+0
Hi,

'Forests are cut down so that a lot of animals leave their natural habitat.'
'Forest are cut down so that a lot of animals are leaving their natural habitat.'

Are both of the tenses correct in this context?What is the difference in meaning?

Thanks.
1 2 3
Comments  (Page 2) 
Leah SI hope this has not confused you too much
It has indeed.Thanks,anyway.
I hope someone can help.
In order to try to help you, I've made this very general. It is not completely accurate but I hope will help with the idea.

"I will try to simplify it, so that you might understand."
"I explained it too badly before, so you were confused."

I did not intend for you to be confused, and that is written with only so.

For this example, try replacing (and this is very general) "so that" with the idea of "because [someone] wants", and "so" with "as a result".

"Forests are cut down, because [the deforesters] want a lot of animals to leave their natural habitat." = not what you mean.

What you mean = "Forests are cut down, and as a result a lot of animals to leave their natural habitat."

Does that help? If that doesn't, maybe Word Warrior23 or someone else can save us. Emotion: sad
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Thanks for your help.

The ideas of 'purpose' and 'result' are clear to me, but all I wanted to know what was wrong with the sentences in my original post,i.e.,when 'so that' can be used for introducing result clauses, my sentences had a problem.Why?
Leah SWhat you mean = "Forests are cut down, and as a result a lot of animals to leave their natural habitat."
That is exactly my meaning, but with substituting 'ans as a result' for 'so that'.
From Google: "so that" indicates purpose. "So" = therefore. Maybe try thinking of "so that" as a result clause with intent. "I want animals to leave; I will cut down the forest so that animals will leave."

"So" does not really imply intent. "The forest was cut down, so animals left." There is no implication that their leaving was wanted.

Clearer? :/
Thanks Leah S.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Sorry I couldn't explain it better. I'd be interested in someone else's answer.
nsfs2Thanks for your answers,Leah S and Word warrior.
You're nicely welcome.

nsfs2: To my understanding from what has been discussed, the problem is with using 'so that' to express result.Is that right?I want to express result and I've read that one can use' so that' for introducing a result clause.
There’s nothing wrong with using “so that” to express a result. However, please mind that the result expressed is only an intention or expectation – i.e., as one intends or expects it to happen. In your original sentence, it’s an intended result. Forests are cut down with the intention to make the animals there move out.

nsfs2: Here is the following example:'They turned the radio up, so that everybody heard the announcement', but now I have become confused-maybe because I misunderstood what you meant.
In the dialect I speak, I would say “…could hear...”. Please re-read my last reply where I said, “So that… takes a subjunctive or modal verb.”

nsfs2: Let's say I rephrased the the sentences to the following using either so or that: 'Forests are cut down, so/that a lot of animal leave/are leaving their natural habitat today.',would that be OK?
You can use “so”, but not “that”.

nsfs2: If yes, do the tenses above equally mean the same?
“Leave” would be better, as the first clause is in the present simple. However, it sounds odd to me either way.

If you tell me what you actually mean to say, I can probably tell you a better way to express it.
Word warrior23If you tell me what you actually mean to say, I can probably tell you a better way to express it.
Hi again,Sir.

1.I meant to say that' because people cut down forest everyday,everywhere,animals have fewer or no places left for them and they leave their habitat on a daily basis as a result.

2.
Word warrior23nsfs2: Here is the following example:'They turned the radio up, so that everybody heard the announcement', but now I have become confused-maybe because I misunderstood what you meant.
The above example comes from 'A Reference Grammar for Students of English' reference book.
It says that using 'could' can give the listener two interpretations:either result or purpose,while the above example only indicates result.

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

nsfs2: 1.I meant to say that' because people cut down forest everyday,everywhere,animals have fewer or no places left for them and they leave their habitat on a daily basis as a result.
Say: "Due to the ever growing rate of deforestation today, many different species are forced to leave their habitats every day and, thus, attempt to find new areas in which to live, even if they are not as suitable as their former habitats."

nsfs2: The above example comes from 'A Reference Grammar for Students of English' reference book. It says that using 'could' can give the listener two interpretations:either result or purpose,while the above example only indicates result.
"... could hear..." sounds more natural to me. You shouldn't rely on every grammar book to tell you how you should speak. Emotion: wink
Show more