Search results for 'tag:Present tenses tag:Adverbs' matching tags 'Present tenses' and 'Adverbs'

Re: Felt like...

Avangi — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:42:54 GMT

Hi Mad, With this scant context, it could be taken either way. It's pretty confusing.

"Friends" is plural. Was she paired with one particular guy?

Whom is she talking to? Her date??

"Felt" is past tense, but "is" is present tense. Is she still on the date with this guy (or guys) (or girls) when she makes this statement? (like maybe at the very end of it?)

Is Neil her main squeeze? (Sorry, my eyes are getting bad.) Is Nell her main squeeze? Who the h--- is Nell? (Is Lana a guy?)

Anyway, I'm assuming "tonight" is a noun rather than an adverb. "I had to explain about tonight." Not, "Tonight, I felt like I had to explain to Nell."

It's still "tonight" when she makes the statement. It sounds like Nell is not present. If she has already explained to Nell, she must have covered a lot of ground.

But on the other hand, we don't know what it is she wants to explain. Did she feel she had to explain what happened tonight, or did she feel (in the past) that she had to explain that she was planning to go on a date without him/her??

If she's talking to the guy and they're still on the date, maybe it's, "I felt like I had to explain to Nell, but, you know what? I don't feel that way any longer." Maybe she's just telling him that she feels wierd about having felt obligated to tell Nell all her private business.

Or maybe she's warning "him" that this "date" is no secret from Nell, because she felt obligated to tell her/him.

You're asking me, "Did Lana explain to Nell about tonight?" I'll tell you. I don't know.

Re: adjective or part of a passive

CalifJim — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 02:26:44 GMT

Believer
I have difficulty distinguishing between situations where a participle is used but ambiguous as to whether it is acting as an adjective or part of a passive. Do you have some guideline I can go by?

One wonders whether anything about your ability to use English in either its spoken or written form hinges on the ability to make such distinctions. Recognize that some cases are inherently ambiguous.

Nevertheless there are some guidelines if you wish to 'get into the weeds' of the various types of passive.

Believer
... things get confused when and where the 'by' seems to be almost impossible ... [as in] this case:
The work is finished.

Yes. I think I understand what you are getting at -- although for non-native speakers some of the guidelines may appear to be circular in nature.

According to Palmer (The English Verb), besides the plain vanilla 'passive' with an agent introduced by by (The man was killed by his wife.), which we may call the 'true passive', and the passive without an agent, or 'agentless passive' (The man was killed.), also a 'true passive', there are three other categories of passive -- the pseudo-passive, the semi-passive, and the statal passive. None of these three is a 'true passive'.

To understand the three types of 'false passive' (if you'd like to call them that!), it is first necessary to understand the tests for being an adjective, as enumerated by Palmer. These tests are as follows. An adjective generally can be used before a noun, after a linking verb, with the adverbs very, rather, more, or most, (sometimes with already), and coordinated with another adjective with and. Not all of these are possible for every adjective, but they are generally possible for most adjectives. The following examples show, with these tests, how finished is an adjective.

a finished product (use before a noun)

The work is finished. (use after a linking verb)

*very finished (not really possible, since finished is not gradable)

already finished (use with already)

It is finished and ready. (with and and another adjective)

________

Now for the categories.

The pseudo-passive has no corresponding active form and the past participle is completely adjectival.

The room seems very crowded. (Note the linking verb and very.)

The problem is complicated. (You could say very complicated or rather complicated. You could say difficult and complicated. You could say a complicated problem. These tests show that complicated is an adjective here.)

The semi-passive may appear to have a corresponding active form but is adjectival. Optionally, it may introduce the apparent agent with a preposition other than by, e.g., with or in. It may relate to emotional conditions. It may have negative forms with un-.

Jake was shocked by her behavior.

Roberta was worried about the exam.

Everyone was satisfied with the results.

We were quite uninterested in the presentation.

The statal passive is adjectival. The simple tense is very similar in meaning to the corresponding perfect tense, which (at least approximately) represents the corresponding agentless passive. Some examples can occur with already.

The glass is broken. (The glass has been broken.)

They were married for many years. ( They had been married for many years. Note married and happy, married couple, already married, unmarried -- signs of being an adjective.)

The exams are finished. (See the adjective tests for finished above.)

None of the three types discussed above are 'true passives'. It is often difficult to place a given usage exactly in one of the categories, so in spite of these guidelines, there are still ambiguous cases. Even some of the examples given above might be placed in a different category. Only context can resolve them.

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:54 GMT

They won't smoke ever since they saw a film on lung cancer.

What does "won't" mean here?

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:49 GMT

http://forums.eslcafe.com/student/viewtopic.php?t=22113&highlight=

Re: whereas

Liveinjapan — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:04:57 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
The average temperature of December last year in Tokyo was 20 degrees, whearas it was usually 19 degreees.
1. in a month, but here you could also use for. for allows you to avoid saying in twice, once with December, once with Tokyo.
2. Adverbs of place normally precede adverbs of time.
3. whereas, not whearas.
4. The habitual statement after whereas should be in the present tense.
5. I'd use normally, not usually, because meteorologists so often talk about "normal temperatures" (averages over many, many years).

Applying these five suggested changes:

The average temperature for December in Tokyo last year was 20 degrees, whereas it is normally 19 degrees.

CJ

Got it! Thanks, CJ.

Re: whereas

CalifJim — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:58:41 GMT

The average temperature of December last year in Tokyo was 20 degrees, whearas it was usually 19 degreees.

1. in a month, but here you could also use for. for allows you to avoid saying in twice, once with December, once with Tokyo.
2. Adverbs of place normally precede adverbs of time.
3. whereas, not whearas.
4. The habitual statement after whereas should be in the present tense.
5. I'd use normally, not usually, because meteorologists so often talk about "normal temperatures" (averages over many, many years).

Applying these five suggested changes:

The average temperature for December in Tokyo last year was 20 degrees, whereas it is normally 19 degrees.

CJ

Re: if-clause (future)

Avangi — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:33:11 GMT

Welkins2139 wrote:

" if clauses " ( also called adverb clause of condition) present possible condition. The main clause express results.

1. If you study in a foreign country, what do you need to do? a present tense, not a future tense, is used in an if clause, even though the verb in the " if " clause may refer to a future event or situation.

2. If you are going to study in a foreign country, what do you need to do? in this case you need to change to past prgoressive tense " if you were not going to study " which is conditional

3. If you will study in a foreign country, what do you need to do? if you insist on studying in a foreign country.

three are three possible conditions " will " in if clause.

# 1 we can use if + will in polite requests. in this case, will is not a future auxillary; it means " are willing to " If you will come this way, I'll take you to the manager's office.

#2 stress will can also be used after if when it express the idea of insistence.

#3 " will " in if clause when it means " if it is true that " if it will help, I'll lend you some money.

Regarding your second number one, In polite society I often hear this used in a dependent clause which is allowed to stand alone: "If the meeting will come to order." "If the right honourable gentleman will kindly shut up."

Re: Structural grammar and TG grammar

Qgaby — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:24:57 GMT

The structure "Used to" is used only in past tense to indicate a past habitual action.

It is always followed by an infintive phrase:

I used to turn up early and prepare the lessons

To express the same idea in the present tense, we use frequency adverbs such as always, often, generally, etc.

best wishes,

Qgaby

Re: Temporal Directives using before/until, please help clarify tense usage

Clive — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:57:53 GMT

Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

Which one of the following is correct? If all are correct, what situations would warrant one and not the others? Thank you/

- Please do not sit on the couch until you have gotten permission.

- Please do not sit on the couch before you have gotten permission.

- Please do not sit on the couch until you get permission.

- Please do not sit on the couch before you get permission.

The differences amongst the sentences above are two-fold: 1) until vs. before 2) present tense vs. present perfect after the temporal adverb.

Theyare all correct. Often, these expressions could be interchanged. Any differences here are fairly subtle. Here are a few comments.

First, I would say 'got' rather than 'gotten'. Both forms are OK. I believe 'gotten' is more a feature of American English.

'Until' suggests to me that the speaker expects permission to be given. I don't feel this so much with 'before'. 'Until' also seems to place more stress on the length of the period prior to your getting permisiion.

The present tense suggests to me more immediacy. ie the expected sequence of events is that you get permission and then you immediately/quickly sit down.

The present perfect suggests to me less immediacy. ie First, you get permission. After that, you are in a state of 'having got permission'. Now, anytime you want to, you can sit down.

But, as i said, often these variations are just interchanged.

Best wishes, Clive

Temporal Directives using before/until, please help clarify tense usage