http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aSabyakgp&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:Sabyakgp'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/IsItACorrectSentence/kmxvb/post.htmSat, 12 Sep 2009 10:48:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:898281sabyakgpHello Friends, A few days a ago I chanced upon a poster hung in my office' toilet and it reads: "As much as you dislike a dirty toilet so does your colleagues" I am just worndering whether it's grammatically a correct sentence. I am of the opinion that it should be as follows: " As much you dislike a dirty toilet so does your colleagues" Could anyone please help me know the correct sentence? Thanks, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AnExpeditionIntoUsageNone/jxhvc/post.htm#825316Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:02:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:825316sabyakgpThanks a lot for an insightful answer Mr. Wordy.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AnExpeditionIntoUsageNone/jxhvc/post.htm#823600Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:09:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:823600sabyakgpThanks Mr. Wordy. You said that he following: China's history is so essential to master at that no student of history should ignore it, none more so than the history of India does not make any sense. I would like to know what precisely constitute the function of none more so than... phrase? Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/AnExpeditionIntoUsageNone/jxhvc/post.htmThu, 16 Jul 2009 15:53:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:822564sabyakgpHello Friends, I am making a quest into the usage of 'none more so than', 'no more than', 'any more than' and no less than' phrases. 1) Following is the excerpt from the book, 'China : A history' authored by John Keay. ... So the rise of a new dynasty was heralded by a rash of favorable omen, none more so than the excavation of some hoary artefact. Can this sentence be interpreted as: ..So the rise of a new dynasty was no more heralded by a rash of favorable omen than the excavation of some hoary artefact. or Not any favorable omen heralded the rise of a new dynasty more than the excavation of some hoary artefact. or A rash of...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ModalVerbsHypotheticalPastConditions/hdjbm/post.htmTue, 02 Dec 2008 08:49:35 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:602016sabyakgpHello Friends, I have a few queries concerning conditional clauses. Here is a sentence. If she would have agreed I might have married her.(Hypothetical past) In this sentence, what does the if- clasue ('If she would have agreed' ) denotes? Does it denote willingness(volition) of the person I wanted to marry? What is the difference between the first sentence and this sentence? If she had agreed I might have/would have married her. Could you please help me? Best Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsAboutClause/zhjgw/post.htm#455561Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:36:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:455561sabyakgpWhat an excellent and lucid explanation !! Thanks you very much Calif Jim. Best Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsAboutClause/zhjgw/post.htm#455370Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:59:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:455370sabyakgpThanks Calif Jim, What I understood is that 'As much' is used as an adverbial to comapre the degree of the noun 'duty'. Do we need to use singlar noun to denote the comparison of degree? For example. To ensure sustainable economic growth is as much a responsibility (of the goverment) as is to ensure a low inflation rate = Responsibilities to ensure sustainable economic growth and to ensure a low inflation rate are to the same degree (please let me know whether the above sentences are correct?). In the second example. In a democratic society, voting as much a resoponsibility as is a right or Life is as much a responsibility as is a gift. In these structures what role the 'As much' clause is playing? (I don't think...http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsAboutClause/zhjgw/post.htmTue, 18 Dec 2007 21:05:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:454707sabyakgpDear Friends, I have couple of questions (which has been nagging me for a long time) about 'As much...As' comparative clause. What all (noun (uncountable/countable), adjectives (gradable/non-gradable), infinitive, gerund) we can use in 'As much....as' clause? 'As much <noun (uncountable/countable)> as' 'As much adjectives (gradable/non-gradable)> as' 'As much <infinitive> as' 'As much <gerund> as' Could you please explain me. My second query is: I know that "much" can be used before uncounatble nouns. But I came accross a famous quotation of Mahatma Gandhi. "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is cooperation with good" In the above mentioned sentence, duty is used as a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ASillyDoubtAboutAdjectiveSturctures/zgzdb/post.htm#449143Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:05:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:449143sabyakgpThanks Clive. Best Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ASillyDoubtAboutAdjectiveSturctures/zgzdb/post.htm#448853Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:06:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:448853sabyakgpBokeh, Doll, Clive. Thanks for replying. I would like to know why "much" is not legitimate here. So far as I know, "much" can be used adjectives to intensify it. Could please explain me. Here is another structure. The British empire was much more endurable than the Roman Empire. Is the above construction correct. Best Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ASillyDoubtAboutAdjectiveSturctures/zgzdb/post.htmSat, 01 Dec 2007 16:34:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:448580sabyakgpDear Friends, This would perhaps be a silly doubt, I must ask to clear my doubts. 1) The British Emire was as much endurable as the Rome Empire. 2) The British Emire was as endurable as the Rome Empire. which of the above sentences is correct. Basically, I wan to know that in a comparative clause such as these, can we put "much" befor an adjective ("as much endurable as" or "as endurable as" would suffice). If so, will "much" work as an adverb here (intensifying the adjective). Please help me. Best Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DenotingPastPossibilityCouldCould/zgvbm/post.htm#448569Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:17:13 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:448569sabyakgpGrammar Geek, You are right, voyage is a countable noun so requires a determiner. Also, I am sorry for the typo "dengerous". Best Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DenotingPastPossibilityCouldCould/zgvbm/post.htm#448567Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:14:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:448567sabyakgpMarius Hancu , CalifJim , Grammar Geek and Akavall . Thank you very much for your help. Best Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DenotingPastPossibilityCouldCould/zgvbm/post.htmFri, 30 Nov 2007 16:49:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:448268sabyakgpDear Friends, I had known that past possibility can be denoted by either "migh have been" or "could have been" until I read in A Student's Grammar of the English Language (By Sidney Greenbaum and Randolph Quirk) that "Could be" can also be used to denote the same. For example: In those days, transatlantic voyage could be dengerous (=possibility) I think it should have been: In those days, transatlantic voyage could/might have been dengerous. I am not sure how one can denote past possiblity with using "could be" instead of "could have been" The same account has been found in the writers' "A comprehensive grammar of the English Language" As two formidable names are associated with these accounts, this doubt is really nagging me. Could...http://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseUnderstandingSentence/zrmbc/post.htm#421135Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:26:55 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:421135sabyakgpThanks Philip, I think the writer would have that India has to sign the NPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty) and subsequently get access to internation market. But unfortunately, this makes the whole sentence incomprehensible.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseUnderstandingSentence/zrmbc/post.htmWed, 19 Sep 2007 14:35:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:421092sabyakgpHello Friends, I would like to know whether the below sentence is correct or not. The Pro-Deal argument is that it opens a door for supply of nuclear fuel without India having had to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. I think it should be "having to" rather than "having had to". Could you please explain me the reason the writer has used present perfect participle here. Please help me. Best Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ArticleProperNounCommonNoun/vpgpr/post.htm#412828Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:06:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:412828sabyakgpThanks for the reply Feebs11, I have gone through the document, But I would like to know should a noun be preceeded by the definite aritcle If a noun is premodified. For example: The General Electric Company But Not: The Microsoft Corporation There are many such examples where the noun phrase is preceeded by "the". Is there ay rule behind doing that. Can anyone please help me in this regard. Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ArticleProperNounCommonNoun/vpgpr/post.htmSun, 26 Aug 2007 21:27:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:409768sabyakgpDear Friends, We don't use definite article "the" before the name of any language. He speaks fluent english. But when say English Language, we use "the". A Comprehensive grammar of the English language. I would like know why do we need to add "the" in second case. Take another case. The Labour party or The Conservative Party. Why do we add the before a political party? Is it a rule or is there any formula which dictates the use of "the" before proper + common nouns. Another example: The Iraq War. The American civil war. In these cases, why do we need to add "the"? Is it because "Iraq War" is a definite phrase (Everyone would know about it) and so is the American civil war? Is there any rule that if a proper noun pre modifies a common...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CouldOrCouldHave/vnmkn/post.htm#402051Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:19:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:402051sabyakgpThanks pieanne. Can you please explain my another doubt? Basically, I am really confused as to whether should I use "Would" or "Could" as per as expressing possibility is concerned. For Example : A Terrorist group would have set off the bomb. (We are not certain but it's likely that a terrorist group set off the bomb) A Terrorist group could have set off the bomb. (What is the difference between this sentence and the above one?). If there is no difference between the two sentences, can I assume that either "Could" or "Would" can be used to express the possibility of an event?http://www.englishforums.com/English/CouldOrCouldHave/vnmkn/post.htm#401999Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:43:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:401999sabyakgpThanks pieanne,Kooyeen and Believer . But I am bit confused now. According to pieanne: "Which terrorist group could have set the bomb off" OK, Is it because that we are not sure whether any terrorist group set off the bomb or not? (Here we are using "Could" to express the possibility). "Which terrorist group could set the bomb off? dubious" Can you please suggest what went wrong with this sentence? In this way: "That was the best salary I could have had at the time." OK Is "Could have had" legitimate here because this sentence expressed only a possibility? (I was not sure whether that was the best salary or not, it was just a guess) "That was the best salary I could have at the time." OK I guess by using...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CouldOrCouldHave/vnmkn/post.htmTue, 07 Aug 2007 16:27:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:401604sabyakgpDear Friends, Could anyone please let me know which two of the four sentences given below are correct. 1) Which terrorist group could have set the bomb off? 2) Which terrorist group could set the bomb off? Considerng that the explosion has already taken place. 1) That was the best salary I could have had at the time. 2) That was the best salary I could have at the time. Talking about the salary of my first job which I got 6 years ageo. Please help me. Best Regards, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseCorrectThisSentence/vkqgn/post.htm#393140Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:59:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:393140sabyakgpThanks CalifJim.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseCorrectThisSentence/vkqgn/post.htm#388014Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:03:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:388014sabyakgpThanks a lot Cool Breeze. You suggested that I could also say "I worked.." But I believe that the event in the first clause occured before the event in the second clause, so it should be past perfect (the first clause) instead of simple past. I am just wondering that whether your suggestion can be considered an example of "Tense simplification" or not.http://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseCorrectThisSentence/vkqgn/post.htmWed, 04 Jul 2007 14:28:27 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:387953sabyakgpHello Friends, Could someone please let me know whether the below sentence is correct or not. As I had been working on a critical problem till two days ago I picked up your problem yersterday. Thanks Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/HowToMakeSentences/2/vjkqn/Post.htm#386999Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:59:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:386999sabyakgpThere are two catagories of English grammar books avaliable in the market. 1) Prescriptive : This kind of books teach how to correctly use various english words, how to use various forms of Tense/Determiners/Prepositions etc.. I belive Muphy's books belong to this catagory. You may also want to check " Practical English Usage" by Micheal Swan. There is another book avaliable belonging to this catagory is " A Practical English Grammar " by Thomson and Martinet. But these books will not teach you the theoritical aspects of English Grammar. 2) Descriptive: These kind of books will give an insight of English Grammar. They discuss the logic behind using prepositions/determiners/tense etc. Altogather they look at English grammar from...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ArticleSporadicGenericReference/vhpxl/post.htm#373133Thu, 31 May 2007 16:21:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:373133sabyakgpRose, I apologize for the inconvenience. My query was resolved by Micawber's reply. After posting my question I went to the Cambridge Dictionary and found that it's a countable noun. Thank You, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ArticleSporadicGenericReference/vhpxl/post.htm#373114Thu, 31 May 2007 15:30:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:373114sabyakgpThanks for the reply Micawber. I checked in the Cambridge Dictionary for the word "Service". It says noun 1 a system or organization that provides for a basic public need: the ambulance/health/postal/prison service It's a Countable noun, in this case we must use an article if it's being used as Generice reference. As for Sporadic reference, It's another form of Generic reference. I am reading the newspaper. I am in the bus now. Here "news paper" and "bus" are expamples of "Sporadic Reference". Thank You, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/ArticleSporadicGenericReference/vhpxl/post.htmThu, 31 May 2007 13:56:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:373059sabyakgpDear Friends, Please correct these sentence. The USPS does not provide the postal service in our area. Is the usage of "the" is legitimate here? If so, can we consider "Postal Service" Sporadic or Generic reference ? Please help me. Thanks Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/PleaseCorrectTheseSentences/vzrzq/post.htmTue, 01 May 2007 19:07:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:358750sabyakgpHello Friends, Could someone please help me to appreciate whether the below two sentences are correct or not. 1) Let's stand somewhere (that) we can be easily conspicuous If the above sentence is correct, can we consider " we can be easily conspicuous" an adverb complement ? 2) In the wake of all the problems being resolved we can go ahead with our new product. Please help me. Thank You, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsNounPostmodificationUsing-ParticipleForm/vdmhh/post.htm#357828Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:08:04 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:357828sabyakgpThank a lot Clive & Cool Breeze.http://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsNounPostmodificationUsing-ParticipleForm/vdmhh/post.htm#354567Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:52:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:354567sabyakgpThanks Clive, What I could understand is that we can use participle -ing form to postmodify a noun/noun phrase irrespective of the aspect of the clause (past/present). Could you please let me whether the same rule applies to the Infinitives? For example, The train to arrive on platform one was from London. Equivalent relative clause : The train which has/did arrived/arrive was from London. Thank You again, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/QuestionsNounPostmodificationUsing-ParticipleForm/vdmhh/post.htmWed, 18 Apr 2007 09:59:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:352417sabyakgpHello Friends, I have got couple of questions regarding Post-modification of a noun/noun pharse by -ing participle form. I guess, "Having been" is Perfect Gerund, can we use "Perfect Gerund" to postmodify a Noun/Noun phrase? Can we use "Being" to postmodify a noun/noun pharse where the aspect of the clause is either past/perfect? For example. The match being played yesterday was not very exciting. The match played yesterday was not very exciting. The match having been played yesterday was not very exciting . Equivalent relative clause would be: The match which was played yesterday was not very exciting. Can someone please tell me which sentence is the correct one? Similarly, The match being played...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DoubtsAboutStructureUsingPastPast-PerfectTense/vrwmv/post.htm#338383Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:50:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:338383sabyakgpThanks CalifJim. Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DoubtsAboutStructureUsingPastPast-PerfectTense/vrwmv/post.htmWed, 07 Mar 2007 13:09:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:336604sabyakgpDear Teachers, I have got some doubts about forming So..That..(meaning In order to) structure. 1) I informed everyone so that nobody would face any problem (This is the structure using past tense in the main clause) Now, if I use past perfect instead of past tense in the main clause - as stated in the below sentence - should I use "Would have" instead of "Would" ? 2) I had informed everyone so that nobody would have faced problem. Now another two examples. (Using Past tense in the main clause) 3) I informed everyone so that nobody would have any problem. 4) I informed everyone so that nobody would have had any problem Which structure is correct (3 or 4)? (Using Past perfect tense in the main clause) 5) I...http://www.englishforums.com/English/VerblessClause/2/dqqqg/Post.htm#335894Mon, 05 Mar 2007 13:05:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:335894sabyakgpThanks CalifJim, Clive, Philip, Goodman and Cool Breeze. Your explanations were quite lucid. Thanks Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/VerblessClause/2/dqqqg/Post.htm#335376Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:59:02 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:335376sabyakgpHello Clive, I have read this in "A Student's Grammar of The English Language" by Grrenbaum and Quirck. This is a concise version of their legandary work "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language". It says. "With verbless clause it is usually possible to postulate a missing form of the verb beand to recover the subject, when omitted, from the context: Whether right or wrong, he always comes off worst in argument. ' "Since it is usually possible to interpret the clause as having an omitted form of the "be", the verbless clause is limited to the two clause-types SVC and SVA, with or without a subordinator" (This part is bit confusing to me) Can you plesae explain? (pp. 293, Chapter 14) Here, as you can...http://www.englishforums.com/English/VerblessClause/dqqqg/post.htm#334843Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:19:48 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:334843sabyakgpThanks for the reply. But this doesn't seem to be the answer of my question. Could anyone please explain Verbless clause and how we can form a verbless clause in English? Thanks Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/VerblessClause/dqqqg/post.htmWed, 28 Feb 2007 09:32:34 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:334073sabyakgpHello Teachers, I would like to know what is a verbless clause and how we can form a verbless clause in english. Here is a sentence, which I suppose could an example of verbless clause. Though my influence was quite widespread among my managers, I couldn't extract the best out of them. Now, if transform this to a verbless clause: Though my influence quite widespread among my managers, I couldn't extract the best out of them. (Verb could be recovered). or Though quite widespread among my managers, I couldn't extract the best out of them.(Verb can be recovered, but i don't think that the subject could be recovered, so this form may be wrong). or Though quite widespread among my managers, I couldn't use my...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhichSentenceIsCorrect/dqwpp/post.htmWed, 21 Feb 2007 14:03:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:331753sabyakgpHello Teachers, Please consider the following sentences. 1) you can consider it completed 2) you can consider it's completed 3) you can consider its being completed 4) you can consider its having been completed Can you please let me know which one is correct and why? Thanks, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/BeingOrIs/dqckg/post.htm#330400Sat, 17 Feb 2007 19:22:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:330400sabyakgpThanks a lot Barbara.http://www.englishforums.com/English/BeingOrIs/dqckg/post.htm#330303Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:27:26 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:330303sabyakgpThanks Barbara, I seached for "comma splice" on the Internet after I saw your reply and consulted a book on punctuation (By Oxford University Press). What I understood is "comma splice" is a common error that most of the people often make. The book said "It's not normally correct to join the clauses of a compund sentence without a conjunction (the so-called "comma splice"). For example, *His was the last house,the road ended with him Now this could be corrected as His was the last house, and the road ended with him. or His was the last house; the road ended with him. As you suggested this can also be corrected as His was the last house, the road being ended with him (Please correct me if i am wrong). ...http://www.englishforums.com/English/BeingOrIs/dqckg/post.htm#329932Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:30:05 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:329932sabyakgpThanks a lot Grammar Geek. As my english is not very strong I couldn't understand your explanation very clearly. Could you please elaborate on this. Thanks, Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/BeingOrIs/dqckg/post.htmFri, 16 Feb 2007 15:04:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:329925sabyakgpHello Friends, This is the original sentence. THE scale and intensity of unprecedented transformations and interventions have enhanced the vulnerability of many integrated social-ecological systems, the Sundarbans being one of them. I would like to know whether using "is" instead of "being" here would be grmmatically legitimate. I didn't understand why the writer has used "being" instead of "is". Could some one please explain. Thanks Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DoubtOnUsingByTheTime/2/dpdjl/Post.htm#326850Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:21:43 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:326850sabyakgpThanks to Mr. steve , Nona and Marius. I would like to raise a doubt about the two sentences given by Mr. steve. (1) They will be tired by the time their plane arrives in Perth. According to my knowledge it should be They will have been tired by the time their plane arrives in Perth. And (2) They were tired by the time they arrived in Perth. should be They had been tired by the time they arrived in Perth. Please correct me if i am wrong. I have got one more doubt. On EnglishPage I found the following sentence which the stated as Simple Future. John will certainly finish the work by 5:00 PM. ACTIVE The work will certainly be finished by 5:00 PM. PASSIVE Wouldn't it be John will have certainly...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DoubtOnUsingByTheTime/2/dpdjl/Post.htm#326849Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:19:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:326849sabyakgpThanks to Mr. steve , Nona and Marius. I would like to raise a doubt about the two sentences given by Mr. steve. (1) They will be tired by the time their plane arrives in Perth. According to my knowledge it should be They will have been tired by the time their plane arrives in Perth . And (2) They were tired by the time they arrived in Perth. should be They had been tired by the time they arrived in Perth . Please correct me if i am wrong. I have got one more doubt. On EnglishPage I found the following sentence which the stated as Simple Future. John will certainly finish the work by 5:00 PM. ACTIVE The work will certainly be finished by 5:00 PM. PASSIVE Wouldn't it be John will have certainly...http://www.englishforums.com/English/DoubtOnUsingByTheTime/dpdjl/post.htm#326071Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:05:01 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:326071sabyakgpThanks nona and CalifJim Nona, I meant the same as you thought. If i had completed 5 years in the company then I should have written: I thought I had completed 5 years in the company by the you completed your MBA likewise I thought I had had my lunch by the time you came. Please correct me if i am wrong. Thanks agian. Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DoubtOnUsingByTheTime/dpdjl/post.htm#326065Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:46:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:326065sabyakgpThanks nona and CalifJim Nona, I meant the same as you thought. If i had completed 5 years in the company then I should have written: I thought I had completed 5 years in the company by the you completed your MBA likewise I thought I had had my lunch by the time you came. Please correct me if i am wrong. Thanks agian. Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/DoubtOnUsingByTheTime/dpdjl/post.htmTue, 06 Feb 2007 20:29:41 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:325289sabyakgpDear Friends, I have some doubts on using "By the time" Now i am saying. I will have completed 5 years in the company by the time you complete your MBA After 5 years 1) I thought I would have completed 5 years in the company by the you completed your MBA or 2) I thought I would complete 5 years in the company by the time you completed your MBA I would like to know which one (1 or 2) is the correct structure. Another one. Now. I will have had my lunch by the time you come. After 2 hour. 1) I thought I would have had my lunch by the time you came. 2) I thought I would have my lunch by the time you came. Which form is the correct one. Please help me. Thank You Sabyahttp://www.englishforums.com/English/UsingWouldInsteadFuture-Perfect/2/dkhqp/Post.htm#303541Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:56:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:303541sabyakgpThanks a lot Marius.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UsingWouldInsteadFuture-Perfect/2/dkhqp/Post.htm#302302Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:17:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:302302sabyakgpThanks Marius and Chad for your reply. I have used "Would have" because it's a fuure perfect. Analysts predict that world population would have risen considerably by 2010 . or Analysts confirm that world population will have risen considerably by 2010 . You are correct, i can use Could or Might also. But i guess using Would in this context won't be illegitimate. "Would have" is generally used in Past unreal conditional, but here the meaning is completely different. We are using "Would have" just to show that analiysts are not very sure if the population will really have risen considerably by 2010 (it's less definite or less directive). This kind of usage of "Would have" in future perfect is not very common...