+0
1. We're always happy for world records to be broken.

2. We're always happy that world records are broken.

Does 2 suggest that world records have been broken at the time of the speech which is not the case in 1 that simply suggest record breaking make them happy?

Thanks!
Comments  
I think, "when world records are broken," would mean broken at the time of the speech. Most people would take 1 & 2 to mean that as well, but I don't think it does. In my opinion, 1 is closer than 2 in that respect.
I have to say I'm a bit surprised. I wonder what native speakers would say assuming there are no records broken at the time of speech. My take is:

We're happy whenever world records are broken

Are there any better suggestions?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies


Hi N2g,

I'm sure you don't mean, "We'd be happy to see this record broken."

We must be "thinking about" specific records, since there'll never be a present or future time when no world records have been broken. Or do you wish to call attention to the fact that the breaking of a record occurs only at one point in time?

Perhaps you have a scenario in mind which would make this all clear. Are you asking us to read between the lines?: Are we possibly unhappy about a new record which was set under questionable circumstances, and we don't want to say so directly? So we say sarcastically that "anyone would/should be happy for the person who sets a new record" ? I think in this case your #1 would be the better choice.

Best wishes, - A.
Thanks Avangi. I'm sorry for not being clear. Sometimes I thought I was clear but it turns out that my English confuses people. I should have presented a context and that would have cleared up what I want. Here it's

Let's say I'm a bicycle designer and I just built, what I think, the world's faster and lightest bike. In an interview, I am asked, What do I hope to achieve with my invention? and should I say, "I'm always happy for world records to be broken" or "I'm always happy that world records are broken" or "I'm always happy when world records are broken"

As I said before and you don't think so, 'for' indicates the cause for happiness, therefore, the cause 'record breaking' may not have happened while 'that' generally indicates a fact (to me, a fact is something that has occured/happened). So the second choice, that, suggests recording breaking has occured and I'm now happy, which of course doesn't fit this context. The third choice "when" suggests whenever recording breaking occurs, it makes me happy. I think it fits well in this context but I feel choice #1 is somehow better.

It's very likely my interpretation is wrong and if that's the case, I hope I'll be able to learn something from you. Thanks in advance!
Hi N2g, I try to make my replies unintimidating, but sometimes I get careless. No worries on my account. I enjoy trying to figure these things out.

I know this avoids your question, but your interviewer and his audience (or readers) are going to be more puzzled than I was. Why be so circular? I'd be more direct. (We probably have different upbringings.) "We think we have a winner here. We believe with the right rider we can set some new world records, and that's what we're shooting for."

BTW, we say, "I would like to break the record - break a record - break a few records." "This will be a record breaker." "We expect to do some record breaking."

None of your three examples make it clear why you, personally, should be happy when a record is, or records are, broken.

Exactly when is it that you believe you (we) are supposed to be happy? At the time the record is broken, right? Because not long afterward it will be just another new record waiting to be broken.

How about, "We are always happy to see world records broken." This would be more natural, and would make clear your happiness is at the time of the record breaking. But even this seems a bit sadistic. It's like going to the auto races hoping to see an accident. You want to see something broken. You want to see someone's record fall.

Why not put a more positive slant on it: "We are always happy to see someone set a new world record." "We are always happy for someone who sets / has just set a new world record." This way you can be happy for a person as well as for the achievement of your new bicycle design, and you can continue to be happy as long as he continues to hold the record. When you place the focus on the old, broken record - hey, it's gone!

Okay, I agree "for" focuses on the cause of the happiness - but why it pleases you is somewhat suspect. The use of "to be broken" probably relates it to the time of the breaking as effectively as using "when - - - - are broken."

"That" is probably the weaker of your original pair. It almost sounds like you're always happy about the fact that records don't last forever.

So what do you think?

- A.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Thank you so much for the wonderful insight into what native speakers think of them.Now, I understand why you find them odd. I wish I could find the CNN article that used this sentence and see if he was being sadistic. Well, it might not mean anything because he could be a non English speaker. I'm really glad to be able to see these sentences through a native speaker's eyes.

One quick question. Maybe I should start a new thread. I'll ask here and if you think it's going to be a long thread or something, I can start a new one.

Do you say "see through one's eyes" to mean you understand something from someone's perspective ?( I don't even know what I'm saying here makes any sense Emotion: sad I find it hard to express my thoughts in English sometimes. Please let me know if you need further explanation) Thanks a bunch!
Your explanation of "see through etc." is accurate. It's better to use "someone's eyes," rather than "one's eyes." "One" is a special case. It's as close as active voice comes to being passive voice. Public transportation may be used as a way of saving gas. People may use public transportation as a way of saving gas. One may use public transportation as a way of saving gas. "One" is nobody and everybody.

With the image we're discussing, we have to make clear that there's a person A and a person B. When you say, "to see through one's eyes," you're only talking about one person. "Try to see this situation through someone else's eyes other than your own." "John should try to see the argument through Mary's eyes." I'm sure you understand the concept. Just avoid "one's."

I don't know if you were around to see Kooleen's old signature quote about walking a mile in someone else's shoes. It brings up the same sort of idea. (I believe it was originally a native American expression. I could be wrong.)

Best wishes, - A.
I'm not a very observant person but yes, I've seen that signature of his and thought he was still using it.

Thanks Avangi!
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?