Search results for 'tag:Simple present tag:Paragraphs' matching tags 'Simple present' and 'Paragraphs'

Re: I thought a spider is/was an insect

Pter — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:53:09 GMT

Sorry to have confused all of you. My statement

"I thought *only* simple present was correct, but I thought wrong. I now know that both present tense and past tense are possible"

was only referring to the sample sentence given by Jim

(a) "My professor said that spiders are (were also possible) insects!" <-- reported speech

not the original sentence

(b) "I thought a spider was an insect" <-- not reported speech

My thoughts in my last post were presented in two paragraphs, the first one was about (b) and the second one was about (a).

Regarding the "universal falsehood", yes, I knew you were talking about just what the speaker believed, not necessarily the reality. You used this phrase just because I had been using "universal truths" to describe something that was in fact believed to be false.

Now I think I understand all of what you explained including Barbara's second post, but I am not sure you understand what I said. Thanks again.

Re: Techical Report Writing

Kaos — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:33:13 GMT

mm..

Article
The first Fast Retransmit in Figure 4 results from three
dup acks for packet 25. The second Fast Retransmit results
from three dup acks for packet 42, the last packet transmitted
before the first Fast Retransmit was initiated.

and then at the beginning of the second paragraph:

Article
Because the x-axis shows the time that packets appeared
on a link within the network..

So it is simple present okay for report writing?

Which tense to use?

Grammarian-bot — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:04:55 GMT

We are leaving tomorrow.
Our plane is leaves tomorrow.

Both of the above sentences refer to the future. 1st sentence uses present continuous while the 2nd sentence uses
simple present to express an action in future. Are there any rules to determine which tense to use in these situations
or it's just the matter of what tense is being used in the essay/paragraph.

GB

Re: Last questions about paper (to MrP or whomever is patient enough)

Clive — Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:09:37 GMT

Hi,

1) "In the late 80s a discussion took place between Julia Annas and Richard Bett over whether ontological moral skepticism is âlocalâ â that is to say, whether it does not call into question all beliefs, but arises from a contrast between morality and some other system of beliefs that cannot be undermined by skepticism. Annas claimed that this moral skepticism is by nature local, which gave rise to Bettâs objection." I don't feel it's totally clear here. perhaps you could add the word 'ontological' after 'this', in other words repeat the whole phrase. I would.

2) "The aim of the present paper is therefore to continue the discussion between Annas and Bett about the local character of ontological moral skepticism. For this reason, its title derives from that of an article by Bett, which in turn has its origin in Annasâ claim that this moral skepticism âis essentially localâ." Seems OK here.

Is it clear that in both paragraphs "this" refers back to "ontological moral skepticism", or should I rather use "that"? In this latter case, I would then have "that that...".

3a) "One might object that the unresolved disagreements that exist among the defenders of moral realism show that moral values are not real. However, the fact that a disagreement is unresolved does not imply that none of the conflicting views is correct. Not even the existence of an unresolvable disagreement among moral realists is sufficient to deny that moral values are objective, since it only manifests the impossibility of determining which of the positions in conflict, if any, is correct. Hence, one needs more than an undecided or undecidable conflict of moral realistic positions to deny the objectivity of morality; what one needs is a conception of the world which one takes to be objective, and with which moral realism is at odds."

I've decided to use "among" instead of "between", not only because there are more than two moral realists, but also because when I read "between the defenders of moral realism" I've got the impression that it will say "between the defenders of moral realism and their opponents (or sth like this)". On the contrary, when using "among", I've got the impression that it is a disagreement or a conflict whithin the group of the moral realists. I agree.

This is why in the following paragraph I first use "among" and then "between" (perhaps wrongly): Your chces seem fine to me. I don't think your use of 'between' is wrong.

3b) "More precisely, the Pyrrhonist finds a) an undecidable disagreement among moral doctrines which have differing views about what the good, the bad, and the indifferent are, or about what things these notions apply to; and b) an undecidable disagreement between the doctrines which assert that things are good, bad, or indifferent by nature, and those that deny this."

4) "Julia Annas has affirmed that the kind of modern moral skepticism which denies the existence of objective moral values is essentially âlocalâ; this means that it is based upon a world-view that is itself immune to skepticism. Richard Bett, on the contrary, has maintained that being non-skeptical about some view of the world is not an indispensable condition for rejecting moral realism."

This the abstract of the paper. Is it ok to use the present perfect, or should I rather employ the simple past? PP seems OK to me. I don't recommend simple past. It tends to suggest that they may hold a different view today.

You could also use simple present when talking of beliefs and positoions in this way. For example, you could 'Aristotle maintains that ....' even though he is long dead.

5) "Several authors have adopted Mackieâs kind of moral skepticism. Among them are Snare 1984, Black 1989â1990, and Garner 1990, though the latter prefers to designate his position âanti-moral realismâ." I'd omit the comma before 'and'.

6) "Unfortunately, there has been no subsequent analysis of the cogency of Bettâs argument against Annasâ position, and hence no further examination of whether or not the latterâs thesis is correct. I believe that such an analysis is still relevant, because ..." Sounds OK

7) "For from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett invalidly infers that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about any other area. That is to say, to deny the objectivity of morality, it is not necessary to have confidence in the objectivity of science and common sense and any other way of looking at the world; but it does not follow from this that, to deny the objectivity of morality, one need not be certain about the objectivity of at least some other way of looking at the world."

Again with this complicated text. The problem I see is that what I first call "area", I afterwards call "way of looking at the world". Yes, I see what you mean. It seems acceptable to me, but then I'm not a philosopher reading this and, presumably, weighing all the subtleties.

8) "To sum up: one can deny the existence of objective moral values without having to be skeptical only about morality or non-skeptical about science; but this denial necessarily presupposes confidence in the objectivity of some view of reality with which moral realism is at odds. Hence, Annas is right when she maintains that modern moral skepticism is essentially local." OK

9) "According to the first ((not sure first what?), âmoral values are not real because there is so much dispute about them and no clear way of resolving itâ. Hence, in moral inquiry there does not seem to be progress or accumulation of knowledge, in contrast with what happens in other domains of inquiry. Annas points out that the empirical sciences are in this case the preferred model, since..."

10) "Annasâ view is, then, that modern moral skepticism is local because it is based upon a contrast between morality and some other view of the world whose objectivity is not called into question." OK

11) "Thus, though Annas contends that confidence in the objectivity of science is a possible basis for denying the existence of objective moral values, she does not believe that it is the only possibility." OK

12) "Bett opposes the view that moral skepticismâs being local is a sine qua non for holding that there are no objective moral values."

As my use of sine qua non has provoked some discussion, I've thought of the following option:

"Bett opposes the view that, to deny the existence of objective moral values, it is necessary that modern moral skepticism be local." Sounds good to me

I hope these brief comments are of help to you. However, I think you are doing very well on your own!

Clive

Please help me!! for my creative writting!!

Guest — Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:55:09 GMT

Hi everybody,
First, you have to know that english is not my mother tongue so....my english could be trashy.
So, i have to write the back cover of my own thriller...I have to imagine the title and my pen name...I have to write about a plot in three short paragraphs. The setting is my high school (called Stanisles) and I am free to imagine the story. I gotta use the simple present to create suspense and finish with suspension points... The aim is to make people feel like reading my book.
That's what I've done:

------------------------------------------------
A detention afternoon, in addition on a Saturday, because of a homework forgotten at home, Haley James, feeling antagonized and injustice, decide to follow Nathan Scott, his boyfriend and his clique who want to explore their high school Stanislasâ¦

A stumble, a hatch which collapse, an arcane and never ending subterraneanâ¦the escapade turn into an adventure and the adventure turn out to be the worst nightmare ever when they found out three skeletons trapped behind a door closed from the outside. The worst is still to come since no one knows how to get outâ¦

When Nathan releases a thirty years old secret, each one of his friends started to be mysteriously killed by something that appears to be the Grim Reaperâ¦
-------------------------------------------------

Could you please correct this? and why not improve it? (well, in fact i gotta add 30 extra words)
Thanks a lot, I really do appreciate it.

Re: SIMPLE PRESENT EXPRESSES HABIT

ts — Mon, 07 Jun 2004 23:40:59 GMT

(a) Simple Present action indicates a present action (=continuity=c):
Ex: I live in Hong Kong.
(b) Present Perfect action indicates a past action (=finish=d):
Ex: I have lived in Japan.

BUT: If we state a time frame, tenses have to be changed:
(c) Present Perfect action indicates a present action (=continuity=a):
Ex: I have lived in HK since 2000/in the past three years.
(d) Simple Past action indicates a past action (=finish=b):
Ex: I lived in Japan in 1976/five years ago.

According to these four simple rules, Present Perfect does have dual functions, expressing same as either Simple Present or Simple Past. They only have a difference in a paragraph of sentences.

In every forum, I promise people that whatever you say to Present Perfect can be said word for word again to either Simple Present or Simple Past. Actually, however, the promise is valid only on one-sentence basis, not in a paragraph of sentences. But as people will automatically do the discussion on one-sentence basis, I usually don't need to mention the condition of one-sentence basis.

I have never failed to keep my seemingly failing promise.

Re: SIMPLE PRESENT EXPRESSES HABIT

ts — Mon, 07 Jun 2004 11:56:23 GMT

The difference in use between Simple Past and Present Perfect has always been a noted and puzzling question. I have explored this problem for decades and found no learners who can really tell the two apart.

Actually, since tenses are used to show the time connections, or disconnections, between actions in paragraph, these two tenses cannot be discriminated on one-sentence basis. Using paragraph, however, we may now give conclusive answer to the nuance between them. There is a time for Simple Past and a time for Present Perfect:
Ex: "Last week we went to a new store department. We BOUGHT many things. We HAVE RECOMMENDED it to Ms B."
== Simple Past BOUGHT indicates it happens at the same past time of the former past frame "last week". Present Perfect HAVE RECOMMENDED happens clearly behind "last week". Additionally, it is therefore not wholly correct for grammars to say commonly that Present Perfect happens in an indefinite time. As here, we definitely know when it happens.

So far, no one has disagreed with me about my way of telling the difference between the two tenses.

Re: Grammar: Tenses!!!!!

miriam — Thu, 13 May 2004 01:25:16 GMT

1. I don't think it's a matter of obligation, "isn't going" just sounds natural in that sentence. The meaning is that Susan goes to school (Simple Present because it is something she des regularly), but she isn't going to school right now. "Right now" doesn't give the idea of any action you perform regularly or habitually, so the Present Continuous makes sense in that part of the sentence. She just is not going to school at the moment.
"Susan doesn't go to school" would mean she never goes to school, she doesn't attend classes.

2. The first sentence in that short paragraph says that it is summer now. So, if Susan works in summer, she "is working" at the moment.
"has been working" means she started to work at some time in the past and she is still working. However, since you're told that it is summer "now", Susan "is working".
Look at it this way: the sentence would sound weird if it said "It has been summer since June/for a month". "It is summer" sounds much more natural in that paragraph. And Susan "is doing" something this summer: she "is working".

Not sure my explanation is very clear, but I hope it helps.