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

revision/thought on my final paper would be greatly appreciated. thank you.

Anonymous — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 06:04:17 GMT

The paper is in MLA format and I had some trouble keeping it in present tense, block quoting a speech from poetry, and siting the poetry inside the paragraphs themselves help would be very very appreciated. sorry its so long. also I dont know if i like my closing statement, should I add more or take a more traditional approach to it?
thank you,
frantic senior.

   (already corrected)Throughout time there has been a constant struggle between light and dark, good and evil, heaven and hell. This everlasting conflict is depicted most famously in Beowulf, a timeless Old English epic poem written in the Anglo-Saxon time period between 449 and 1066. The original creator is unknown, but was first composed by Christian monks after years of paganistic oral illustration. In Anglo-Saxon culture, along with literature, one not only had to be a strong, intelligent, and brave warrior but also show devout loyalty to his brethren. Beowulf embodies the quintessential Anglo-Saxon hero. He sails the seas to a neighboring country to gain fame by defending and defeating seemingly impossible super-natural forces, while showing his unparalleled god-like strength.(already corrected)

    Beowulfâs super-human strength compares to no other of his time. Several points throughout the story Beowulf Displays such strength that one can hardly believe heâs a mortal man. Beowulf exhibits this incomprehensible strength when he is clashing with Grendel. While leaning up on one arm he locks on to Grendelâs flaying limb and violently heaves, yanking so hard he tears skin, muscle, and bone clean off Grendelâs shoulder (âGrendel,â lines 265-270). Once again, in the heat of battle with Grendels revenge thirsty mother, Beowulf exhibits this spectacular brawn when he spots âa [massive] heavy swordâ¦/hanging on the wallâ¦/so heavy no mortal man could lift [it]â(âGrendelâs Mother,â lines 215-220). He snatches the sword off the wall like it was an ordinary feat and brings it crashing down upon the evil she wolfâs neck, slicing it clean off.

Almost equivalent to his mind numbing strength is his wisdom and intelligence that far surpasses his young age. Before making the journey over seas to Herot the young hero has to first ask for recourse from the elders. With zero hesitation the elders agreed with his request to gain fame by defending his fatherâs allied domain and the slaying of evil demonic monsters. Later in Beowulfâs life, at an old age of 60, heâs informed of a dragon pillaging his countryside in search of an appropriated item. Beowulf feels such a substantial amount of guilt that he feels he must act on behalf of his compatriots. Beowulf believes that anything that goes askew in his country or to his countrymen is his responsibility. âHe accus[es] himself of breaking gods lawâ(âDeathâ lines 17-18) and that he has brought âThe Almightyâs anger down upon his peopleâ(âDeathâ lines 19-20). The old stout king, humbled by many years of a war torn life, suits up for his last confrontation.

One of the most important qualities of this Anglo-Saxon hero is his exceptional bravery, exclusively in the face of eminent death. Early in his life Beowulf is portrayed as slightly over confident. When he arrives in the court of Hrothgar and he declares:

âGrendel is no braver, no stronger than I am! I could kill him with my sword; I shall not, easy as it would be. This fiend is a bold and famous fighter, but his claws and teeth scratching at my shield, his clumsy fists beating at my sword blade, would be helpless. I will meet him with my hands empty-unless his heart fails him, seeing a soldier waiting

weaponless, unafraid. Let God in His wisdom extend His hand where

He wills, reward whom He chooses!â(âGrendelâ lines 133-143).

After successfully fulfilling his prophecy, Beowulf hunts down the wicked mother of the forlorn beast whom he had just slain. He finds himself and his men at a pool swarming with serpents and water beasts yet he throws on his hauberk and dives through the serpents. Pushing his way towards the essence of all-evil with only a vest of chain mail to protect him.

Beowulf, still today, stands as a record of values and customs from an unrefined and heroic time. It embodies the message: "Do your utmost to gain a good name and fame because, after death, itâs all of you that can remain in this world. It is the courage to strive for this, not success, that ultimately and eternally enshrines a true hero in legend."

Re: past or present tense in quoting?

Mister Micawber — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:30:36 GMT

You can use either. The past indicates that you are thinking about the past event of writing or recording; the present indicates that you are thinking about the present existence of that writing or recording. In most cases, both will serve equally well.

past or present tense in quoting?

Hoa Thai — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:30:29 GMT

Hello,

Thanks in advance!

What is the convention in using the present or past tense to quote a source? If the present tense must be used, then please explain the reason behind such a recommendation. By the way, I was told to use the present tense a long way back and did not have a sense to ask why.

1. From a written source:
Dr. Samuel writes / wrote, "The medical community ...." I don't understand how he reaches / reached his conclusion!

2. From a recorded source:
President John F. Kennedy says / said, "Ask not ....."

Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

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.

Reported Speech Strikes Back - Episode I - Advanced Help Needed

Forum_mail — Tue, 30 May 2006 19:17:54 GMT

While doing some reported/indirect speech stuff (again!) lots of questions has come to my mind. Here are some of them.

1/ 'I never eat meat', (Bill said/explained) -> turns into -> Bill said/explained (that) he never ate meat. - This is the normal way in which most of us would transform the sentence, isn't it?

BUT!

a) Is there a change of meaning between the direct and indirect form? To my liking, the second one, the transformed one, implies that Bill never ate meat before but nowdays maybe he likes it... My impression is, that after we transform the sentence, it somehow represents THE PAST, not the present or general truth. Thus... point b)

b) Thus, I guess, that it would be wiser to say "Bill said that he never EATS meat" because he probably doesn't eat meat to this day, it's a permanent truth, general one... but I don't know whether I'm right or wrong, that's why I'm asking. Is it possible ? Is it grammatically correct?

I guess it's pretty similar like in the following sentence : "Jack said he loves Mary" and the explanation taken from G. Leech A-Z Grammar says that he probably still loves her, it's like a general truth...

c) Is this sentence "Bill said he never ate meat" translated as : "Bill never eats meat" or "Bill never ate it (in the past!) ?

2/ A very similar problem emerges with 'I'm waiting for Ann' (said Jack). And, again, the normal way of transforming this sentence would be : "Jack said (that) he was waiting for Ann".

a) I'm wondering... Does this sentence imply that Jack was waiting for Ann some day in the past or does it imply that he was waiting for her "in the present" I don't know if you guys know what I mean... The thing is that I'd rather say something like "Jack said he is waiting for Ann" IF, is have to stress it, IF the situation still takes place in the present tense. BUT...

b) But if, for instance, on the next day, Bill, who is a friend of Jack, would report what Jack has told him, he would say "Jack said he was waiting for Ann". Am I right? If yes, why. If no, why?

3/ What's the difference between :

I would like to see it VS I should like to see it.

4/ According to Thomson & Martinet's Practical English Grammar the following sentece would have a different meaning if we change the tense from simple past to past perfect in reported speech :

I'm quoting form T&M :

He said, 'I loved her' must become "He said he had loved her" as otherwise there would be a change of meaning. But - He said, 'Ann arrived on Monday' could be reported "He said Ann arrived (<had> is optional here) on Monday"

This is presented in the point 309 "Past tenses sometimes remain unchanged"

a) I don't understand why there would be a change of meaning in the first sentence. Why do I HAVE to use past perfect? And why in the second one it's optional?

b) When past tenses remain past tenses without changing into past perfect? T&M gives examples but no explanmation :/

c) And, again, could we say "He said he loves her" instead of "He said he loved her" ? Why? Why not?

d) Does "He said he loved her" imply that he, possibly, doesn't love her anymore?

5/ Which ones are correct? And which ones are TOTALLY incorrect?

a) He says he knows her. VS

b) He said he knows her. VS

c) He said he knew her. VS

d) He says he knew her.

I guess that :

a) is ok, such a sentence may be heared when a person reads a letter from somebody outloud.

b) seems fine to me... implies that he knew her, he knows her and will know her...

c) ok? seems to imply that he used to know her but now he doesn't because maybe she's abroad or something...

d) correct? Again, a person reading a letter from somebody could say "Jack says/writes that he knew Jany... (bla bla bla... when they were at school, for instance) ?

6/ 'Who lives next door' ->

a) He asked who lived next door

b) He asked who lives next door

Again, a) sounds to me like, somebody who lived next door doesn't live there anymore... But maybe I'm wrong...I don't know.

When I was younger, I used to have no problems with reported speech, I just adhered to the rules of tense shifts and things seemed to be ok. But nowdays after years of learning and studying English, I'm having lots of doubts...

Help me please :- )

PS. Let me know whether I did some mistakes or not in this post, it's essential to me, not just the reported speech, but other things too.