Search results for 'tag:Stative verbs tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Stative verbs' and 'Clauses'

Re: Let's see who finishes/will finish first.

CalifJim — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:03:49 GMT

Only one s in present!!!

You can't use will with the stative verbs in this construction: [Let's see / Let me know / Tell me] plus an indirect question. I would not call these relative clauses.

to finish first - an action.

how you are - a state - not an action.

get there first - same as arrive first - an action.

you think - an internal activity; having an opinion - not an action.

_______

Thus, with the indirect question in brackets { }, ungrammatical choices prefixed with asterisk *:

[Let's see / Let me know / Tell me] {who [finishes / will finish / gets there / will get there] first}.

[Let's see / Let me know / Tell me] {how [you are / *you will be / what you think / *what you will think]}

_______

Your example with make sure does not belong to the pattern above. There's no indirect question.

Make sure (that) you come back soon.

A make sure that pattern is not followed by a future (will).

______

You can save yourself a lot of headaches by using the present tense for all of these. Even in cases where will is possible, it's almost always the inferior choice.

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:54 GMT

They won't smoke ever since they saw a film on lung cancer.

What does "won't" mean here?

Re: correct sentences 24/11

Teo — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:09:49 GMT

http://forums.eslcafe.com/student/viewtopic.php?t=22113&highlight=

Re: tenses

Marius Hancu — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:55:51 GMT

CalifJim wrote:
And by the way, has anyone tried the angle that stative verbs might act differently from other verbs in if-clauses with regard to the speaker's tendency to keep them in the past instead of putting them in the past perfect (in what seems to be a "third conditional")?

That might be a trend. Or not! (I don't know if anyone has explored this possibility.)

I haven't seen this suggested anywhere else, but I've felt for some time that yes, there are several verbs that seem to be treated differently in this respect. Not sure if they're all stative, but it might well be so.

Re: tenses

CalifJim — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:45:50 GMT

And by the way, has anyone tried the angle that stative verbs might act differently from other verbs in if-clauses with regard to the speaker's tendency to keep them in the past instead of putting them in the past perfect (in what seems to be a "third conditional")?

That might be a trend. Or not! (I don't know if anyone has explored this possibility.)

CJ

Re: until, by the time

CalifJim — Tue, 23 May 2006 18:44:38 GMT

There must be a clause in the perfect tense when by the time is used. Is it true?

This has the ring of truth. It certainly is the norm, especially if you include the modal perfect tenses (must have, would have, ...). And yet, counterexamples do exist, particularly with a stative verb in the main clause.

By the time you arrive, I will (already) be here.
By the time he arrived, I (already) knew the bad news he was about to deliver.

More normative, perhaps:

By the time you arrive, I will have (already) finished making the sandwiches.
By the time you arrived, I had (already) finished making the sandwiches.
By the time they (had) noticed the tunnel, the prisoner would have escaped.

CJ

Re: mixed type

Klavier — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:30:33 GMT

MrPedantic wrote:
This kind of structure is common with a stative verb in the main clause:

1. If I were more intelligent, I wouldn't have made such a mess of my exams.

(Intelligence now implies intelligence then.)

MrP

I see this as hypothetical, and the original as something that didn't happened in the past, am I right? So,
Could the first sentence be rephrased like this? What would be the difference?

My English would have been better if I had had some native friends.

Re: when/while/as

paco2004 — Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:55:59 GMT

Hello Diamond

You are correct in that "while" in itself contains the sense of duration. Nevertheless, I believe, "while" can't be followed by a purely punctual dynamic verb. For example, "While I hit the car, I was staring at a pretty girl" sounds weird to me. In the case of a when-clause, the sense of duration is carried only by the durative aspect of the verb used. So when we use a when-clause as a duration time-adverbial, we have to change the verb aspect into progressive, when the verb is a dynamic one.

As for the question in your second message, I guess, your trouble comes from how to parse the aspect of "study". "Study" is actually a bit ambiguous about its aspect. Native speakers use it sometimes as a stative verb and sometimes as a dynamic verb. It seems natural to them to say both "I study law at Princeton" and "I'm studying law at Princeton". So I do not think "while I studied the huge ears" and "when I was studying American history" contradict each other. And I think, we can use "when I studied" in a durative sense. (EX) "When I studied Japanese, I was surprised to know how easy it was to speak and hear".

"Look at" is an almost purely punctual dynamic verb. So we have to use it in progressive form when we use it in a when-clause of durative sense. "Sit" can be both stative (be in a seat) and dynamic (take a seat). I think we can say also "while someone is sitting". (EX) "While I was sitting in the park, it began to get dark." The same discussion could apply to the case of "sleep". (EX) "How could I know what happened while I was sleeping?"

paco

Re: mixed type

Diamondrg — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:17:16 GMT

MrPedantic wrote:
Diamondrg wrote:

1- My English would have been better if I had some native friends.

In addition, #1 implies that you do not now have native friends; that if you had native friends now, you would have had native friends then.

This kind of structure is common with a stative verb in the main clause:

1. If I were more intelligent, I wouldn't have made such a mess of my exams.

(Intelligence now implies intelligence then.)

doesn't it imply intelligence now at the same time?

MrP

Re: mixed type

MrPedantic — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:20:47 GMT

Diamondrg wrote:

1- My English would have been better if I had some native friends.

In addition, #1 implies that you do not now have native friends; that if you had native friends now, you would have had native friends then.

This kind of structure is common with a stative verb in the main clause:

1. If I were more intelligent, I wouldn't have made such a mess of my exams.

(Intelligence now implies intelligence then.)

MrP