Search results for 'tag:Regards tag:Tenses' matching tags 'Regards' and 'Tenses'

present or past tense

Lcwang — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:05:44 GMT

Hi:

In the following sentence, shall present tense or past tense be used?

I arrived home safe and sound. The first thing I feel / felt I must do is to write you this e-mail to thank you for the hospitality you extended to me during my stay in New York.

Regards

Re: wrong to use past tense?

CalifJim — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:40:38 GMT

... Furious, he went back to the owner and asked him what had happened. The owner answered that he had not lied to the man.

I would use the past perfect forms underlined above. The author expects you to be focusing on the time of the customer's return to see the owner about the parrot, and what happened took place before that return visit. Obviously, the fact of the owner's not lying also took place before that return visit. Use the past perfect when the event you are mentioning takes place before the time in which the main narrative is taking place.

________

He thought he had discovered something worth a large sum of money ...

Again, I would use the past perfect. The time difference here is much shorter, however. The focus is on discovering something and then having a thought about it. By the time he considers whether the discovery is valuable or not, the discovery has already been made, so He thought he had discovered ...

______

There are sometimes differences of opinion with regard to the use of some of the tenses, so it is not always possible to say things like "The past perfect is required here" or "The past may not be used here". In my opinion, however, the past perfect is required in both of your examples.

Use of conditional verb prior to an infinitive clause / object complement

Anonymous — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:17:48 GMT

Hi all,

Thanks in advance for your help in answering this question. I'm trying to explain to a non-native English speaker that a certain usage is either incorrect or awkward, but I find myself unable to do so. At this point, I'm just confusing myself in trying to explain it.

So her construction is:

"I like for you to go to my friend's house in three weeks."

My correction would be:

"I would like for you to go to my friend's house in three weeks."

My reasoning is that including the word "would" allows for a better logical continuity of tenses. I have tried to explain this via continuity of verb tense and the nature of the conditional word "would"-- but I am not a grammarian and my explanations are either imprecise or wholly inaccurate. On that note,

1) Is my correction correct?

2) Is there a rule which either supports or refutes this correction?

Kind regards,
A.S.

Re: The description of my job

Mister Micawber — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:43:50 GMT

.
I have underlined some problem areas, Oliver:

Nowadays, most big and advanced factories need more equipments, less workers. So a new vocation brought out for the managers to control so many machines with few labours, we called ~~the~~ new line-Automatic project control.

We use automatic control system mostly in iron works, where there are ~~lots of~~ huge machines which are hardly operated by manpower, and sometimes itâs not convenient for workers to control the big machines just beside them, as the long distance between control center and the ~~spot where the~~ machines location will take jockey so much time. For solve this problem, we begin to try to use a new system, which include industrial computer, low-tension apparatus, relay, switch, transformer, and the main part~~-we~~ called it PLC (Programmable Logic Controller). By the industrial drawing software we can add all the machines need to be operated on the screen of a computer, and their location on screen is accord to the actual location outside. After completeing the drawing, we distribute a memory address of database to each unit displayed on screen, and then we ~~will go on and~~ edit the programme on the computer and download it into the CPU of PLC. Finally, we ~~will~~ connect all the computers and PLCs by Industrial Ethernet or Profibus. Thus, we have set up the whole control system, and the programme which control all the machines could ~~absolute~~ run automatically. The worker can operate one of the machines individually by just double-click on the screen, and most of the time, he can leave computers take their course ~~by themselves~~. If we can disregard the failure of control-apparatus, ~~it will be enough for~~ only one person can sit in the center control room, and the only thing what to do for him is ~~just~~ cleaning. With the nicer condition of machines outside, we can finish a control system as complicated as the one which used in a medium-sized iron works (about 450 steres) within fifteen days by three engineers. We are trying to serve the clients (the managers of factories mostly) with the most beautiful pictures and unimpeachable program.

What happens in iron works? [Put all your verbs below in present tense]

1. Plenty of coke and iron ore is send to the mouth of the furnace, there, the material passed ~~first jaws-we called~~ upper cover and got into the medium part of the furnace, and then, they went on passed the ~~second jaws-we called~~ nether cover and got into the abdomen of furnace. The action of the two jawses is separate the harmful gas from the air by alternate opening.

2. Hold by the strong press of the flaming air from dozen of meatus placed into the furnace, the material began to melt together in the air, and ~~at the first time to see that I even could not believe~~ the material can step to melting in a floating state~~!!!~~

3. The coke was burned out inside the furnace and turned into carbon monoxide. The gas passed through a pipeline and went into a gravitational dust catcher, where the bigger granules were filtrated off.

4. Then, the gas come to other dust catch system, we called hop-pocket dust cacther, where almost all impurity were filtrated off.

5. In the end, the gas entered heat air stove (maybe itâs called blast stove in USA), and was heated up to a high temperature about 1500 Celsius. With the big air pressure made by several huge fans outside, the gas was sent to the twelve meatus we mentioned above. And hereto, we have toured through an orbicular circulation fully.

The melting material become to melton iron gradually and flowed out from a confined exit. Generally, if there are copulate steel-making workshops, the melton iron will be sent to those workshops directly and be made into steel there. If there no workshops ~~like that,~~ the melton iron will be moulded into rion blocks at normal temperature, and carried to other places to remade into steel.

We mainly use ~~the~~ products and softwares from SIEMENS and GE corporation. We look forward to use our native products.

Re: translation into English: text 11/03 (Patrick)

Hela — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:23:46 GMT

Good evening, Mr P, nice to read you again. I often ask questions on the site but you seem not to have seen my posts

I don't think it's necessary to translate "allait partir travailler" literally; "was going to leave to work" would sound too clumsy

Actually I wrote "he was leaving for Ireland for work", is it wrong too?

2) Do you accept
a) "he was going to work in Ireland as soon as
- his exams were [had been = wrong?] over
- he finished / had finished his exams

b) "he was goint to work in Ireland right after
- he finished / had finished his exams
- he would finish / would have finished (?) his exams
- his exams would be / would have been (?) over"

- Is it also possible to use the present, even though it's reported speech, since the period referred to has not happened yet?

a) "he called me to say that he is going to Ireland as soon as
his exams are / have been (?) over OR he finishes / has finished (?) his exams

b) "he called me to say that he is going to Ireland right after
- he finishes / has finished his exams
- his exams will be over
- he will finish / will have finished his exams"

3) Je ne me rappelles pas l'avoir entendu dire...
Are hearing and having heard both possible here? What's the nuance betwenn them?
"I don' / can't remember ever hearing / having heard (?) him talk about such daring plans"

4) Moi aussi j'aimerais beaucoup aller travailler en Irlande.
Which tenses should be used here, please?
a) I would quite / really like to work in Ireland as well (possible ?)
b) I wish I could work / I wish I worked in Ireland
c) I wish I went (?) to Ireland to work as well / too.

5) Is this use of pronoun acceptable ?
"One doesn't want to let everybody know what they want to do" ? Is "they" ambiguous or incoherent here, or is it all right ?

6) On se connaÃ®t depuis si longtemps, lui et moi
Even though it is not necessary to translate "lui et moi" in English would you say:
"It has been a such a long time since we have known one another, he and I [and not "him/he and me" ?

7) Il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire de mettre tout le monde au courant de ce qu'on a envie de faire. Il y a des tas de gens qui rÃªvent bruyamment d'accomplir de grandes choses et ne sortent jamais de chez eux. Quant Ã son niveau d'anglais, un sÃ©jour de deux mois ne peut que l'amÃ©liorer.

a) Would you translate this passage this way?

"you don't have to / you neednât / there's no need to tell everyone what youâre up to / want to do / feel like doing all the time. Lots of people dream aloud (?) about accomplishing / achieving (?) great things they're going to do and then never give it a try (?) / make it real (?). As for his English, a two-month stay / sojourn (?) in England can but / just (?) improve it.

b) What you meant by the following:

My idea would be as yours, except:

"...to keep everyone posted...have grandiose ideas about accomplishing great things but never leave home...can only improve it."

is that you would not use "to keep everyone posted", "have grandiose ideas..." and "can only improve it" ?

8)

("Harp on about" doesn't seem quite right here; I'm not sure about my "never leave home" â I feel there's a more natural alternative, but can't place it.)

What's the meaning of "to harp on about something" then? How would you use it?
Best regards,
Hela

Some not-so-common sentences baffling me

Eng.noob — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:04:43 GMT

Hello friends. I have some unusual sentences with which i need help.

1) New era in not only his academic life but also his social life. - a) Shouldn't it be "also IN his social life"? b) Why not use "New era not only in..." instead of "New era in not only..."?

2) If ww do this, it should lead us to reflect on things much larger. - a) What is the meaning of the sentence? b) Shouldn't it be "... much larger things" instead of "... things much larger" ?

3) I think its time we left this place. - whats the point to involve a past tense(left) when its easier to understand "I think its time to leave this place" ?

4) It may be overlooked having regard to the fact that. - "... having regard to the fact that" ? I dont understand it at all.

5) It is true of/for any social issue. - will it be OF or FOR ? If both are true, what is used when?

6) The order came not a day too soon. - i dont understand it.

7) This is right up there. - what does it mean?

Re: the expression of action or that of occurrence?

Anonymous — Sat, 17 May 2008 05:47:05 GMT

ï¼ï¼What I mean is ---

P: He enjoyed listening to the music.

In P, the whole sentence (He enjoyed listening to the music.) clearly expresses a past occurrence / fact.

It's because the sentence has the Subject and Tense.

But "listening to the music" expresses a past action, I think, because it has no Subject, or Tense (no infornmation for time and place).

So I think whether "to do" / "---ing" / "that clause" is an action or occurrence doesn't depend on their time (past / present / future).

What I want to know most is whether we should regard as action or occurrence what we express both by using "---ing" and by that clauseï¼ï¼such as X and Y.

X: I remember seeing her in that shop the other day.

Y: I remember that I saw her in that shop the other day.

Re: grammar help!

Clive — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:53:59 GMT

Hi guys,

Some points of disagreement as listed below for argument sake:-

Should it be "There is a tour"? Please advise. Yes - Should be "There will be a tour" since the message appears to refer to the next one. No, use present tense because the writer is describing an event that happens regularly.

Prior to September 11th, hardly anyone in the West had heard of it, and when anyone did, the one thought it perhaps a radical Muslim operation. - to be symmetrical. Yes, you could use the second 'anyone' as suggested here, if you wanted to. However, this use of 'the one' is so unnatural as to be simply wrong. 'They' is commonly used here. If you don't want to say that, you could say 'that person thought it . . '.

Best regards, Clive.

Re: taking out the windows of the car

Goodman — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:46:40 GMT

Hi Ant222,

My English skill is not in the âgrammarianâ class but I will give it my best attempt to explain it. It may not may not be agreeable with the experts.

In many instances during casual conversations, we can bet by with simple past tense and no one will flag you for errors. However, to be grammatically correct, the right tense should be followed and observed consistently. Besides using present perfect to connect events from the past to present, sometimes, we will see past reference combined into a present perfect structure. i.e.

John seems to have forgotten who helped him 2 years ago when his lost his job. This is perfectly legal.

General simple present statement with timeless reference.

I have never seen movies as bad as this one!

I have tried many times to quit smoking but failed.

With time reference, past to present:

Jane has changed 3 jobs since the beginning of this year.

She hasnât made any car payment for the past 6 months.

If you already understood the above, just disregard my post.

Re: I thought a spider is/was an insect

CalifJim — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:30:44 GMT

Pter
And universal falsehood. What a phrase! This is important because we are not talking about something that is always true. As a result, we can only use the past tense in sentences starting with "I thought it was". The "was" is not the result of backshifting. It is used instead to indicate that the believe was hold true in the past but is now found to be false.

My apologies for introducing a joke! The "universal falsehood" reference is a complete joke! It doesn't matter whether what is reported is universally true or unversally false. What's important is that in the speaker's mind it is universally (or eternally, if you wish) true. In that way, in the right context, you can even have the reported speech: The scientist said that the earth is flat.

Consequently, the "was" truly IS the result of backshifting after "thought". It has nothing to do with beliefs considered true in the past but false in the present. You can banish all such logic from your mind. You came to believe some of these things because I put you off the track with my joke.

I don't know which sample sentences you are referring to, but after thought, knew, hoped, believed, and felt, you always need a past tense.

____

I didn't notice that it was not reported speech. (natural, normal)

I didn't notice that it's not reported speech. (also possible, less used)

You may find that each main clause verb has its own idiosyncracies with regard to backshifting. notice acts a little like a reporting verb. What you noticed may still be quite noticeable to your listener, and you may want to emphasize this fact. Nevertheless, keep this is mind: Backshifting is never wrong.

____

OK. I went back and found these. I think these are the samples you were referring to. The first choices shown are the ones that came to my mind first. It's not really more complicated than that. The second choice is also perfectly grammatical except as noted in the second sentence, where backshifting is required.

My professor said that spiders are (were also possible) insects! I didn't think they were (are not possible). I think he is (was also possible) wrong.