Search results for 'tag:Sentence structures tag:Past perfect' matching tags 'Sentence structures' and 'Past perfect'

Re: Is "There is the ..." an exceptional use?

jazzmaster — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:27:58 GMT

CalifJim

Probably not. There may be a better way to finesse this with a different wording.
Yes, but from the viewpoint of the authors and the teacher, this may be considered a harmless "white lie".
Out of curiosity, does the book actually use the words, "serious grammatical error"? Or is that your impressionistic paraphrase?

Thanks CJ

"Serious grammatical error" is my paraphrase. But when and if ESL students start to expressly state "this IS an exceptional usage", I suppose that means "these is a set rule on this and no one can break that in any shape or form".

"the simplification of the grammar at the beginning makes it much easier for them to navigate the language with confidence in the beginning stages" ... I fully concur with your view here. This indeed is the ideal way of teaching something to someone, I would say. However, the reality is that they will soon start feeding what a SVOC is, along with modifier/qualifier, the difference between a relative pronoun and adverb and all that good stuff to students who even cannot pronounce the word "English" correctly yet. I have an impression that they do present "grammatically acceptable" sentence structures, rock-solid rules and what not all at once. It is not a fun way to learn a foreign language. That is why some students grow not to like the subject after short while.

Let's say you are in a store with a hardcore grammatical ESL student, and you say:
*&@!#% !! I just realized I left my wallet home!!
... in stead of saying "It's all right, CJ, here, take $100. You can pay me back tomorrow.", (granting that he/she understood what you said), the ESL student will be too busy thinking "Why did he not say "I HAD left my wallet"? Because he is describing an event that happened obviously prior to the moment "he realized", it should be the past perfect tense, thus "I HAD left". It could be an exceptional use of the "realize ... that ...." structure but I am not sure. Or should I just point out his grammatical mistake?" ... this is the mentality of students who are being taught by those hardcore grammar books, and I am not exaggertating even a bit.

Thanks.

Re: Two question about "where"

Goodman — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:49:04 GMT

<<<<Such concepts as tense, gerund, participle, clause (and classification thereof) are wihtout a slightest doubt useful and sometimes even essential to the learning of English (at least, this is so for me).

<<<Furthermore, I try to undrstand things logically and find explanations for every problem so that I won't have to simply memorize things! - I agree with you. However, I see room for tone and structure improvements!

Without taking side, I would like to share my 2 cents' worth. I always feel that if one is not born an English speaking native and his ultimate goal is to be able to write and speak English like a master, he is in for a long-agonizing journey. I have been at it for 20 years and still painfully working on getting it perfect. I realize that I often made careless errors, such as missing an "s" here and there and misspellong word etc. That, I think is something I have to work on but is tolerable to myself, as long as I know my speech and sentence structure are gramamtically sound and the meaning is getting across. For learners, it's extremely benifitial to possess a good understanding on all aspect of English, but in real life I dare say, many are not in that category, including natives. Frankly, more than a few don't even know and could care less what "past perfect tense" is. I don't mean to antagonize anyone. That's how I see it. That's said, learners must in time learn to develop a balance in learning. By that, I mean learning the fundanentals and applying them gramamtically correct in their writing without suffering from the"unnatural" sound. What I see is, many learners are too focused on the grammatical aspects and neglected on structure and tone, or vise vera. Ultimately, their writing is often compromised. I have been there. Believe me!

(Unknown 22884)OHHH I FINALLY CAN POST!!!

Jen001 — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:51:40 GMT

"The Change of the Characteristics in the passage from The Hours"

The passage from the novel The Hours by Michael Cunningham is intriguing. The passage illustrates the difference between the character's characteristics in different time settings: past and present. This difference is clearly shown through the contrasting structure, imagery and language.

The structure reflects the division of the time setting and helps to contrast the different characteristics. The passage has two paragraphs, each describing the character's thoughts and perception about a same place, of the past and present. The length of each paragraph is different; the one from the past is much longer than the other one from the present. This can be related to each of the paragraph's sentence construction. In the first paragraph, about the past, the lengths of the sentences are very long. The first sentence takes eight lines, lengthened continuously within commas, semi-colons and colons. In fact, in one sentence, there are five commas, five semi-colons and a colon. This overly-continued sentence gives a sense of unfiltered, informal, and unrestricted flowing of thoughts. Moreover, the use of brackets, âsome sort of wood(cedar? Camphor?),â seems to be less sophisticated, compared to using dashes or other punctuations of the same function. However, in the second paragraph of the present, the sentence construction is shown contrastingly. The paragraph starts with a short simple sentence: âShe turns down Bleecker, goes up Thomson.â Also, in this paragraph, there are four sentences in six lines, and three of the four sentences are written in simple sentence, including the example above. Although there are a few commas in some of the sentences, there is no semi-colon, but only a colon in the last sentence. The colon is used in a very appropriate way, functioning to introduce the list of âthingsâ, such as âjewelryâ and âjackets.â Thus, within the brief and concise sentence construction, the character in the present appears to be more mature, filtered and sophisticated than in the past. However, as a result of that, the sense of youthful, unfiltered freedom cannot be found anymore in the present.

In addition to the structure, the contrasting imagery of each paragraph demonstrates further differences of the characteristic in the past and present. As both paragraphs are of the same setting, the image of the same place is described at each time. So, the consistent place makes the comparison between the two more distinctive and reliable. The imagery of the place is very vivid in the past, not only within the visual sense, but also within the auditory and olfactory senses, whereas that of the past only relies on the sense of sight. For example, in the past, âthe neighborhoodâ is depicted as âthe center of something new and wildâ in âthe city where the sound of guitars drifted all nightâ and âwhere the stores â¦ smelled the way â¦ Arab bazaars must smell.â This is detail, imaginative and lively, even the âArab bazaarsâ creates a somewhat mystical and adventurous atmosphere. This interesting and passionate depiction is being minimized in the present into three words: an âimitation of itself.â It is now âa watered-down carnival for tourists,â which gives a sense of inactivity and boredom. Also, the stores now âall sell essentially the same things,â such as âsouvenir T-shirts.â This seems to be dull, with no excitement or creativity or passion. This changed imagery, depicted by the character, rather shows the change in the character's perception. The change in perception is demonstrated more clearly within the notion of the âdoorâ and âalley.â In the past, she says, âif you passed through the wrong door or down the wrong alley you would meet a fate,â however, in the present, she âknows that behind these doors, and down these alleys lies nothing more or less than people living their lives.â In the past, she seems to be more concerned with the 'inner' world of thought or imagination. Whereas in the present, she seems to be more grounded in the external world of physical reality. As like the previously discussed change in the sentence structure, she is now more sophisticated, knowledgeable and realistic than the past. Also, as like the image of the place, her perception changed from the creative, interesting and adventurous to the boring, predictable and filtered way. Thus, the contrasting imagery of the past and present reflects the similar change in the character's perception.

While the structure and the imagery convey the distinctive change in the characteristics of the character, the contrasting use of language supports those differences. More specifically, the diction [dash]shown in the past and the present[dash] is comparable. Reflecting the imagery of the varied senses, the words and expressions used in the past are also varied and animated, such as âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ describing the smell of the stores. These two expressions, âincense and richâ and âdung-y dustâ are contrasting; they express the diversity of the object. Moreover, the speaker creates a non-existing adjective, âdung-y.â The extra adding of â-yâ grants a more animated image, and it gives a sense of freedom and even somewhat childishness. The âsmellâ is then described as âsomething fruitily, fertilely rotting.â Again, she creates a non-existing adverb, âfruitily,â expressing the scent rather vividly, which would be sour as it ârots.â The other adverb âfertilelyâ contributes to create a sense of abundance and richness of the imagery. However, the use of those two positive adverbs, modifying the negative verb ârottingâ seems to be oxymoron in âfruit[full]â or âfertile,â as well as the use of adjective âdisreputable,â following ânew and wild.â The oxymoron adds an unpredictable sense to the imagery and hence to the depicter's thoughts. On the other hand, in the present, the adjectives used to describe the âcityâ and the âstores,â are ânothing,â âless,â âsame,â and âstill.â All of them are negative and reflect the boredom, dullness and hopelessness. More significantly, the speaker uses the adverb, âGrotesquelyâ before describing how âthe same bars and coffeehouses are still [th]ereâ, showing the character's cynical characteristic. So does the use of the adjective âcheapâ for the goods at the stores. Thus, in the past, the character uses language interestingly [dash] it is diverse, lively and creative [dash] whereas that of the past is inactive, hopeless and cynical. These differences are directly reflecting the character's contrasting, changed characteristic.

The change of the characteristic seems to be abrupt. As a cause, something would have happened to her, that is not shown in the passage. However, an assumption can be drawn within the evidences from the passage. There is a shift in the first paragraph within âHere,â showing the shifted tense from the past to the past perfect. In the past perfect, there is a scene of Clarissa, the major character, and her boyfriend Richard. She seems to appreciate Richard a lot, for example, she does not use the pronoun 'he' for âRichard,â even though he is the only male character. So, in a sentence, Richard is successively repeated three times, âwith Richard, when Richard â¦ when Richard.â Moreover, she describes his appearance in detail; he âwas nineteen,â âa firm-featured, hard-eyed, not-quite-beautiful dark-haired boy with an impossibly long and graceful, very pale neck.â So, to describe Richard, she combines an adjective and a noun to create a single adjective, such as âhard-eyed.â This shows her seriousness about describing him precisely. His âimpossibly longâ and âvery paleâ neck would seem negative, if not for the complementary adjective âgraceful.â Also, the adverb âimpossiblyâ gives a sense of special and unusual feeling for the person. Besides the use of language, the use of punctuation should also be noted. There are many commas, causing the sentences to seem choppy. This would be imitating the feeling of uncertainty and the tension in the situation. The uncertainty of the situation is shown in the line, ââ¦about what? A kiss? Had Richard kissed her, or had she, Clarissaâ¦,â also the tension created as they âhad certainly argued.â Then, the reason for the âargu[ment]â is explained: âClarissa wanted her freedom and Richard wanted, well, too much.â It is notable that as Richard âwanted â¦ too muchâ relating to the âkiss,â the pronoun 'he' is used as âdidn't he always?â In this case, however, the pronoun 'he' seems to more likely indicate every 'man', rather than particularly âRichard.â Thereafter the paragraph ends, and the paragraph of the present starts. It is not sure whether the abrupt change in Clarissa's characteristic is due to âRichardâ or not. Although it is not, it is evident that Clarissa once considered and cared about him quite specially.

Despite of the uncertain reason, the change in the Clarissa's characteristic from the past to the present is shown clearly throughout the contrasting structure, imagery and language. The characteristic includes the thoughts and perception, which were unrestricted, unfiltered, creative and animated in the past; whereas in the present, they are shown restricted, filtered, dull and inactive. The change is extreme, but no particular evidence for the extremity is being suggested, except the short scene with Richard. Thus, this passage not only introduces the setting and the character, but also evokes the reader's curiosity: What has happened to Clarissa?

------------------------------------------------

I really really really appreciate for your help... Thank you..!

Re: Would've never

Goodman — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:53:46 GMT

Kooyeen,

If my comment meant anything , or for whatever it is worth, this is what I understand:

These 2 sentences are type 3 Conditional (past perfect conditional) . It doesnât matter where âneverâ is placed, meaning is the same. You will find # 1 more commonly used.

1) If you hadn't told me, I would never have found out.
2) If you hadn't told me, I would have never found out.
Etc.

1) What? I didn't steal it! I would never have stolen her wallet!
2) What? I didn't steal it! I would have never stolen her wallet!

This is the exception to the rules since âifâ is not involved in the sentence structure. This exception allows mixed tenses to be correctly and grammatically used.

Past + Past Prfect

Grammarian-bot — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:44:44 GMT

Please don't correct the sentence structure. I know it's wrong but just wanted to know whether past tense and past perfect could be used together.
And what does the clause "Australia was what had been known as the antipodes, " means in this very structure

In the minds of many people living in England, Australia was what had been known as the antipodes, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimaginable place that was considered the end of the world.

GB

Re: sentence structure: it's only... that...

Marius Hancu — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:55:27 GMT

I think it's fine/tolerated, a simplification from the full/stricter:

It was only after I closed the door that I remembered (that) I had forgotten the keys.

The final relative ("that") in this one above allows a tense simplification in the subordinate after it (I had forgotten->I forgot, past perfect-> simple perfect, see Swan) after it and it may be eliminated itself without loss of clarity.

Also, "It's" is used many times in this "atemporal" way, for past situations, but mostly in informal writing, but also in the New York Times:

-----

AprÃ¨s Janet, A Deluge

... radio market. It's only after Mr. Stern turned against Mr. ...

March 21, 2004 - By FRANK RICH (NYT) - Arts

--------

However, you may want to consider other, stricter, alternatives:

-----
It was only after I closed the book that it dawned on me that feeling
better in this way made everything worse.

By JUDITH SHULEVITZ, The New York Times
http://tinyurl.com/ym7qyf
-----

Re: Is it wrong?

Goodman — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:49:35 GMT

Hi,

Glad you asked this question. How English speaking people use English does not represent the correctness of their English. That said, I would say what you hear depends a lot on the class of people you converse with and this has nothing to do with economics. By that, I mean rich people donât necessarily possess better English skills.

Going back to you questions, in a general sense, it really makes no difference whether you mention âpurchasing the bookâ first or â been to N.Y.â. But if there is a specific context in which you want to emphasize that you had visited N.Y., then you need to put the N.Y. visit at the beginning. Likewise, if you want to emphasize the books, put the book at the front of the sentence structure. If there are two thoughts I want to express with out any order in mind, I would say : I bought many books while visiting N.Y. This has no mention of time. Just a simple sentence with adverbial clause (while visiting N.Y.). However, in a conversation in which people talked about travels, you can say:

Iâve been to N.Y. many time and bought books each time as mementoes. Or simply used a simple past tense: I went to N.Y. many times and bought books as momentous.

Following is the Rule of thumb â Examples

1) Mary shared an apartment with me before. The context suggested that She is no

longer sharing the apartment with you.

2) Mary has been sharing an apartment with me since the beginning of the year. This context requires present perfect progress to depict the time line of past till now.

3) Mary is sharing an apartment with me. This tell people simply Mary shares an apartment with you now, no time line of the past; just now.

4) Mary had shared an apartment with me before she found a job out-of âstate.

This calls for past perfect tense to depict the time line of something happened in the past and finished in the past.

The sharing took place sometime in the past and finished in the past before

another event took place.

Re: Infinitive,participle

Goodman — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 05:46:19 GMT

1) I hope to the birthday party tonight.

(a) I' shall able to come

(b)to be able to come <<answer

B is correct. After the verb âhopeâ itâs almost always followed by infinitive. If this sentence structure is too complex, you can replace with â I can comeâ.

A is incorrect because âshallâ is less in intension to come. Also âableâ must be used with a âbeâ which is missing.

2)"Shall i walk you home?" "I don't mind if you do ,but you don't D is correct ."

(a)have to do

(b)have to do so

(c)have to walk me home

(d)have to <<answer

In this context, âwalking home is already understood. Therefore it needs not to be repeated.

3)John said that he had to run in order A is correct .

Because âin oderâ is always followed by to + verb

(a) to catch the bus <<answer

(b)that he can catch a bus << in order that -clause =in order todo something?

4)The heavy rain had kept us for 2 hours.

I think this sentence can be improved by using âpast perfectâ tense because the rain lasted 2 hours; during which you were stuck waiting. If there is question about P.P. tense, post it here. We can have another discussion. A- is correct. âWaitingâ is used as a participle adjective clause to describe the action. This type of structure can be used to describe the âhowâ, âwhatâ, âwhereâ and âwhenâ.

(a)waiting <<answer

(b)to wait

5) the speaker found himself Leaving all alone.

(a)leave << "find" is a prrceptive word, can't it use with a Bare Infinitive?

(b)leaving <<answer

The explanation is the same as # 4. âleavingâ is used as an adjective. âleaving all aloneâ is an adjective clause; modifying the main sentence.

Re: Not stopping until reaching

Casi — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:33:24 GMT

RE: I didn't stop until I (had) reached the top"

an attempt wrote:
Some confusion arises if we do use the Past Perfect here: it appears that the action in the first clause, ânot stoppingâ (i.e. going up the hill), came first and the action in the second was after that going. So we see that in the sentence âBut I didn't stop until I had reached the topâ the Past Perfect marks the later of the two actions. Can it?â

I see your point. You're saying that since the "walking" itself started before reaching the top, the perfect marker should be on "stop", the first event:

walking => reach the top
I had not stopped until I reached the top.

Therefore the opposite event structure "I did not stop, until I had reached the top" is awkward in your view because in accordance with the past perfect marker the sequence of events seems backwards, right?

walking => reach the top
I did not stop until I (had) reached the top.

OK. I see what's perplexing. (Thanks for the clear explanation, an attempt.)

Now according to the task, we are to change "to stop/not" so that it fits the sentence structure, and that verb form is negative, not affirmative, so walking, an affirmative event should not find its way into our analysis. It's the negative event "not stop" that's connected to "reached the top":

walking starts => not stopping => reach top => stopping .

In terms of event structure, not stopping ended once I reached the top. It's the stopping itself that's connected to reaching the top, not the walking. Remember, the task provides us with a negative verb, so we shouldn't be looking at affirmative walking; on the contrary, we should be looking at what's provided: 'not stop', and when it ends, because it's when it ends that's being connected with reaching the top.

I didn't stop until I (had) reached the top.

Now, the opposite event structure "had not stopped is used for emphasis, and "before" is generally used with it; although, "until" is often used as its synonym, but informally:

I had not stopped (at all) before I reached the top ~ before reaching the top .

The speaker is emphasizing "not stopping" as something that had not taken place at all before reaching the top . Of course, stopping happened when the top was reached, but "stopping", as with "didn't stop" is not in focus here. It's the emphatic "not stop" (stopping had not taken place at all), that's in full view. There's a difference between 'didn't stop until' and 'hadn't stopped until' that the task does not take into consideration, but mind you, "didn't stop. . . (had) reached" would be my educated choice given that the example sentence we're asked to parse is not in context. If it were, then emphasizing "had not stopped" would be a more viable choice.

All the best,

Contrary-to-Fact Conditional

spoonfedbaby — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:40:45 GMT

I read in my English grammar book:

I would have been (past conditional) happy if he had come (past perfect).

I read in a novel a sentence structure that I never encountered but it is similar to the contrary-to-fact structure:

James wondered absently how different his life might have been had he found his way to such a place when his mother had died, rather than ending up in the â¦

Is it equivalent to the following?

James wondered absently how different his life might have been if he had found his way to such a place when his mother had died, rather than ending up in the â¦

I would say "might have been" is the past conditional and "had found" the past perfect.