Search results for 'tag:Present tenses tag:English grammar' matching tags 'Present tenses' and 'English grammar'

How to comment? English grammar

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:32:14 GMT

Hey fellas

I have a question. I'm preparing for my english grammar exam and there's a question that keeps annoying me in one of the older exam papers.

1. Comment on the use of the present tense in the sentences below

a)Peter lives in a somewhat run-down area close to Islington.

What would i comment exactly? I know what present tense is, but i don't know what to write. Can anybody help?

Re: past perfect vs past in if-clause in type 2 conditional

yulysess — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:05:12 GMT

Let's spread out the issue a little bit:

____ O ____

Type 2. Basic forms.

a. If we caught the 10 o'clock train, we would (could, might,

etc.) get there by lunch-time.

b. If I came into a fortune, I would give up smoking.

c. If I knew how it worked, I could tell you what to do.

In these sentences the conditional clauses represent what is a possible, b hypothetical/imaginary, or c contrary to the present fact. The verb form in the conditional clause represents the attitude of the speaker towards the condition; it does not represent time, which is indicated by other elements in the context or situation.

Sentence a is analogous to type 1 (If we catch..., we shall get...), but is more suppositional. The speaker either regards catching that train as improbable, or he wishes to put forward in a more tentative or "polite" way the suggestion of catching it. It does not necessarily follow that the condition is in fact unlikely to be fulfilled.

Sentence b, on the other hand, is much more hypothetical: it is a form of day-dreaming in which we all indulge at times.

Sentence c presents us with totally imaginary (or unreal) situation with reference to the time of speaking: it implies that I don't, in fact, know how it works, so I can't tell you what to do. Note that the past tense is used here to indicate present unreality.

The three sentences are formally identical: they all have the same sequence of tenses:

(if) past tense, (main) conditional.

However, contextually they are rather different. They represent three points on a scale of decreasing probability, from a suppositional or tentative but possible, to b hypothetical but not impossible, to c contrary to present fact, and hence unreal.

Note that the conditional tense is not used in the conditional clause.

As we saw in example "c", the idea of something contrary to present fact is conveyed by the use of the past tense in the conditional clause. We also use the past tense to refer to present unreality after the verb "wish" (if only, also expresses the wish of the speaker), and after expressions like "I'd rather" and "It is time":

a. I wish (that) I were rich! (If only I were rich!)

b. I'd rather you told me frankly what you think.

c. It's time (It's about time, It's high time) we left.

We never use the present tense or a future form after wish. We use either the past tense as illustrated above, or we can use would (not will) to indicate that people or events frustrate our desires.

Type 2. Variations.

a. If we were to miss the 10 o'clock train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

The use of were to in the conditional clause sometimes has the effect of emphasizing the suppositional nature of the condition and, is in some ways analogous to the use of should in conditional clauses in TYPE 1: we can often substitute "by any chance" without changing the meaning: If by any chance we missed the 10 o'clock train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

Were to is used for all persons, and this variation may be applied to any conditional clause of this second type.

b. If you would reserve seats, we would be sure of a comfortable journey.

In this sentence. would is not a part of a conditional tense; it is a modal verb, and represents a more tentative (or polite) form of WILL as used in conditional clauses of type 1. It introduces the idea of your agreeing, or being willing, to do what is suggested. We cannot use this construction in the following sentence:

If he got my letters in time, he would be able to change his plans.

We cannot say

*If he would get my letter in time, since "he" can hardly exercise any willingness or unwillingness to get it.

You must, therefore, be careful to use "would" in this way only where the context will support the idea of co-operation, agreement, or willingness on the part of the subject.

Type 2. Summary of forms.

1. (If) past tense, (main) conditional.

If we caught the early train, we'd get there by lunch time.

2. (If) were to + infinitive, (main) conditional.

If we were to miss the early train, we wouldn't get there till after lunch.

3. (If) would + infinitive, (main) conditional.

If you'd cook the dinner, I'd do the washing up afterwards.

Type 3. Basic forms and variations.

a. If we had caught the 10 o'clock train, we would (could, might, etc.) have got there by lunch-time.

This sentence is completely hypothetical, and represents what is contrary to past fact. In this case, the past perfect tense is used to indicate past unreality -we didn't catch the 10 o'clock train, so we didn't get there by lunch time.

This is analogous to the use of the past tense to indicate present unreality in type 2c, and tense usage after the verb WISH follows the same pattern: we use the past perfect to refer to something wished-for in the past:

I wish you had told me before (but you didn't)

Variations on a sentence "a" are not very common, though sentences like the following are occasionally met with:

b. If you were to have asked me, I would have been only too willing to help.

Bibliography

R. A. Close (1975). A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Longman.

B.D. Graver (1979). Advanced English Practice. OUP

S.M. Parkinson (1983). A University English Grammar for Spanish-Speakers. Ed. EmpeÃ±o

R. Quirk et al. (1979). A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman

W. Stannard Allen (1977). Living English Structure. Longman

M. Swan (1986). Practical English Usage. OUP

A.J. Thomson & A.V. Martinet (1982). A Practical English Grammar. OUP

______ O _______

Enjoy

Also look at the link Marius gave.

Re: "and" and comma

Lovek323 — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:06:34 GMT

Question 1
Although the question has already been answered, I should like to comment on why arise is the correct choice. The subject of the clause should any difference arise is difference, which is singular and third person. One of the fundamental principles of English grammar is that the subject and verb must agree in number and person. Thus, as the subject is third person singular, the verb must also be third person singular. (A more thorough explanation would discuss number and person.)

For all verbs except to be, number and person only affect the present tense. The -s ending is used for the third person singular and the uninflected (unchanged) form is used for the rest:

My neighbours annoy me.
My dog annoys me.

The uninflected form annoy is used when the subject is a plural noun phrase ("my neighbours" above) or one of the pronouns I, we, you (sg. or pl.), or they. The -s ending is appended when the subject is a singular noun phrase or one of the third person singular personal pronouns (he, she, or it).

Question 2
As has already been pointed out, neither of the proposed sentences was correct. A sufficient response has been given as to the reason behind the choice of a semi colon, even if it was unnecessarily cerebral (just kidding).

Re: Writing in English

Clive — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:55:17 GMT

Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

I read an english grammar book, states 'to writes we must decide either in past tense or present tense' how to determine?

If you want to write about the past, use past tense.

Best wishes, Clive

Writing in English

Manglish — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:43:31 GMT

Hi,

I read an english grammar book, states 'to writes we must decide either in past tense or present tense' how to determine?

Re: can't have been (followed by nationality)

Huynguyen — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:20:30 GMT

Hi Jingtian,
In my opinion, your guess is right. This type of sentence is used to express the degrees of certainty. In the first conversation, two speakers are discussing the girl they have met somewhere else before, so they use the presnt perfect tense here. And in the second conversation, two speakers are discussing the girl who is (maybe) at the same place with them. I mean with the presence of the girl while they are discussing her. So they use the present tense here.

But someone told me that a person might change his/her nationality, therefore, "She can't have been Danish. She must have been Swedish" actually meant that it was impossible that she was Danish then and it was certain that she was Swedish then.

I dont quite understand you here. It's sure that when the speaker use this type of sentence, he/she, basing on some clues (in this situation I think it must be the appearance of the girl), believes that it is impossible for the girl to have been Danish, but Swedish.

Also, the phrase "cant/counldnt have + p.p." is used to express that the speaker is 99% sure of his/her statement ; and the phrase "must have + p.p." is only 95% sure (according to Understanding and Using English Grammar)

P/S: Please correct me if I'm wrong

Re: Clause and use of Tenses

Cool Breeze — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 17:44:46 GMT

Jackson6612 wrote:
I remember once my teacher told me that when Present Tense is used in first clause then Present Tense will also be used in second clause. I don't know what does this actually mean? Please explain it. Thank you

Hi Jackson6612

You may have misunderstood slightly what your teacher said, or his knowledge of English grammar is very imperfect. Your teacher may have discussed the sequence of tenses, but this grammatical phenomenon does not always require you to use the same tenses in all the clauses of a sentence.

Example:
I knew he lived/lives in Tokyo.

The past tense of the main clause (knew) often leads a native speaker to say lived even if the person in question still lives in Tokyo! This is one of the many inaccuracies of English, and I think your teacher had this in mind when he said whatever he said.

Cheers
CB

Re: Translation of a Turkish lyric..

SunFlowerSeed — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:52:06 GMT

I just copied the lyric from a Turkish songs' lyrics page.
I know the song well. One of my favorites.

The word is sayÄ±lmasam, not sayÄ±lmazsam.
I don't want to get involved in a Turkish grammer question, because this is a English grammar forum.
But in case you are interested in, meaning of sayÄ±lmasam and sayÄ±lmazsam are close.

SayÄ±lmasam = If I haven't been counted by someone else. Meaning in present tense (for that moment). If I am not being counted by someone else.
( here >Ä±l< by someone else. )
SayÄ±lmazsam = If I usually haven't been count by someone else. Meaning in general tense which is also a kind of present tense I think.
Covering some of Past, Present, Future. I mean always or anytime.

This word also has the meaning of ''if you don't get it as ....(a word that you think the other person gets it offensive)......'' but not in this sentence.

If you'd like to say ''if I can't be counted'' then it should be sayÄ±lamazsam or sayÄ±lamasam.

That also shows my mistake on translation, thanks for pointing it out, it should be If I haven't been counted and .....being in a state of not counted....
I am also not sure whether it should be past perfect or past tense or present tense but not present continous.

I am really sorry for posting something on Turkish grammer.
I thought Philip wanted some explanation.

Re: future tense

Dawnstorm — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:38:45 GMT

Inchoateknowledge wrote:
What does (simple) future tense mean in this sentence?

The grammarian (it is a grammarian, isn't it?) you're quoting would probably tell you that there is no future tense. Many linguists claim English has only two tenses: Past and Non-past (sometimes called present). Like Marius Hancu said, the grammarian might tell you its about "intention"; will is a modal auxiliary, therefore "will go" is not the future tense of "go". Instead, it's present tense with modified "mood".

Whether English expresses future through tense or not is a controversial question. Your quote doesn't support the existence of a future tense, so - in this context - "future tense" would be a meaningless term.

Thomson/Martinet, in A Practical English Grammar, for example, say:

There is no future tense in modern English, but for convenience we often use the term 'future simple' to describe the form will/shall + bare infinitive.

This is not uncontested. It's a purely terminological debate, though, depending on the definition of tense. Whether there is a future tense or not has no bearing at all at your language proficiency, if you know how to express the future in English. There are other terminological debates: for example, I've heard linguists say there's no passive voice in English, and that the distinction between present participle and gerund cannot be sustained. Different ways to look at language yield different vocabulary to talk about it.

Re: Joy to the world, the lord is "COME" ????

Cool Breeze — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:06:53 GMT

I always thought it was a remnant of the French (Norman Invasion, 1066). There is a handful of verbs in French conjugated with "to be" rather than "to have" in the passÃ© composÃ© (past) tense. Rise, [to be] born, arrive, leave, go (all "coming and going" verbs) are some examples. We also sing "He is risen" and we allow for "he is gone" as well as "he has gone".

Hi Philip

There has been vacillation between be and have as the perfect auxiliary in the Germanic languages - that's what I really meant to say in my previous post - but to my knowledge no one has ever maintained this usage derives from French. As a matter of fact, French had little effect on English grammar in terms of grammatical structures although the number of loan words is remarkable.

One of the structures derived from French is the of-genitive, which most scholars believe is based on the de-structure of the French language. And of course the word order of e.g. court martial reflects French grammar.

The only tenses Old English had were the present tense and the preterite (past tense); in other words, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who invaded Britain in the 5th century didn't take the perfect, pluperfect and the future tense with them from the continent.

Cheers
CB