+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  
Accuracy - inherently yes, but "so that" is probably not what is meant. That says that forests are being cut down with the purpose of making animals leave.

However, "A lot of animals leave their natural habitat because forests are [being] cut down" and "A lot of animals are leaving their natural habitat because forests are [being] cut down" are both correct (order switched). They work with or without [being], but the sentence would read better to me with it, especially in the present continuous.

The meaning of the two sentences does not differ much, to my mind.
Leah SAccuracy - inherently yes, but "so that" is probably not what is meant. That says that forests are being cut down with the purpose of making animals leave. However, "A lot of animals leave their natural habitat because forests are [being] cut down" and "A lot of animals are leaving their natural habitat because forests are [being] cut down" are both correct (order switched). They work with or without [being], but the sentence would read better to me with it, especially in the present continuous.The meaning of the two sentences does not differ much, to my mind.
Hi,

Thanks for your answer.

Can 'so far' not be used to express result?Or there is something else I'm missing?I need further elaboration on that,please.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
nsfs2Can 'so far' not be used to express result?
The issue in the original question was about "so that". Is that what you meant or is this a separate question?
nsfs2Can 'so far' not be used to express result?Or there is something else I'm missing?I need further elaboration on that,please.
Sorry.Can 'so that' not 'so far'....
"So that" usually indicates a purpose: I bought more flour so [that] I could make muffins. One would not say "I bought more flour so that I ran out of flour"; in this case, the cause (I ran out of flour) is listed as the desired result. Do not use it where you would end up saying the action takes place as a result of the result itself, such as with the original: "Forests are cut down so that a lot of animals are leaving their natural habitat."

I would say it is not the same as "because". "Because" would mean A is a result of B ("I bought more flour because I ran out of flour"), where "so that" means A took place in order to create B ("I threw out my old flour so that I could buy new flour", or something like that, maybe...). This is the more tailored explanation:
Leah SThat says that forests are being cut down with the purpose of making animals leave.
There will be info about this if you look online. If you search so that wiktionary, despite being a wiki the page may be useful for its list of translations.

Does that help? Sorry, I had some trouble working out how to describe it.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hi.

Please note that what looks like the present simple form in the first sentence is actually subjunctive. You cannot say: “Forests are cut down so that the particular species leaves its natural habitat.” The verb would still have to be “leave”. “So that” is a resulting conjunctional phrase and takes a subjunctive or modal verb. Therefore, what you want to say should either be “... so that a lot of animals leave their natural habitat.” or “… so that a lot of animals should leave their natural habitat”.

On somewhat a tangential note, I don’t think forests are (or should be) cut down with the intention to disturb animals. They are primarily cut for commercial and domestic purposes, and in the scenario where they might be causing any trouble.
Word warrior23Hi.Please note that what looks like the present simple form in the first sentence is actually subjunctive. You cannot say: “Forests are cut down so that the particular species leaves its natural habitat.” The verb would still have to be “leave”. “So that” is a resulting conjunctional phrase and takes a subjunctive or modal verb. Therefore, what you want to say should either be “... so that a lot of animals leave their natural habitat.” or “… so that a lot of animals should leave their natural habitat”.On somewhat a tangential note, I don’t think forests are (or should be) cut down with the intention to disturb animals. They are primarily cut for commercial and domestic purposes, and in the scenario where they might be causing any trouble.
Thanks for your answers,Leah S and Word warrior.

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.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.

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?If yes, do the tenses above equally mean the same?

Thanks for your patience.
nsfs2I want to express result and I've read that one can use' so that' for introducing a result clause.Here is the following example:'They turned the radio up, so that everybody heard the announcement',
This is correct. I think your confusion is about which part of the sentence is the result. (I, in turn, am not really sure how best to explain this.)

"They turned the radio up, so that everybody heard the announcement"
This is the action. This is what they wanted to happen. This is also the result of the action.

It would have this sort of thought process:
"I will turn the radio up because I want everyone to hear the announcement."

When you say
nsfs2'Forests are cut down, so that a lot of animal leave/are leaving their natural habitat today.
Then that would use this thought process:
"I want the animals to leave. I will cut down the forest."

But people do not (generally and ideally) cut down forests with the purpose of getting rid of animals. It would "sound" more like this:
"The forest is being cut down. Animals are leaving."

Whether or not the animals leave is not why the forest is being cut down.
IF, however, you said:
nsfs2Forests are cut down, so a lot of animal leave/are leaving their natural habitat today.'
That makes sense (to me). I'd say "so" here indicates a pure result, not one that was also part of the intention of the action. This is (for some reason) clearer with a comma before "so" and "are leaving" rather than "leave". I can't say why. :/ (I'm also at the stage where I have been thinking a lot about this and I don't trust my own opinions anymore.)

I hope this has not confused you too much. I have never explained this before and I hope I didn't contradict myself. Emotion: sad If it doesn't help, someone else will be able to help you. Emotion: smile
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more