Search results for 'tag:Speak english tag:Present tenses' matching tags 'Speak english' and 'Present tenses'

Re: Some unsolved questions

Belly — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:19:29 GMT

Cool Breeze wrote:
Hi Belly

1. Uninterrupted is adjectival in character and meaning. It refers to the state of things. No outsider interrupted him while he was doing his work.
2. I would say: When she arrives there next week, I'll write to her. Arriving only takes a short time and therefore I would prefer the present tense. If the reference were to something that takes a longer time, the perfect would be justified: When she has read that book next week, I'll write to her.
3. Well could well be omitted without any significant change in the meaning. Perhaps it increases the likelihood of travelling a little.
4. b) is the choice that first comes to mind, but from a purely mathematical or logical viewpoint a) is also correct as far as the ability to speak English is concerned.

CB

So that means Continue is a linking verb?

Re: Some unsolved questions

Cool Breeze — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:36:18 GMT

Hi Belly

1. Uninterrupted is adjectival in character and meaning. It refers to the state of things. No outsider interrupted him while he was doing his work.
2. I would say: When she arrives there next week, I'll write to her. Arriving only takes a short time and therefore I would prefer the present tense. If the reference were to something that takes a longer time, the perfect would be justified: When she has read that book next week, I'll write to her.
3. Well could well be omitted without any significant change in the meaning. Perhaps it increases the likelihood of travelling a little.
4. b) is the choice that first comes to mind, but from a purely mathematical or logical viewpoint a) is also correct as far as the ability to speak English is concerned.

CB

Re: How to Speak English Fluently

CalifJim — Sat, 12 May 2007 01:34:57 GMT

Learn commonly used phrases thoroughly -- phrases of three to six words.
Practice the pronunciation over and over until the whole phrase becomes automatic. Without constant repetition you can't ever become fluent.
If the phrase is long or difficult, learn the end of the phrase first. Gradually add words that precede.
When you have mastered shorter phrases, pratice combining shorter phrases into sentences.
Always think of what the phrase means while you are practicing saying it; this is very important..

Group phrases by grammatical type. Combine into patterns that have the same structures.

Type A1: (Full) Infinitive governors:
I want, you want, we want, they want
I wanted, you wanted, we wanted, they wanted, he wanted, she needed
I need, you need, we need, they need
I needed, you needed, we needed, they needed, he/she needed
I remembered, ... I forgot, ... I tried, ... I plan ..., I planned ..., I have, ... I had, ..., I know how ...

Type A2: (Full) Infinitive governors with 'S-marker':
he wants, she wants, Who wants ...?
he needs, she needs, Who needs ...?
...
etc.

Type B: Infinitive expressions:
to do it, to say it, to tell you, to tell me, to go, to leave, to start, to read the book, to write the letter, to see the movie, to buy the coat, to sleep, to rest, to work, to open the door, to close the window, to wash the dishes, to eat, to drink, to finish the book, to solve the problem, to study the question, to ask a question, to answer the question, ...   [thousands of possibilities]

Combine any Type A expression with any Type B expression that makes a meaningful sentence. Make as many as you can and practice saying each several times, always thinking about what it means.

Type C: Introductory phrases that you can place in front of any sentence.
I think ..., Do you think ...?, We think ..., They think ...,
I think that ..., Do you think that ...?, We think that ..., They think that ...,
I don't think (that) ..., Don't you think (that) ...?, ...
[Same patterns for I know (that) ... I'm sure that ... I don't know if ... I'm not sure whether ... etc. etc.]

Place a Type C expression in front of the Type A + Type B combinations that you built earlier, keeping the present tenses with the present tenses and the past with the past, of course, as required by the grammar of English. (You can even have two Type C's.) Now you have thousands of sentences to practice.   You can add little words like and and but and or to make things more interesting.

I don't think he tried to do it. I'm sure that she wants to buy the coat. Did you know that she forgot to wash the dishes? They needed to open the window, but they didn't know how to do it. Do you think that she tried to write the letter?   He said that he didn't need to buy the car. I'm not sure whether he said that she wanted to write the letter. ... [Sentences by the thousands!]

Your textbooks should have all kinds of patterns like these to help you put together your own combinations with a varied vocabulary.

Good luck!

CJ

Re: not only

Yankee — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:10:34 GMT

Hi Anon

What you've posted is the first half a sentence. The sentence will probably continue with the words 'but also':
"... but she also enjoys ..."

And that would mean that it is not just talking about her kids that she enjoys -- she enjoys something else too.

In addition, when a sentence begins with 'Not only', you typically need to invert the subject and the verb. In the case of the simple present tense, that means you need to use either 'do' or 'does' and the base form of the verb.

Not only does she enjoy talking about her kids, but she also enjoys talking to them."
Not only do I speak English but (I) also (speak) German.

Re: I have hoped that

Mister Micawber — Thu, 26 May 2005 07:04:06 GMT

"Since my school days, I have always hoped that I could speak English." -- this sounds fine to me too, Paco.

It doesn't seem to be wrong, just rare. Overall, it is a mystery to me, but I have a feeling that the concept of 'hoping' is often connected with-- obviously-- 'a hope', that is, a discrete event rather than an ongoing desire inside.

The past perfect, 'had hoped', can easily represent a discrete event (prior to another past activity, of course), so we would say 'I had hoped that I would become a doctor, but I discovered that I couldn't stand the sight of blood.' This could easily apply to a single 'hope' that is retained, rather than a continuing feeling. In fact, if we want to express the continuing feeling, we are usually pressed into using the p.p. continuous: 'I had been hoping to meet Dr. Seuss for many years, when suddenly he walked in the door'-- thus showing that the hope was active and omnipresent to the speaker.

These contrasting uses are not so effective in present tenses, because the present perfect has other more common uses than to separate discrete events from ongoing ones. 'I have hoped' seems primarily to suggest the 'continuing from indefinite past to now' interpretation, and 'I have been hoping' seems more to suggest the 'heightened interest/politeness' factor. These interpretations are common in the present tenses, but not so in the past tenses-- I guess because the past is completed fact, and not so affected by courtesy.

Re your hope getting faint-- yes, and I think that is an example of the usual use of the past perfect, eh? The structure says that the hope happened first, then the U.S. visit occurred. It too seems suggestive of the idea that 'a hope' is often subconsciously considered a single event remembered rather than a continuing desire.

Does that get us anywhere?

Subjunctive mood in English

paco2004 — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:08:13 GMT

Hello

This is a garbage-like posting written by a poor English learner who has been and still now is agonized by subjunctive things which supposedly underlie English collocations.

My way of understanding English grammar

The English language uses two moods (indicative/subjunctive) and two tenses (present/past). Accordingly, all English verbs including modals and auxiliary verbs have four inflective forms beside finite forms (-ed, -ing). The four are;
(1) indicative: present / past
(2) subjunctive: present / past
For example, 'can', 'have', 'be', and 'smoke' inflect the ways like:

(1) indicative: can / could
(2) subjunctive: can / could

(1) indicative: have, has / had
(2) subjunctive: have / had

(1) indicative: am, are, is / was, were
(2) subjunctive: be / were

(1) indicative: smoke, smokes / smoked
(2) subjunctive: smoke / smoked

We have to understand that tense and time are things a little different. The time is a concept to section the time flow in universe. There are three times: past, present, and future. This concept of time, especially that of 'future' is the one that can be owned only by the modern world where many people feel rather sure they can live next year. Contrary to this, the tense is a concept owned by the people who lived in the remote past and created languages. In such remote past, I think, people must have been unable to be sure they could live in 'future', even tomorrow, because their living environment was so harsh. So 'future' wouldn't matter a lot to them. It is why many languages including English basically lack verbal forms for future. Anyway 'future tense' is not a real tense built in the English language. The future tense is something like an extension of the present tense and therefore it should be expressed only with help of the modal verb 'will'. So, we could say, basically, English has only two tenses, present and past.

Mood is a convenience contrived by the old people to differentiate their speech into fact-statements and thought-statements. The indicative mood is the one for fact-statements and the subjunctive for thought-statements. In our modern world people can know many things proved to be facts owing to education and science, and therefore, our speech is more abundant with indicative sentences to compare with subjunctive sentences. But in the old days, people could not confirm many things they know to be fact. And so, I suppose, they would speak a lot in collocations like "Methink + subjunctive mood". It seems nowadays native speakers are getting uncosciousness that they are using the subjunctive mood in their collocations. But still, I feel, it would be better for us (ESL) to know the subjunctive mood underlies many of current English collocations, especially those using modals.

Now this posting is coming to what I really would like to say. I was taught and even now many Japanese students are being taught that the protases in English imaginary conditionals are expressed by 'past tense' (for imaginary present) and 'past perfect tense' (for imaginary past). And teachers told us that, exceptionally in the case the verb is 'be', we should use a special word, 'were'. But I think this way of understanding would get the thing more complicated. I think we (at least me) had better understand that the finite verbs in the thought-statements in English are all in subjunctive forms.
(EX) If I had been a diligent student, I would be able to speak English better. ['had' and 'would' are subjunctives]
(EX) I wish I were a bird. I wish I could fly like a bird. ['could' is subjunctive]
(EX) (I wish) I could kill him. ['could' is subjunctive] I could swim when I was young. ['could' is indicative]

paco

Re: Little understanding of reported speech.

munchun2004 — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:18:14 GMT

Thank you JTT, for your replya and your special advice on the English system we have. I am not a native speaker so I have been trying quite hard just to learn how English speaker think when they try to communicate with a Laguage full with rules. Sometimes I just don't get it that in such a short time they could produces so many different pronunciation and rules that occur in on long sentence. I just dont how I should follow them but to try to learn English from the mistake by talking as much as I can with the native speaker.

I think one of the reason I can speak English as fluent as the native speaker is because I have to think twice for the rules of grammar before I can speak out an English statement in a conversation.

I started reading the threads you wrote in the forum after getting the "different" answers you provided. I think you got a point that there are many special cases in English where a person can only learn the essense of English in daily conversation, not from book.

I don't know if you would do this, but could you list out the rules that you would use when you speak with other people about things you saw or heard in the past. Following is my own rules that I got from all the questions I have asked. I hope you could correct them for me.

Rule 1: Use the present tense if what you heard is still related to current situation or yet to come.
Ex: I heard from Jams last week that you are going to join the street race tomorrow.
Ex: I promised him I would finish the job before I go home. (Because of different task in time)
Ex: At first we were hesitate to ask you but finally we decided to tell you that we are against the act too.

Rule 2: Speakers have the choice to choose which tense they want to use (present tense or past tense) if what they heard still relate to current situation.
Ex: I saw from the TV commercial yesterday where it said your company is offering a special deal for all the retailers regardless of how small the retailers are.

Rule 3: If what you learned or found in the past still holds true for you, especially the thing you learned is being put in a clause, you can use the present tense to describe your dicovery.
Ex: Today at school, teacher taught us how to give a proper shut down to our computers if the computers hang suddenly.
Ex: Once I was in Hong Kong with this new friend of mine. While we were in the bar, he told me that if you meet the girl you like, you better introduce yourself to her. He said that if you ask, you have fifty-fifty chance, but if you don't, you don't have a chance.
Ex: My grandpa used to tell me that a good name is what a man can leave behind for over a hundred year. (!!!Do I have to strictly put the sentence in past tense if I am doubtful what my grandpa told me was true? That's why I always wander on which tense I should use in this dilemma of mine.)

Rule 4: There are special cases where you have to ignore the grammar rules from time to time.
Ex:
Marcus: Did you know that people here are suffering from a special disease called the skin painter?
Darrel: I did know that people here are(were also can be used) suffering from the disease. That is why I am here.
Ex: I was wondering if you want to go to theather with me tonight.
Ex: I was just thinking why this lamp post is being put here instead of the darker spot over there. (I am not sure if 'is' could be used instead of 'was'. Could you correct this for me?)

Rules 5: You can use present tense or past tense when you describe scene or story of a movie. This rules also stands for book and websites content.
Ex: I saw the movie last night. It was a movie about how a orphan becomes a greatman through years of struggle.
Ex: I still remember I screamed out as loud as I could when I saw the ghost suddenly turn it head towards the serial killer after the killer has just murdered a new victim. It was horrible.
Ex: I visited a website last week where it says there are currently 5 million people out of job. I think I might be as well as one of them. (!!!I am not sure if I can use present tense here because web contents tend to be changed from time to time. Should I use present tense?)

I think above are the 5 rules of mine that I would use from now on when I talk to other people. If anyone has anything to add to my rules, please write them down in this forum. I am just wondering if JTT has his own rules towards that English grammar. I really hope I could see a totally different view point from JTT.

Re: Modals

pemmican — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:18:29 GMT

I don't really understand the question either...

Konstantin, you're referring to the Conditional with your German example.
Indirect speech in German works differently as the Conjunctive has to be used in formal German, which however, can be replaced by the Conditional (would+infinitive).

In English, the tenses have to be shiftes back from direct to indirect speech - .... but NOW - that I've been thinking about this, I might have got an idea of what maj's question aimed at:

The modals "can" and "may" only occur in their forms in simple present and simple past tense, "must" is used in simple present tense only. Now, if you have a sentence including one of these modals, that need to be shifted back, you've to use substitute forms for all of these three modal helping verbs:

Linda: "He can speak English" -------- Linda said he "was able to" (could) speak English.
Linda: "He could speak English" ------ Linda said he "had been able to" speak English.

Linda: "He may go" -------------------- Linda said he "was allowed to" (might) go.
Linda: "He might go" ------------------ Linda said he "had been allowed to" go.

Linda: "He must leave" ----------------- Linda said he "had to" leave.
Linda: "He had to leave" --------------- Linda said he "had had to" leave.

("might" and "could" are commonly usually used as conjunctive forms though, but can express past tense also)

As you can see in these examples, some modals cannot appear in their own forms in special indirect sentences, so maybe that was the problem, maj was aiming at?!

Hope I could help...