Search results for 'tag:Whom tag:Past tenses' matching tags 'Whom' and 'Past tenses'

Re: Felt like...

Avangi — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:42:54 GMT

Hi Mad, With this scant context, it could be taken either way. It's pretty confusing.

"Friends" is plural. Was she paired with one particular guy?

Whom is she talking to? Her date??

"Felt" is past tense, but "is" is present tense. Is she still on the date with this guy (or guys) (or girls) when she makes this statement? (like maybe at the very end of it?)

Is Neil her main squeeze? (Sorry, my eyes are getting bad.) Is Nell her main squeeze? Who the h--- is Nell? (Is Lana a guy?)

Anyway, I'm assuming "tonight" is a noun rather than an adverb. "I had to explain about tonight." Not, "Tonight, I felt like I had to explain to Nell."

It's still "tonight" when she makes the statement. It sounds like Nell is not present. If she has already explained to Nell, she must have covered a lot of ground.

But on the other hand, we don't know what it is she wants to explain. Did she feel she had to explain what happened tonight, or did she feel (in the past) that she had to explain that she was planning to go on a date without him/her??

If she's talking to the guy and they're still on the date, maybe it's, "I felt like I had to explain to Nell, but, you know what? I don't feel that way any longer." Maybe she's just telling him that she feels wierd about having felt obligated to tell Nell all her private business.

Or maybe she's warning "him" that this "date" is no secret from Nell, because she felt obligated to tell her/him.

You're asking me, "Did Lana explain to Nell about tonight?" I'll tell you. I don't know.

A question about Style

Ant_222 — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:56:47 GMT

Hello everybody!

Probably, you already know of my infamous venture âthe translation of an adventure game called Star Heritage.

Below I'll repeat part of my answer to Huevos, whom I shall thank for accidently reminding me of the problem that I now ask you to help me with:

Â«I have tried to preserve the original (Russian) way of narraion, which is done:

1) From the first person perspective,
2) In the past tense,
So most of the time it looks pretty much like a diary.Â»

...Such is the most of the narration, but the descriptions of various items â those which you'd get in response to the "examine" command in traditional text adventures â are provided in the Present tense. Keeping the player envolved, this doesn't sound unnatureal in Russian, but...

Is it acceptable in English?

EXAMPLE (no, it's not from the game I just thought it out):

> GO NORTH
I easily went down the hill and found myself in(on?) a gloomy lowland. Only the strained buzz of moscitoes making their way through the thick, moist air disturbed the silence. They were the only creatures here, but that was more than compensated by their number.
> examine mosquito
Nothing unusual, except for the very long proboscis, probably useful for some animals covered with fur
> examine air
The air is extremly moist and smells of decaying plants.

Re: His name was John Doe.

Yankee — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:53:20 GMT

Hi Jackson

When referring to the names of dead family members or other people with whom you had some kind of personal relationship, it is normal to use the past tense. Using the present tense suggests that such people are still alive and/or that the personal relationship is still current.

As a further example, if someone said "The name of my boss at ABC Company is John Smith", I would interpret that to mean not only that John Smith is still alive, but also that the person currently works at ABC Company. If someone said "The name of my boss at ABC Company was John Smith", my first interpretation would be that the person no longer works at that company. In other words, the person's business relationship with John Smith has ended.

Re: What's the last movie you've seen?

Goodman — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:33:52 GMT

ETJW-CMD wrote:

Dear Goodman,

I am one of Hoaâs friends, a member of a friendly yet private English-To-Join-the-World Club that we co-founded here in Vietnam. Last night, she showed me this thread and asked for my opinion. My first reaction was that the present perfect and past tense combination - in that particular example - is illogical. However, I could understand where she came from - It is not grammatical correctness but situational acceptability.

When we get together at our weekly meetings, we sometimes have a good, respectful laugh at the craziness and freedom of English language. Richard Lederer writes, âIn this unreliable English tongue, greyhounds arenât grey; a woodchuck is a groundhog; glowworms are fireflies, but fireflies are not flies (they are beetle)â and âhot dogs can be cold, darkrooms can be lit.â â¦ âSometimes you have to believe that all English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people drive in a parkway and park in a driveway?â

Such a free spirit coupled with the humors of poking at oneself is what makes the language and its people so wonderful to us.

Having said that, I must be fair to Hoa, whom I know of, is a rather sensitive and wonderful lady. I read the text from the sites that she shared - particularly the BBC site â and found out the reason why she selected it. On page one of the BBC text, we see, âWhat was the last film you saw?â and on page five, âthink of the film you have seen recently, what was it called?â The last one Hoa equated it to âwhat was the film you have seen recently called?â That is her way to express her âcoexistenceâ ideal: an ungrammatical sentence â but informally acceptable - can coexist with a prescriptive one.

Perhaps, the missing connection for all of us is the word recently, which goes rather well with the present perfect!

Thank you and Have a good day!
Chau My

Hello ETJW-CMD,

First, on behalf of the forum,welcome! I am not exactly sure the purpose of your post but I take it that you are speaking on behalf of Hao Thai. The particular sentence that touched off a rather messy debate was " what was the last film you have seen" if I am not mistaken. By the face value of this sentence, it's deemed ungrammatical in my opinion but as usual, there are always different views. What I said two postings ago which in some ways seemed to share something in common with your post, if I read it right. Nonetheless, I still believe that past tense and present perfect can't coexist in one single sentence. But they are possible in relative clauses. If we want to talk about the name of the movie you saw, we can say "what is the name of the movie you saw last week?" which is clearly a grammatically correct past tense sentence . But when we try to combine simple past with present perfect, such as "what was the name of the movie you have seen recently?", it just sounds awkward to most ears, although it may be understood. That said, I agree adverbs such as "since" and "recently" along with many others can reflect a present perfect tone. But "what was the name of the movie you have seen recently?" is still not a sound sentence.

Two postings ago I said:

_{There are plenty of instances where present perfect and simple past can co-exist, but not in the same frame of sentence structure. i.e. âwhen was the last time you have visited Disneylandâ? (wrong)}

_{If my English knowledge is correct, the following is a valid sentence. Not only it contains present prefect and past, it has a present reference as well.}

_{I have been to Disneyland with my family many times but I canât remember which year the last visit was.}_{This kind of mixed tense scenario happens}

Tense usage and subjunctive with "to remember"

N5pn4cya — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:12:10 GMT

I'm not sure if there is any prescriptive rule to what I read in a statement as follows:

...after all these years, I asked him if he remembered who I was.

The sentence sounded okay to me, but I was also confused as to whether the subjunctive should be at play here and if the past tense of remember is used correctly in a semantic way.

Semantically, remembering someone is a present state of consciousness and a continuous action. Therefore, one should ask if someone "remembers" you (e.g. I wonder if he remembers me), but not "remembered" you unless it is explicitly describing an instance where you were once "remembered" but now possibly forgotten (e.g. He remembered me yesterday, how can he forget who I am today?). I don't know if this interpretation is valid and if it should be a consideration at all.

Grammatically, subjunctive may be used for subjective, doubtful, hypothetical, or grammatically subordinate statements or questions, as occurring in subordinate that clauses after a main clause expressing recommendation, resolution, demand. In my sample sentence, does its subordinate if-statement in the hypothetical "if he remember..." and the main clause expressing question/demand in "I asked him..." qualify for the subjuntive tense?

I thought about rewriting that sentence into: I asked him if he remember who I am.

However, the verb agreement rule seems to reject such a revision.

Please help clarify. Also, which one(s) of the following is/are correct:

1- I wonder if he remembers me. vs. I wonder if he remember me. (Should here be a subjunctive?)

2- Two days ago, he remembered whom I was. vs. Two days ago, he remembered whom I am. (Suggesting that the object "I" is the same person, in all respect, now as he was then two days ago. Is this okay?)

3- He remembers who I am. vs. He remembers whom I am. (who or whom in the dative position when using "to remember"?)

Thank you so much!

Re: Would - conditional or past tense?

Kooyeen — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:59:45 GMT

Hi Jack,
my try:
I would not put myself in a position where I jeopardized the people working for me, or those for whom I worked, for the sake of vanity.
I don't know the exact terms to refer to those words. Let's say those two "past tenses" are kind of like two "subjunctives" or "unreality past tenses". It's like everything is part of an hypothetical statement, like "If I worked there and jeopardized the people...". But that's not really part of an "If... would" sentence, since there are no if's, but rather it is more of a tense simplification in conditional sentences. The simplification consists in using a past tense in conditional senteces, without repeating "would", and it's done even if the situation is real and not hypothetical. Here's an example I just invented:

Well, if some girl tried to flirt with Michael, I would simply tell her he was my boyfriend and to leave him alone. But I wouldn't punch her in the face, come on! I'm not that violent!

First, I'm not sure that's a good example, and second I don't kow if "is" is also possible instead of "was". Maybe it's used in speech the same way mixed conditionals are used, I don't know.
Wait for some other advice

Would - conditional or past tense?

jack112 — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:23 GMT

"Have you ever turned down a promotion?"

No, I haven't. I've worked hard to achieve the promotions I've received and have always felt I was the right woman for the job. However, if I was ever offered a promotion for which I was sure I wasn't ready, I'd like to think I would have the courage to decline the offer at that moment but to be reconsidered if the situation arose in the future. I would not put myself in a position where I jeopardized the people working for me, or those for whom I worked, for the sake of vanity.

Is this in past tense (talking about the past) or is this a conditional? If this is a conditional, how can you tell when the 'if' part is omitted?
1. I would not put myself in a position where I jeopardized the people working for me, or those for whom I worked, for the sake of vanity.
Thanks.

He had collaborated OR he collaborated

Rex — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:35:34 GMT

The Pope has named a new archbishop of Warsaw after Stanislaw Wielgus quit admitting he had collaborated with Poland's communist-era secret police.

Pope Benedict XVI named Kazimierz Nycz, 57, who has been bishop of the Baltic city of Koszalin-Kolobrzeg since 2004.

Bishop Wielgus resigned on 7 January at the service intended to install him as the city's new archbishop.

He admitted spying on fellow clerics, many of whom had opposed the Soviet-backed government in Poland.

Church investigation

Bishop Nycz is thought to have an unblemished record under communist rule.

Bishop Wielgus has apologised for his actions but said he was blackmailed and harassed into co-operating with the secret police.

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

Please look at the following sentence of the above.

The Pope has named a new archbishop of Warsaw after Stanislaw Wielgus quit admitting he had collaborated with Poland's communist-era secret police.

When you write 'The Pope has named a new bishop' , it is the present perfect tense. When you write 'he had collaborated with Poland's secret police' , it is the past perfect tense.

Is it proper to write the past perfect here? I think it would be fine to write the simple past tense here. Just he collborated with Poland's secret police is fine.

Your comments please.

Re: Wedding Invitations

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 12:40:30 GMT

Marius Hancu wrote:
Pioussoul wrote:

I really wonder why the past tenses of joined and united are used here. For me, shouldn't they be present or future tenses?

Would some experts shed some light? I'm really confused and don't see the perspective of native speakers.

Those are not simple past forms. Those are adjectives derived from past participles.

Thanks, friends, for your reponses, but I don't really know whom to believe, you or Feebs in that both of you hold good reasons.

Yet, in terms of your reasoning, the base sentence should go like this:

[Two lives, two hearts,
which are joined together in friendship,
and united forever in love.]

Then, it's not a complete sentence because it's lack of a verb.

Therefore, is it possible that a wedding invitation do own poetic licence like a poem?

Please shed more light. Thanks.

Re: Word agreement

Cool Breeze — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:10:29 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Please divide the following sentence into members:

She has found relatives whom she never knew existed.

I do not understand where exhisted belongs and how it agrees with whom.

Thank you.

Irene

Hi Irene
The sentence should be: She has found relatives who she never knew existed.
She has found relatives is the main clause.
... who existed is a relative clause, who being the subject and existed the main verb of the relative clause. Existed is in the past tense. ... she never knew is an embedded phrase/clause with its own subject (she) and main verb (knew) in the relative clause.

Cheers
CB