+0
Could you please check if the following sentences are grammatically correct and if they sound right?

Due to the fact that/Because he had lost his notes, he decided to present using the information from the internet.

Prior to the presentation he had lost his notes; therefore/consequently, he decided to present using the information from the internet.

Prior to the presentation he had lost his notes; he, therefore/consequently, decided to present using the information from the internet.

Prior to the presentation he had lost his notes; he decided to present using the information from the internet, therefore/consequently.

Due to /because of his lost notes, he decided to present using the information from the internet.

Thank you very much for your help

Hope
1 2 3
Comments  (Page 2) 
SpringPaco says that "Due to/because of his lost notes.." is not logical. Your post makes me wonder if an english sentence can be grammatically correct, sound OK, and yet be illogical?

"The reason I hated Joe was that he had killed me ten years ago"
Hi Paco,

Because I have been learing English by reading, I am not familiar with grammar rules or terms. Now that I know what a transitive verb is, the first half of your reply makes perfect sense.

I have already visited the MSN dictionary on line and think it is a great resource because in my dictionary nether verbs are classified as transitive or intrasitive nor examples are given.

Thank you for theaching me something new today!

Hope
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hi Spring.

"Due to/because of his lost notes.." is not logical. I wouldn't say it's not logical, I'd say it's a bit less precise than what was subsequently suggested.

Your post makes me wonder if an english sentence can be grammatically correct, . . . and yet be illogical? Yes, Demtrius gave you an example of an illogical one. Now, consider this one. The shoe cooked the table. That's just nonsense, but it's grammatical.

Also, may lack of precision make our sentences illogical? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Does vague equal illogical or just vague? Vague is just vague.

Overall, good grammar certainly helps and clarifies meaning, so meaning and grammar go hand in hand. But you need to look at what you write from both points of view. I hope these comments help rather than confuse you. If you have further questions on this topic, please write again.

Best wishes, Clive
To my brain "My lost money made me poor" is illogical, though it might be logical to English speakers. To me, a logical sentence should be "The loss of my money made me poor". It's not a problem about to what extent it is precise, in my opinion.

paco
Hi,

. . . he decided to present using the information from the internet.

I'd like to make a few comments on this part of the original sentences.

I agree that 'present' is a transitive verb.

However, in my opinion and experience, it is used quite commonly in business/managerial/academic circles without an object. The clause above seems typical of such usage. It may be that the use is intransitive, or perhaps that the object is omitted but understood. It may be an attempt to avoid needless repetition. I don't know.

eg - I have to present the 2007 Widgets sales forecast for South-East Ontario this morning. I have my notes here in my bag. Oh hell, I've left them on the train. That's OK. I know the company has sales stuff on its website. I'll just present (the 2007 Widgets sales forecast for South-East Ontario) using the information from the internet.

an actual eg from Wikipedia - In 1997, he presented at the "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference held by intelligent design advocates in Austin, Texas, giving a defense of methodological naturalism.

In 2001, he presented opposite William A. Dembski at the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences/American Association for the Advancement of Science "Interpreting Evolution" conference at Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania.

a further eg - Information Technology Department manager, talking to his staff: You all know we have to present the details of the new Customer computer system to the Sales department next week. Tom, you're the project leader, so you can present on behalf of the team. While you're presenting from the podium, Mary can can give written handouts to the Sales people. Betty, you have the project scheduling details, so you'd better present for 10 minutes after Tom finishes. etc. etc.

It seems to me that we can take two approaches to this kind of thing. The first is to say simply that it is wrong. The second is simply to recognize that business/managerial/academic people sometimes talk this way. It's a part of their normal jargon. I favour the latter approach. I feel that if English learners don't get exposed to the way English is sometimes used, and if they then get a job with an international English-speaking company, they will get a big surprise one day when they attend a business meeting.

I don't mean to be disrespectful of the OED. However, perhaps this usage will be in there next year, or in five years' time. At that time, we can revisit this discussion.

Best wishes, Clive
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Thank you Clive for going through so much trouble to explain your point of view- I truly appriciate it.

Did all this make me even more confused? No, for my learning of English and confusion are inseparable.

I guess, grammar rules, like any other rules, are at the mercy of their creators and users-people make them, change them, abolish them. Nothing has eternal life.

Thank you

Hope
Clivean actual eg from Wikipedia -
In 1997, he presented at the "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference held by intelligent design advocates in Austin, Texas, giving a defense of methodological naturalism.

In 2001, he presented opposite William A. Dembski at the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences/American Association for the Advancement of Science "Interpreting Evolution" conference at Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania.Hello Clive

Thank you for showing the examples in which you suppose "present" is used as an intransitive verb in the sense of "make a presentation". I cannot argue about the usage of "present" used in the first and third quotes of yours, because I cannot access directly to the original texts. But as for the two uses of "present" in the Wiki's article, I take it that they are absolute uses of the reflexive verbal "present oneself" rather than the ellipses of the direct object from "present something".

Best wishes,

paco
Spring, I have sympathy for what you are saying about the changes.

I think it's fair to say that the grammar rules don't change: a transitive verb requires an object. However, what changes are how words are USED. Words that have been nouns acquire an additional meaning as verbs. Words that had been transitive assume an intransitive sense.

One of the things I love about English is its constant evolution. But it makes it a moving target.

By the way, in my linguistics class, one of the classic grammatical-but-illogical sentences was "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." I've always liked that image - somehow I pictured ideas that looked a little like fireflies zooming around with their eyes closed.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Grammar GeekOne of the things I love about English is its constant evolution. But it makes it a moving target.
I have a feeling that, in North America, English teachers are first runners in the throw-off of old grammar rules.

paco
Show more