+0
I can't find simple answers to these questions in the CMS or via web pages.

Here they are:

-- would vs will

Let's say you're discussing a plans for a party or a law that may or may not actualize but you're describing what they will entail.
Would you say "the party would" or "the law would incriminate people who blah blah blah"

instead of "the party will" or "the law will"?

I've noticed in some newspapers the use of "will" even about laws and ordinances that are being proposed or voted on.

--,which is...., or not?

I notice "which is" is occasionally omitted in writing.

For example, "She was referred to Teen Court, [which is] an early intervention program of the Visalia Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse."

When is it ok to omit the "which is" ? Is there a rule here?

-- When do you say "said that" or merely "said" when using attribution at the beginning of a sentence?

-- Why is "had" needed in the following sentence from an Times article?

"Federal authorities said Tuesday that they "had" cracked

the largest case of identity theft in U.S. history,..."

And is the "has" needed in the following sentence from another times article:

"DSW also "has" sent notification letters to affected

customers whenever possible..."

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
1 2
Comments  
Hello,

Welcome to EF!

My two cents:
dionusos

-- would vs will

Let's say you're discussing a plans for a party or a law that may or may not actualize but you're describing what they will entail.
Would you say "the party would" or "the law would incriminate people who blah blah blah"

instead of "the party will" or "the law will"?

I've noticed in some newspapers the use of "will" even about laws and ordinances that are being proposed or voted on.

It seems to me that "will" is preferred most of the time however using would or will depends on your intention and meaning you want to give us. Would suggest a hypothetical thing.

--,which is.., or not?

I notice "which is" is occasionally omitted in writing.

For example, "She was referred to Teen Court, [which is] an early intervention program of the Visalia Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse."

When is it ok to omit the "which is" ? Is there a rule here?

Writing "which" makes the sentence long and if you see it in a newspaper and if it is omitted, I can say that they want to save time and space. But for academic writing and similar things to be opne and not to cause ambiguity you should use "which". In everday life, it is omitted most of the time.



-- When do you say "said that" or merely "said" when using attribution at the beginning of a sentence?

Ah, this calls for a lesson! You should search clauses or simply write "said that " and you will find lots of information.

-- Why is "had" needed in the following sentence from an Times article?

"Federal authorities said Tuesday that they "had" cracked

the largest case of identity theft in U.S. history,..." I wish you had written the whole sentence here so that we could explain it to you more correctly. I think they used "had" ,as far as I see from the non-complete sentence, because they want to state that cracking happened before an event occured in past.

And is the "has" needed in the following sentence from another times article:

"DSW also "has" sent notification letters to affected

customers whenever possible..." Write the complete sentence please and I don't see anything wrong with the half sentence.



DollHello,

Welcome to EF!


Thanks

My two cents:

dionusos

-- would vs will

Let's say you're discussing a plans for a party or a law that may or may not actualize but you're describing what they will entail.
Would you say "the party would" or "the law would incriminate people who blah blah blah"

instead of "the party will" or "the law will"?

I've noticed in some newspapers the use of "will" even about laws and ordinances that are being proposed or voted on.


It seems to me that "will" is preferred most of the time however using would or will depends on your intention and meaning you want to give us. Would suggest a hypothetical thing.


This is confusing. Because ,say, a bill is written. All that needs to happen for it to become a law is for it to be passed. So a proposed law isn't a hypothetical. But "will" tends is used to indicate likelihood or certainty. Is it then appropriate to say, "The law will" or must you qualify the noun wiht "proposed" every time you refer to it?

--,which is.., or not?
I notice "which is" is occasionally omitted in writing.

For example, "She was referred to Teen Court, [which is] an early intervention program of the Visalia Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse."

When is it ok to omit the "which is" ? Is there a rule here?

Writing "which" makes the sentence long and if you see it in a newspaper and if it is omitted, I can say that they want to save time and space. But for academic writing and similar things to be opne and not to cause ambiguity you should use "which". In everday life, it is omitted most of the time.



Ok. So then it's a matter of convenience. I thought there was some rule I was missing.


-- When do you say "said that" or merely "said" when using attribution at the beginning of a sentence?


Ah, this calls for a lesson! You should search clauses or simply write "said that " and you will find lots of information.

I tried that. It would really require a lesson?

-- Why is "had" needed in the following sentence from an Times article?

"Federal authorities said Tuesday that they "had" cracked

the largest case of identity theft in U.S. history,..." I wish you had written the whole sentence here so that we could explain it to you more correctly. I think they used "had" ,as far as I see from the non-complete sentence, because they want to state that cracking happened before an event occured in past.


Here you go: ""Federal authorities said Tuesday that they "had" cracked the largest case of identity theft in U.S. history, charging 11 people in the theft of more than 40 million credit and debit card account numbers from computer systems at such major retailers as TJ Maxx and Barnes & Noble."

And is the "has" needed in the following sentence from another times article:
"DSW also "has" sent notification letters to affected

customers whenever possible..." Write the complete sentence please and I don't see anything wrong with the half sentence.





Nevermind on this one. I figured it out. Sheesh. I don't know how I missed it. The "has" was referring to "whenever possible."


Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
dionusos
This is confusing. Because ,say, a bill is written. All that needs to happen for it to become a law is for it to be passed. So a proposed law isn't a hypothetical. But "will" tends is used to indicate likelihood or certainty. Is it then appropriate to say, "The law will" or must you qualify the noun wiht "proposed" every time you refer to it?

I remember reading "the law will.." for a hundred times. "The law will abolish..." , "the law will propose...", "the law will indicate these points..." are the ones I can remember. Whe it is passed, it becomes present tense. I hope someone else will explain in detail.


I tried that. It would really require a lesson?

Could you find what you were looking for?

Here you go: ""Federal authorities said Tuesday that they "had" cracked the largest case of identity theft in U.S. history, charging 11 people in the theft of more than 40 million credit and debit card account numbers from computer systems at such major retailers as TJ *** and Barnes & Noble."

This is an indirect speech example. Imagine this: One of the fedral authorities say: " We have cracked the largest case of indentity..." and when the reporter writes it, she writes: federal authorities said Tuesday that they had cracked....


No, Doll. I couldn't find an adequate answer to my question about beginning sentences with attribution.

On the 'will' vs' would.' It sounds like we're both unsure. After all, merely because something is repeated in print doesn't mean it's correct. I've read "hearken back" many times in the LA Times, when what they meant to write was "harked back."
dionusosWould you say "the party would" or "the law would incriminate people who blah blah blah"

instead of "the party will" or "the law will"?
You can use either one. If it is enacted, the law will ... vs. If it were enacted, the law would ... The first shows more certainty that the law might really be enacted.
dionusosI notice "which is" is occasionally omitted in writing.
It's called Whiz-Deletion. It's the deletion of a relative pronoun like which or who followed by a form of the verb to be, for example is. If you take the wh of which and the pronunciation of is (iz) you get "whiz". Whiz-Deletion is optional.
The person who is sitting in the corner is Dan. = The person sitting in the corner is Dan.
dionusosWhen do you say "said that" or merely "said" when using attribution at the beginning of a sentence?
that is optional. Say it or don't say it. It's your choice.
dionusosFederal authorities said Tuesday that they "had" cracked ...
This is reporting the actual words they said: "We have cracked ...". In reporting "have" + past participle, use "had" + past participle.
"I have seen that movie three times."
I said that I had seen that movie three times.
CJ
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
CalifJim
dionusos
Would you say "the party would" or "the law would incriminate people who blah blah blah"

instead of "the party will" or "the law will"?
You can use either one. If it is enacted, the law will ... vs. If it were enacted, the law would ... The first shows more certainty that the law might
really be enacted.
That's what I suspected.
dionusosI notice "which is" is occasionally omitted in writing.
It's called Whiz-Deletion. It's the deletion of a relative pronoun like which or who followed by a form of the verb to be, for example is. If you take the wh of which and the pronunciation of is (iz) you get "whiz". Whiz-Deletion is optional.
The person who is sitting in the corner is Dan. = The person sitting in the corner is Dan.

Is this also a matter of choice?
dionusos
When do you say "said that" or merely "said" when using attribution at the beginning of a sentence?
that is optional. Say it or don't say it. It's your choice.
I remember someone snapped at me online a while back about failing to use 'that' or using it incorrectly after the 'said' part. The person sounded rather rude, so I didn't bother asking her to elaborate on why it's apt or inapt to use it. Are you sure it's optional?
dionusosFederal authorities said Tuesday that they "had" cracked ...
This is reporting the actual words they said: "We have cracked ...". In reporting "have" + past participle, use "had" + past participle.
"I have seen that movie three times."

I said that I had seen that movie three times.

CJ

Outside of paraphrasing a quote, would it be correct to simply rewrite those two lines: "I saw that movie three times" and "I said that I saw that movie three times"? It seems that using "have" or "had" with the past participle would only be preferred if it were used in a sentence describing action that had occurred regularly and was completed (had) or is still ongoing "have."
dionusosThe person who is sitting in the corner is Dan. = The person sitting in the corner is Dan.

Is this also a matter of choice?
Yes.
dionusosAre you sure it's optional?
After "I said" or "He said" and so on? Yes, I'm sure it's optional. I can't think of a case where thatis required. If there is one, I'm sure somebody will pipe up. Emotion: smile
dionusoswould it be correct to simply rewrite those two lines: "I saw that movie three times" and "I said that I saw that movie three times"?
It would be OK. But the "correct" backshift of "saw" is "had seen", so "I said that I had seen ..." is "more correct". The version without the backshift is more commonly used for immediate repetition:
-- I saw th....sd m hw vi thrx eh times.
-- What?!! I didn't understand what you said.
-- I said I saw that movie three times.
CJ
Thanks CJ
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more