Search results for 'tag:Present perfect tag:Possessives' matching tags 'Present perfect' and 'Possessives'

Re: Several corporations began/have begun

CalifJim — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:01:07 GMT

MaverickK
But can you tell me why is "began" wrong here? And should we use "have <verb>" with similar sentences having the since clause.

To be honest, it doesn't strike me as wrong, but I think the test-makers prefer you to use the present perfect (have begun) with a since clause as a matter of style.

The same is true of the other parts of that sentence. They want you to decide on the basis of style, not grammar, so it's not a matter of which is correct. The sentences are all grammatically correct. And the test-makers have already provided their answer on which one they regard as stylistically correct. They prefer you not to use possessives with apostrophes, it appears, and neither are they happy with the case where two verbs occur together (how the funds they manage perform)

Re: Has or Have

Goodman — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:53:54 GMT

I have two cars -in this context, "have" is a verb which means to be in possession of .
I have known John for 10 years. -"have" is a a modal word which helped the verb "known" to form present perfect tense.

She has a good job- being possessive of
She has done a good job. - she accomplished something well.

Re: several grammar questions (2)

Avangi — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:45:23 GMT

Hela wrote:

Dear teachers,

1) How would you qualify this time of genitive, please? Which "title" would you give it? Is it some sort of "human activities"? but I don't really like this.

love's spirit, science's influence, my life's aim, duty's call . wow! I remember genitive as a Latin case 60 years ago. What do you mean by "time"? Your examples are all possessive. Joe's dog= the dog of Joe. Love's spirit=the spirit of love.   What am I missing?

2) Which tenses would you use in the following sentences and why?

a) Weather conditions have improved/improved (?) during the the last few days. Present perfect means the action has been [recently] completed. Simple past would mean it happened at some time in the past. The use of "during" means it was a continuing process. "Last few days" means it continued up to the present, at which time it was completed.(Present Perfect)

- Is it possible to say "the weather conditions" or is it definitely wrong? yes

- can we say "during the last days" = without "few"? yes, but it sometimes means the last days of the universe.

b)There has been / was (?) a real fall (?) in that town's population over/during (?) the last decade.Same tense situation as example 2.  Something happened over an extended period which just ended. "Over" and "during" both work, in my humble opinion.

c)He ~~should~~ showed/assured ??? him that he doesn't have the time / time (?) to pick up the children from/at (?) school. I say both choices are acceptable in both your red group and your black group.

Woops! where did the colors go?

- Would you please tell me if the article here is obligatory and why? Why not? the time=the time required / time=any time   Both work.

- which preposition should be used? are both possible? ANSWERED

3) âDid you do both maths exercises? The first was easier than the second.â âThat's right, the first was the easier of the two.â

- Is the "M" of math capitalized ? + should we say "math" or "maths" (with âsâ = Br. Eng ; without Â« s Â» = Am. Eng ?) Math would be capitalized if you said, "I just signed up for Math." I doubt "maths" would be used in this context in either domain, but I could be wrong.

- Would you please tell me when one should use âbothâ and âthe twoâ? Is it wrong to say âdid you do the two maths exercises...â and âthe first was the easier of bothâ ? Both choices work in the first example but only "the two" works in the second.

4) My mother left on her holiday/vacation (correct?)/ went on holiday(~~s?)~~/vacation a few weeks ago.

5) I have to pick her up at/from (?) the airport on her return / when she arrives (correct?).I think these are all okay. "From" would be questioned by some.

Many thanks,   Man, I needa break!

Hela

Re: 2 questions

Newguest — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:52:32 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:

1.I know that I can write: "The walls of Jerusalem" How about "The Jerusalem walls" There is neither "of" nor possessive form yet it's correct, why? -- Because Jerusalem is serving as an adjective.

2. "Our company will be wound up after its aims for which it was established have been achieved and its assets have been exhausted." How about the tenses in this sentence. Can I use past simple and present perfect in the same sentence.-- Yes; all the verbs in a sentence needn't be the same tense; it depends on the time relationships of the individual actions. Here the establishment is completed, but the aims have not yet been achieved and the assets have not yet been exhausted.

What if I write "aims for which it has been established" -- No; the establishment is finished and rooted solidly in the past.

So is it Ok to say: "books pages" instead of "pages of the books" or "books' pages"

How about: "Company Council" instead of "Council of the Company" or "Company's Council"

As for the second sentence: I think it's possible and correct to write "for which it has been established" it would mean, in my opinion, that the company and its aims were started in the past but they continue right up to the point of speaking, to this very day!

So, I guess, it doesn't matter which tense I will use, both are correct. That's my opinion

cheers

Re: 2 questions

Mister Micawber — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:55:35 GMT

1.I know that I can write: "The walls of Jerusalem" How about "The Jerusalem walls" There is neither "of" nor possessive form yet it's correct, why? -- Because Jerusalem is serving as an adjective.

2. "Our company will be wound up after its aims for which it was established have been achieved and its assets have been exhausted." How about the tenses in this sentence. Can I use past simple and present perfect in the same sentence.-- Yes; all the verbs in a sentence needn't be the same tense; it depends on the time relationships of the individual actions. Here the establishment is completed, but the aims have not yet been achieved and the assets have not yet been exhausted.

What if I write "aims for which it has been established" -- No; the establishment is finished and rooted solidly in the past.

2 questions

Newguest — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:26:08 GMT

1.I know that I can write: "The walls of Jerusalem" How about "The Jerusalem walls" There is neither "of" nor possessive form yet it's correct, why?

2. "Our company will be wound up after its aims for which it was established have been achieved and its assets have been exhausted."

How about the tenses in this sentence. Can I use past simple and present perfect in the same sentence. What if I write "aims for which it has been established"

thanks

Re: another set of questions...

Clive — Tue, 15 May 2007 21:28:24 GMT

Hi,

1. Can I say "Would you mind (me) opening the window" ? Why not?

We say it a lot, but many people who love grammar feel that it is more correct to use a possessive with the gerund opening', in the same way that you would say 'Do you mind my question?'

2. "I regret selling my old flat" - according to the answer key, this one should be transformed into "I wish I hadn't sold my old flat" <<< OK and I'm wondering why not into "I wish I didn't sell my old flat" Could you explain me that?

When using 'wish' like this, you have to go one tense further back into the past. eg If you want a better job right now, you'd say 'I wish that I had a better job' and not 'I wish that I have a better job'.

3. "People saythat he was a very good teacher when he was younger" - the answer key says this "He is said to have been a very good teacher when he was younger" Why is that? I don't understand why the present perfect is used there... I mean, there is a specific time given "when he was younger" ... it belongs to the past, doesn't it? so how come present perfect instead of past simple?

'To have been . . . ' describes a state that existed in the past.

What is it you want to say, "He was said to be a very good teacher when he was younger"? Yes, you could say that, but it means that people said that in the past, whereas the original statement tells us that people say this now.

4. Is it ok to say "Despite his inability to swim, he decided to apply for the job as a lifeguard" ? Yes.

5. Can I replace "managed" with "succeeded" in "Mr and Mrs Smith were very happy when they managed to seel their flat " ?

Yes. But the meaning is not 100% the same. 'Manage' focuses on the arranging of the sale, and implies that is was not easy. 'Succeed' focuses on the fact that they did not fail.

6. Can I replace "There's no use" with "It's no sense " or "It's no point" in "There's no use discussing it any longer" ? Why not?

The common phrases are 'There's no use / point / sense . . .'

Again, there can be small differences in meaning. 'No use' focuses on the fact that nothing useful will result from discussion. 'No sense' focuses on the fact that it's 'stupid' to discuss it. 'No point' focuses on the fact that there is no reason to discuss it.

7. Would you choose "practice", "experience" or "opportunity" in the following sentence : "She had 6 months of work _______ while she was in England/while being in England"
'Experience' is the standard term that is commonly used when speaking of work.

Don't say while being in England, it's odd and clumsy.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: necessity and not possession

milky — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 03:21:57 GMT

According to most scholars*, in OE, general use of have had the meaning of pure possession, with limited disribution of other uses of have that expressed possession and a nuance of obligation. Later, and dates are unclear, have for pure possession became bleached of its possessive meaning and the obligative meaning dominated - in such as I have a letter to write.

*See Visser, Beneviste, Kirshner, et al.

It is clear that in modern use, most speakers and listeners identify more than just possession, and often no possession at all, in such forms. Speakers who try, out of habit or adherence to traditional grammar rules, to impose the meaning of possession on all appearances of such forms, are clearly in error.

Re: necessity and not possession

MrPedantic — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:15:14 GMT

Milky wrote:
Summary:

Now, the discussion began from the point that many grammarians, ESL teachers, and people such as you, give the name possessive to the type of constructions above. The consequence of such labelling has led to many NNESs, and quite a few NESs, getting confused.

You're making quite a leap here. I haven't given "the name possessive" to anything. I've answered your question about whether it relates to necessity or possession, that's all.

Milky wrote:
They ask where the possession is in such examples #1 and #2 above. Grammarians, English teachers, and NESs such as you, normally reply to studentsâ questioning by telling them all about a concept called abstract possession, and that explanation often leaves the students more confused. Why?

If you can point me to the post in which I mentioned "abstract possession", I'll be interested to read all about it.

Milky wrote:
Traditionalist normally fob students off by telling them to accept the idea of possession and to get on with the next exercise, but such academic copouts are not educational. Students need to press for better answers. They need to voice their intuitions and share their doubts.

I don't know who "Traditionalist" is (though he obviously isn't, to judge by his curiously plural verb); but point me to the post in which he tells students to "get on with the next exercise", and I'll be suitably stern with him.

Milky wrote:

Now, quite a few readers have noticed/felt that many âhave + obj + to + Vâ sentences express different levels of necessity, obligation, compulsion and/or ability. Myself, I would say that in examples 1-3 above, possession, in any normal sense of the word, is not present throughout. I would say that in any default reading of that example #1 we could fairly say that possession and obligation are involved. In #2, I would say that possession is not being expressed (where is this email that you have?). In #3, in any default reading, possession is being expressed. Beyond such default readings, things get a little more complicated. Context, in the wide sense of that word, and cotext add meaning and force us to reconsider out inferences.

You're being rather literal in your idea of possession. I've said all along that "possession" should be taken in a loose and figurative sense.

Milky wrote:

So, we come to these sentences, for example:

I have only one more sum to do and then I can go out to play.

I have only one more email to write and then I can go to the pub with you.

So you ask how one gets to readings of obligation involved in the first one and no obligation, or remote obligation involved in the second? Well, that question is not easy to answer, but I feel that a combination of knowing that many âhave + obj + to + Vâ constructions signal necessity, obligation, etc. all by themselves, i.e. even when decontextualised. It seems that our minds hold examples of such forms and then attach meaning each time we come across them. Those attached meanings go from possession to necessity and onto obligation and/or ability. We also recognise that many âto be doneâ situations (have X -to do) are experienced as tasks, and tasks are mostly felt to be an imposition, but not always. Tasks such as doing sums, for example, mainly carry more of a sense of duty/obligation than do writing emails, for ordinary folk that is. So, taking all that into account, we see that we are primed when confronted by such forms and the sentences they are found in.

You have clearly not read my last-but-one post.

Milky wrote:

Ask where this obligation, necessity lies and youâll probably be told that it lies in: the historical development of âhaveâ from the purely possessive onto a weakening (semantic bleaching) of âhaveâ for possession as an single idea;

What does the underlined portion mean? How can the obligation in a particular real situation now "lie" in an abstract notion of how a word developed?

And when exactly is "have" supposed to have been "purely possessive"? We can find abstract usage of "have" in OE; and the use of "have" in the present perfect was well established by ME.

Milky wrote:

in the fact that we are primed by our own contact with such forms (i.e. we have experienced some as possession and others not); that we make guesses about the level of necessity, obligation felt by the speaker/writer based on our value-judgement of the cotext and context, and on. I canât list all the reasons that we feel something more that possession is going on.

You seem to be saying, "we just have to make a vague guess at the meaning in such cases, based on a hunch and a prayer". I don't say you're wrong; but I'd be interested to know whether that is your meaning.

And it seems strange to me that in the cases of "must"/"have to" and "may/might", you prefer strict demarcation lines, which some might interpret as overly prescriptivistic; whereas here, you seem more comfortable with the more diffuse view.

Milky wrote:

So, thatâs my view of things. I canât quite grasp your view because you seem to do nothing but ask questions...

Shouldn't people ask questions?

Milky wrote:
...and you give the overall impression that you only see possession in the form âhave + obj + to + Vâ. I may be wrong in concluding that, but itâs what I get from your response to the thread topic.

It's probably truer to say that I see possession in "have".

MrP

Re: Sentence questions Thank you

Demetrius — Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:52:33 GMT

WANG CHUN wrote:

1. Ancient and modern human beings use their great intelligence to invent machines that help people lead a comfortable and convenient life.

My problem with this sentence is that it is not possible for ancient human beings to do anything any more, so using the present tense just doesn't sound right. Other than that, there is nothing wrong with the grammar. It could be fixed by changing to the present perfect "have used", but not without changing the meaning.

WANG CHUN wrote:

2. What is a colossal distinction between humankind and machines is that former is learning animal and latter is like a robot.

"One colossal distinction between humans and machines is that the former are learning animals and the latter are like robots."

1) You cannot use "What is" here.

2) "Humankind" is a singular collection. A collection cannot be "an animal" or "animals".

3) You must use the definite article with "former" and "latter".

4) As "humankind" has changed to "humans", the number of "is" and "animal" changes to plural. By the way, it would have to have been "a learning animal", not "learning animal".

5) "machines" is plural, so "is" should be "are", and "robot" should be "robots".

WANG CHUN wrote:

3.It is James Watt who had the intelligence to invent the use of steam for power and improve a steam engine that began the Industrial Revolution in which people saw these machines as a tool that enabled them to improve all aspect of lives.

"It was James Watt who had the intelligence to invent steam power and improve the steam engine, which began the Industrial Revolution in which people saw these machines as tools that enabled them to improve all aspects of their lives."

1) It must be "It was James Watt" to agree with "who had".

2) "to invent the use of steam for power" sounds unnatural and clumsy. It is better to simply write "to invent steam power".

3) It should be "the steam engine".

4) It should be ",which began" not "that began", because we are not trying to restrict steam engines to specify the one that began the Industrial Revolution.

5) "a tool" must agree in number with "machines".

6) "aspect" must be plural to agree with "all".

7) You need a possessive pronoun "their" to refer back to the "people" whose "aspects of life" were changed.

WANG CHUN wrote:

4.All technological innovations can be described as an implement of human intelligence, helping people to live a comfortable life.

"All technological innovations can be described as implementations of human intelligence, helping people to live a comfortable life."

1) "an implement" must agree in number with "innovations".

2) "Implements" is the wrong word. I'm not happy with "implementations" either really, but it is the closest in sense.