one person would prefer another or others to do something. We use a special structure with a past tense.

Donât come today, I would rather you came tomorrow. (=I would prefer you to come tomorrow.)
I would rather you posted this letter. (= I would like you to post this letter.)

To talk about past actions, a past perfect tense is possible

<EDITED by mod to credit your source.>

chossing correct tense/tense consistency

MaxMaximus — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:08:59 GMT

Greetings,

I have a pretty big favour to ask.

I've been struggling with this topic for quite awhile now.It goes without saying that my English "leaves something to be desired".

Having in mind the subtle differences that occur from using particular tenses, I have often wondered how the authors of following exercises expect anyone to choose the correct form, without providing sound and unambiguous references.

I've uploaded 2 exercises that I stumbled upon :

1. http://rapidshare.com/files/138835945/HP.txt.html
and
2.http://rapidshare.com/files/138835946/redundancy.txt.html

I have converted them into .txt files to ease moderators' job.

They present the essence of my inability to comprehend and do right.

First text:
1. First sentence, adverb "always" stands before the verb (author did not bother to put it in the brackets (always/be)). If she is dead (we don't know that until we have finished reading) or if she is not "a fighter" anymore (we are clueless about that either), - we could use Past Simple. Of course, Present Perfect is more likely choice, but the position of adverb puzzles.

2."But, prior to..." - Past Continuous or Past Perfect?

3.The sentence : "it (be)__ slow to notice..".I'm not sure whether Past Simple or Past Perfect should be used here.There is no strong reference whether this "slow noticing" occurred prior to her arrival or about the time when she came on board.

4."Those three years are not over..". The starting point is present time, but, that has nothing to do with the moment when she realized how things stand, which I know nothing about.Even the Present Simple is possible if she keeps realizing everyday that things are harder than she expected.For the rest of the paragraph I'm not certain whether Present Perfect should be used.

5."Above all,.." - from Present Simple (finds, is trying, is going to embark)...to Present Perfect (has found, has tried/has been trying, has embarked)...The tenses chosen in these sentences determine the tenses of the last paragraph in the text.

Second text:
1. First sentence: we could use Future Simple as well as Present Simple for the verb "have to"?

2. "Although no business or industry..". If there was a recent survey - do interviewed subjects still claim what they have said - or the use of Past Tense is obligatory? The word "any" is used in interrogative or negative sentences - but here, no question is being asked nor it is possible to be negative. Instead, "some" should have been used, I think.

3. "Those who have..." - Present Continuous or Present Simple? Former is more likely choice although the latter is possible also.

4. "In the past.." - as far as I know this presents the "indefinite moment in time". The Present Perfect could be used - but the position of adverb "always" confuses, again.

I would be more than grateful to anyone who can shed some light on these issues.
If I could reach to any other decent credible source I wouldn't ask for help in this way.

Thanks in advance,
Georgie.

Re: Is "There is the ..." an exceptional use?

jazzmaster — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:27:58 GMT

CalifJim

Probably not. There may be a better way to finesse this with a different wording.
Yes, but from the viewpoint of the authors and the teacher, this may be considered a harmless "white lie".
Out of curiosity, does the book actually use the words, "serious grammatical error"? Or is that your impressionistic paraphrase?

Thanks CJ

"Serious grammatical error" is my paraphrase. But when and if ESL students start to expressly state "this IS an exceptional usage", I suppose that means "these is a set rule on this and no one can break that in any shape or form".

"the simplification of the grammar at the beginning makes it much easier for them to navigate the language with confidence in the beginning stages" ... I fully concur with your view here. This indeed is the ideal way of teaching something to someone, I would say. However, the reality is that they will soon start feeding what a SVOC is, along with modifier/qualifier, the difference between a relative pronoun and adverb and all that good stuff to students who even cannot pronounce the word "English" correctly yet. I have an impression that they do present "grammatically acceptable" sentence structures, rock-solid rules and what not all at once. It is not a fun way to learn a foreign language. That is why some students grow not to like the subject after short while.

Let's say you are in a store with a hardcore grammatical ESL student, and you say:
*&@!#% !! I just realized I left my wallet home!!
... in stead of saying "It's all right, CJ, here, take $100. You can pay me back tomorrow.", (granting that he/she understood what you said), the ESL student will be too busy thinking "Why did he not say "I HAD left my wallet"? Because he is describing an event that happened obviously prior to the moment "he realized", it should be the past perfect tense, thus "I HAD left". It could be an exceptional use of the "realize ... that ...." structure but I am not sure. Or should I just point out his grammatical mistake?" ... this is the mentality of students who are being taught by those hardcore grammar books, and I am not exaggertating even a bit.

Thanks.

Re: being carried out

Mister Micawber — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:12:38 GMT

.
Hi, Sam.

I had seen a lot of victims being carried out by stretchers

1)Is this grammatically correct? -- Yes, but the past perfect is odd out of context; it demands another reference point in the past.

2) But what is the second one? (being carried out by stretchers) -- It is a non-finite clause used as an adverb. 'Being' is a present participle, the head of the non-finite clause.

3) In what situation I should use this kind of form of grammar?-- The uses are too various to mention (meaning that I cannot think of a coherent list of uses)

(Unknown 22884)OHHH I FINALLY CAN POST!!!

Jen001 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:51:40 GMT

"The Change of the Characteristics in the passage from The Hours"

The passage from the novel The Hours by Michael Cunningham is intriguing. The passage illustrates the difference between the character's characteristics in different time settings: past and present. This difference is clearly shown through the contrasting structure, imagery and language.

The structure reflects the division of the time setting and helps to contrast the different characteristics. The passage has two paragraphs, each describing the character's thoughts and perception about a same place, of the past and present. The length of each paragraph is different; the one from the past is much longer than the other one from the present. This can be related to each of the paragraph's sentence construction. In the first paragraph, about the past, the lengths of the sentences are very long. The first sentence takes eight lines, lengthened continuously within commas, semi-colons and colons. In fact, in one sentence, there are five commas, five semi-colons and a colon. This overly-continued sentence gives a sense of unfiltered, informal, and unrestricted flowing of thoughts. Moreover, the use of brackets, âsome sort of wood(cedar? Camphor?),â seems to be less sophisticated, compared to using dashes or other punctuations of the same function. However, in the second paragraph of the present, the sentence construction is shown contrastingly. The paragraph starts with a short simple sentence: âShe turns down Bleecker, goes up Thomson.â Also, in this paragraph, there are four sentences in six lines, and three of the four sentences are written in simple sentence, including the example above. Although there are a few commas in some of the sentences, there is no semi-colon, but only a colon in the last sentence. The colon is used in a very appropriate way, functioning to introduce the list of âthingsâ, such as âjewelryâ and âjackets.â Thus, within the brief and concise sentence construction, the character in the present appears to be more mature, filtered and sophisticated than in the past. However, as a result of that, the sense of youthful, unfiltered freedom cannot be found anymore in the present.

In addition to the structure, the contrasting imagery of each paragraph demonstrates further differences of the characteristic in the past and present. As both paragraphs are of the same setting, the image of the same place is described at each time. So, the consistent place makes the comparison between the two more distinctive and reliable. The imagery of the place is very vivid in the past, not only within the visual sense, but also within the auditory and olfactory senses, whereas that of the past only relies on the sense of sight. For example, in the past, âthe neighborhoodâ is depicted as âthe center of something new and wildâ in âthe city where the sound of guitars drifted all nightâ and âwhere the stores â¦ smelled the way â¦ Arab bazaars must smell.â This is detail, imaginative and lively, even the âArab bazaarsâ creates a somewhat mystical and adventurous atmosphere. This interesting and passionate depiction is being minimized in the present into three words: an âimitation of itself.â It is now âa watered-down carnival for tourists,â which gives a sense of inactivity and boredom. Also, the stores now âall sell essentially the same things,â such as âsouvenir T-shirts.â This seems to be dull, with no excitement or creativity or passion. This changed imagery, depicted by the character, rather shows the change in the character's perception. The change in perception is demonstrated more clearly within the notion of the âdoorâ and âalley.â In the past, she says, âif you passed through the wrong door or down the wrong alley you would meet a fate,â however, in the present, she âknows that behind these doors, and down these alleys lies nothing more or less than people living their lives.â In the past, she seems to be more concerned with the 'inner' world of thought or imagination. Whereas in the present, she seems to be more grounded in the external world of physical reality. As like the previously discussed change in the sentence structure, she is now more sophisticated, knowledgeable and realistic than the past. Also, as like the image of the place, her perception changed from the creative, interesting and adventurous to the boring, predictable and filtered way. Thus, the contrasting imagery of the past and present reflects the similar change in the character's perception.

While the structure and the imagery convey the distinctive change in the characteristics of the character, the contrasting use of language supports those differences. More specifically, the diction [dash]shown in the past and the present[dash] is comparable. Reflecting the imagery of the varied senses, the words and expressions used in the past are also varied and animated, such as âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ describing the smell of the stores. These two expressions, âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ are contrasting; they express the diversity of the object. Moreover, the speaker creates a non-existing adjective, âdung-y.â The extra adding of â-yâ grants a more animated image, and it gives a sense of freedom and even somewhat childishness. The âsmellâ is then described as âsomething fruitily, fertilely rotting.â Again, she creates a non-existing adverb, âfruitily,â expressing the scent rather vividly, which would be sour as it ârots.â The other adverb âfertilelyâ contributes to create a sense of abundance and richness of the imagery. However, the use of those two positive adverbs, modifying the negative verb ârottingâ seems to be oxymoron in âfruit[full]â or âfertile,â as well as the use of adjective âdisreputable,â following ânew and wild.â The oxymoron adds an unpredictable sense to the imagery and hence to the depicter's thoughts. On the other hand, in the present, the adjectives used to describe the âcityâ and the âstores,â are ânothing,â âless,â âsame,â and âstill.â All of them are negative and reflect the boredom, dullness and hopelessness. More significantly, the speaker uses the adverb, âGrotesquelyâ before describing how âthe same bars and coffeehouses are still [th]ereâ, showing the character's cynical characteristic. So does the use of the adjective âcheapâ for the goods at the stores. Thus, in the past, the character uses language interestingly [dash] it is diverse, lively and creative [dash] whereas that of the past is inactive, hopeless and cynical. These differences are directly reflecting the character's contrasting, changed characteristic.

The change of the characteristic seems to be abrupt. As a cause, something would have happened to her, that is not shown in the passage. However, an assumption can be drawn within the evidences from the passage. There is a shift in the first paragraph within âHere,â showing the shifted tense from the past to the past perfect. In the past perfect, there is a scene of Clarissa, the major character, and her boyfriend Richard. She seems to appreciate Richard a lot, for example, she does not use the pronoun 'he' for âRichard,â even though he is the only male character. So, in a sentence, Richard is successively repeated three times, âwith Richard, when Richard â¦ when Richard.â Moreover, she describes his appearance in detail; he âwas nineteen,â âa firm-featured, hard-eyed, not-quite-beautiful dark-haired boy with an impossibly long and graceful, very pale neck.â So, to describe Richard, she combines an adjective and a noun to create a single adjective, such as âhard-eyed.â This shows her seriousness about describing him precisely. His âimpossibly longâ and âvery paleâ neck would seem negative, if not for the complementary adjective âgraceful.â Also, the adverb âimpossiblyâ gives a sense of special and unusual feeling for the person. Besides the use of language, the use of punctuation should also be noted. There are many commas, causing the sentences to seem choppy. This would be imitating the feeling of uncertainty and the tension in the situation. The uncertainty of the situation is shown in the line, ââ¦about what? A kiss? Had Richard kissed her, or had she, Clarissaâ¦,â also the tension created as they âhad certainly argued.â Then, the reason for the âargu[ment]â is explained: âClarissa wanted her freedom and Richard wanted, well, too much.â It is notable that as Richard âwanted â¦ too muchâ relating to the âkiss,â the pronoun 'he' is used as âdidn't he always?â In this case, however, the pronoun 'he' seems to more likely indicate every 'man', rather than particularly âRichard.â Thereafter the paragraph ends, and the paragraph of the present starts. It is not sure whether the abrupt change in Clarissa's characteristic is due to âRichardâ or not. Although it is not, it is evident that Clarissa once considered and cared about him quite specially.

Despite of the uncertain reason, the change in the Clarissa's characteristic from the past to the present is shown clearly throughout the contrasting structure, imagery and language. The characteristic includes the thoughts and perception, which were unrestricted, unfiltered, creative and animated in the past; whereas in the present, they are shown restricted, filtered, dull and inactive. The change is extreme, but no particular evidence for the extremity is being suggested, except the short scene with Richard. Thus, this passage not only introduces the setting and the character, but also evokes the reader's curiosity: What has happened to Clarissa?

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

I really really really appreciate for your help... Thank you..!

Re: 'never had' or 'had never'

Clive — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:48:21 GMT

Hi,

Which of the following is correct? and why?

"I am sure you never had heard this before."

"I am sure you had never heard this before."

You can say either, but #2 is much more common. It's idiomatic, ie we like to say it that way.

Also, consider what happens when you repllace 'never' with 'not'. Now, #1 is definitely wrong. Between the auxiliary verb and the main verb is the favoured place for such adverbs.

Are you sure your context, if you have one, justifies the use of the Past Perfect?

Best wishes, Clive

past perfect

Kooyeen — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:22:59 GMT

Hi,
little question:
I know I can use the simple past instead of the the present perfect with some adverbs, like "already", "just", ect. What about using the simple past instead of the past perfect? That's common, but I don't kow if it is still common when some adverbs are used. Examples:

I (have) already finished my homework, and now I have nothing to do. <--- ok, in the present
I (had) already finished my homework, and I had nothing to do. <--- this is in the past, can I leave out "had" and use the simple past?

I (have) just finished my homework, and now I have nothing to do. <--- ok, in the present
I (had) just finished my homework, and I had nothing to do. <--- this is in the past, can I leave out "had" and use the simple past?

Thanks

Re: Had vowed or vowed

Case Assigner — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:08:23 GMT

You have to use the Past Perfect to indicate that something happened before an event you are talking about. Sometimes it is not necessary to use the Past Perfect, especially when there are introducing adverbs like before or whatever. But to make clear that they voted before that rally, you have to use had vowed. Otherwise the sentence may become ambigous.

Re: the present I wished / hoped for

Pastsimple — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:57:18 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:
Hi Pastsimple -

Ironically, you should have used the simple past "I used this phrase." The combination of "today" and what was probably a single use makes simple past appropropriate.

If you in fact did say it several times today and were planning on saying it again, then "I have used" would be okay - but I don't think that's what you meant.

If you had a "make a wish" situation (we do that when we blow out birthday candles, for example) then your "[that] I wished for" is fine.

In general, I think the most natural way to say it is "The present I have been hoping for..." because you didn't hope just once, but probably off and on for a long time.

Thanks for the answer.

"The present I have been hoping for" sounds really nice but I'm sure I can change the tense depending on the context, can't I?

Examples:

1. A pair of socks?! The present I have been hoping for was a new car!

2. She got a new car for Christmas. It was the present she was / had been hoping for.

3. He got a pair of socks. However, the present he was / had been hoping for was a new car.

Could you answer some more questions, please?

Here they are:

- Are the tenses in the above sentences correct?
- Can I substitute the past progressive for past perfect progressive in those sentences (as shown) ? I'd say so because the context makes the meaning clear. Well, at least in my opinion.
- If I wanted to add the adverb "secretly", I'd insert it right before the verb "hoping" in all the above sentences, wouldn't I?

P.S. Surprisingly, I did first write "I used this phrase" and changed it to the present perfect only after I reread my post. Maybe I should think less when writing in English.

Re: Is it wrong?

rishonly — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:16:59 GMT

4) Mary had shared an apartment with me before she found a job out-of âstate.

This calls for past perfect tense to depict the time line of something happened in the past and finished in the past.

The sharing took place sometime in the past and finished in the past before

another event took place.

One quick point related to this topic. When the time adverbs-- like "after" or "before"--clearly show the sequence of events, it is OK to use simple past for both events. So, in this sentence, "had shared" or "shared" would convey the same meaning.