Here's a funny one I can't explain. In a negative question with the auxiliary verb do, it sounds wrong when it's not abbreviated: Why did not you go yesterday? or present simple: Why do not you go at weekends? Now, if I say: Why didn't you go yesterday? or Why don't you go at weekends? it's okay! Now here's the funny thing: you can put the unabbreviated negative between the subject and the verb, though it sounds a little formal: Why did you not go yesterday? Why do you not go at weekends?
A funny one, eh?
quarta-feira, 13 de fevereiro de 2008
sexta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2008
"If you ever testify in court, you might wish you could have been as sharp as this policeman"
I found this sentence in an e-mail story from an American source. It's a horrible mix of conditionals. First off the whole story (which has nothing to do with this grammar item I'm going to look at) is worth repeating here just to lighten up the heavy grammar after.
He was being cross-examined by a defense attorney during a felony trial.
The lawyer was trying to undermine the policeman's credibility...
Q: 'Officer -- did you see my client fleeing the scene?'
A: 'No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender, running several blocks away.'
Q: 'Officer -- who provided this description?'
A: 'The officer who responded to the scene.'
Q: 'A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?'
A: 'Yes, sir With my life.'
Q: 'With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?'
A: 'Yes sir, we do!'
Q: 'And do you have a locker in the room?'
A: 'Yes sir, I do.'
Q: 'And do you have a lock on your locker?'
A: 'Yes sir'
Q: 'Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with these same officers?'
A: 'You see, sir -- we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room.'
The courtroom erupted in laughter, and a prompt recess was called.. The officer on the stand has been nominated for this year's 'Best Comeback' line -- and we think he'll win.
Now let's look at that horrible conditional sentence. If you ever testify in court, is a future possibility, you may or may not testify in court sometime in the future (that's expressed by the ever) right? The condition is IF you testify; and IF you do, something else WILL happen, that's expressed in the second part of the sentence. However, here, something's terribly wrong. you might wish you could have been as sharp as this policeman, the first part of this second part (confused?) is okay, what gives us problems is you could have been. This expresses something that HAPPENED OR NOT IN THE PAST, and this doesn't go well with you might wish OR If you ever... The correct use in an example here would perhaps be, Don't you wish you could have been as sharp as that policeman (from that funny e-mail story) when you testified in court yesterday? This means YOU testified in court yesterday and you didn't have any snappy answers like the policeman, now someone remembers the funny e-mail story and reminds you of it and how you made a fool of yourself in court yesterday.
The correct completion of the conditional sentence should be: you might wish you could BE as sharp... or you might wish you were as sharp.. (GROAN! Now I have to explain you WERE)
Maybe next time.
I found this sentence in an e-mail story from an American source. It's a horrible mix of conditionals. First off the whole story (which has nothing to do with this grammar item I'm going to look at) is worth repeating here just to lighten up the heavy grammar after.
He was being cross-examined by a defense attorney during a felony trial.
The lawyer was trying to undermine the policeman's credibility...
Q: 'Officer -- did you see my client fleeing the scene?'
A: 'No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the description of the offender, running several blocks away.'
Q: 'Officer -- who provided this description?'
A: 'The officer who responded to the scene.'
Q: 'A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?'
A: 'Yes, sir With my life.'
Q: 'With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?'
A: 'Yes sir, we do!'
Q: 'And do you have a locker in the room?'
A: 'Yes sir, I do.'
Q: 'And do you have a lock on your locker?'
A: 'Yes sir'
Q: 'Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with these same officers?'
A: 'You see, sir -- we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room.'
The courtroom erupted in laughter, and a prompt recess was called.. The officer on the stand has been nominated for this year's 'Best Comeback' line -- and we think he'll win.
Now let's look at that horrible conditional sentence. If you ever testify in court, is a future possibility, you may or may not testify in court sometime in the future (that's expressed by the ever) right? The condition is IF you testify; and IF you do, something else WILL happen, that's expressed in the second part of the sentence. However, here, something's terribly wrong. you might wish you could have been as sharp as this policeman, the first part of this second part (confused?) is okay, what gives us problems is you could have been. This expresses something that HAPPENED OR NOT IN THE PAST, and this doesn't go well with you might wish OR If you ever... The correct use in an example here would perhaps be, Don't you wish you could have been as sharp as that policeman (from that funny e-mail story) when you testified in court yesterday? This means YOU testified in court yesterday and you didn't have any snappy answers like the policeman, now someone remembers the funny e-mail story and reminds you of it and how you made a fool of yourself in court yesterday.
The correct completion of the conditional sentence should be: you might wish you could BE as sharp... or you might wish you were as sharp.. (GROAN! Now I have to explain you WERE)
Maybe next time.
quarta-feira, 30 de janeiro de 2008
I have a doubt; a much used phrase in class, is sort of Brazilian English, I say it myself a lot, I could be described as perhaps, not non-native, but gone native; it sounds okay and could maybe take off if someone started it in Britain but in this sense we would probably say, I have a question, or, I didn't understand ... (something), could you explain ...
We'd use doubt when a person is undecided or skeptical about an idea or suggestion, in which case I have my doubts or I doubt .... would be used.
If you have any doubts about this point leave a message.
Blackadder*: "Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?"
Baldrick: "Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron".
*(This was a very famous and very funny comedy series in Britain in the 80s, spot the now famous actors!)
I don't want to sound insulting here, of course Brazilians know what irony is and it is used in literature and satirical comedy a lot, but I find that it's not used a lot in every day conversation. In Britain it is, the trick is trying to spot when irony is used, I've been in trouble several times over this point, nowadays I tend to be very careful:
e.g.
(conversation about a new cheese shop in PoA):
Wife (now ex) (to her sister about the shop): And do they sell good cheeses there?
(for a start this question needs an ironic answer!).
Me (interrupting): No, they only sell terribly bad cheeses there!
(bad looks in my direction).
Me, on opening a Christmas gift of a meat cutting board in rectangle shape with protruding handle to grasp, I grasped and made swinging sweeping motions: "Oh! Wow! Thanks! I love fresco-ball!"
Sister-in-Law (now ex!) giver of gift: "No, no! It's for cutting meat in a churrasco! (giving me "you really are stupid" looks)
Me: Ah! Okay (vows never again to make ironic jokes with in-laws (now ex.) ).
We'd use doubt when a person is undecided or skeptical about an idea or suggestion, in which case I have my doubts or I doubt .... would be used.
If you have any doubts about this point leave a message.
Blackadder*: "Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?"
Baldrick: "Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron".
*(This was a very famous and very funny comedy series in Britain in the 80s, spot the now famous actors!)
I don't want to sound insulting here, of course Brazilians know what irony is and it is used in literature and satirical comedy a lot, but I find that it's not used a lot in every day conversation. In Britain it is, the trick is trying to spot when irony is used, I've been in trouble several times over this point, nowadays I tend to be very careful:
e.g.
(conversation about a new cheese shop in PoA):
Wife (now ex) (to her sister about the shop): And do they sell good cheeses there?
(for a start this question needs an ironic answer!).
Me (interrupting): No, they only sell terribly bad cheeses there!
(bad looks in my direction).
Me, on opening a Christmas gift of a meat cutting board in rectangle shape with protruding handle to grasp, I grasped and made swinging sweeping motions: "Oh! Wow! Thanks! I love fresco-ball!"
Sister-in-Law (now ex!) giver of gift: "No, no! It's for cutting meat in a churrasco! (giving me "you really are stupid" looks)
Me: Ah! Okay (vows never again to make ironic jokes with in-laws (now ex.) ).
sábado, 26 de janeiro de 2008
Abso - freaking - lutely!
What are your plans for the weekend?
a. I'm meeting some friends for a few beers.
b. I'm watching TV.
The use of present continuous for future is a tricky. Both of the answers above are present continuous but b. sounds a bit odd. That's because we generally use present continuous when it's arranged with someone or formally scheduled; you wouldn't normally put "watch TV" in your dairy as a reminder, but perhaps "flight 14.00" would be, even if it's not physically written down, it's scheduled, so "I'm leaving at 2 o'clock" would be okay. How about then: "I'm watching TV with some friends, the rugby final is on", nah, still sounds odd, we'd probably say, "I'm meeting some friends to watch the rugby final on TV". So it would depend on the verb, perhaps I could say "verbs of scheduled things: meet, go, have (lunch etc.), leave...
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
ABSOLUTELY! : Definitely, completely, unquestionably. In English we take it as meaning yes, unless otherwise stated.
Is this something we should do?
Absolutely! (meaning definitely YES )
OR Absolutely NOT!
In Portuguese it can be taken as NO unless otherwise stated!
Is this something we should do?
Absolutely! (meaning definitely NOT)
a. I'm meeting some friends for a few beers.
b. I'm watching TV.
The use of present continuous for future is a tricky. Both of the answers above are present continuous but b. sounds a bit odd. That's because we generally use present continuous when it's arranged with someone or formally scheduled; you wouldn't normally put "watch TV" in your dairy as a reminder, but perhaps "flight 14.00" would be, even if it's not physically written down, it's scheduled, so "I'm leaving at 2 o'clock" would be okay. How about then: "I'm watching TV with some friends, the rugby final is on", nah, still sounds odd, we'd probably say, "I'm meeting some friends to watch the rugby final on TV". So it would depend on the verb, perhaps I could say "verbs of scheduled things: meet, go, have (lunch etc.), leave...
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
ABSOLUTELY! : Definitely, completely, unquestionably. In English we take it as meaning yes, unless otherwise stated.
Is this something we should do?
Absolutely! (meaning definitely YES )
OR Absolutely NOT!
In Portuguese it can be taken as NO unless otherwise stated!
Is this something we should do?
Absolutely! (meaning definitely NOT)
sábado, 19 de janeiro de 2008
When is a Gerund NOT a Gerund?
Hands up all those who know what a gerund is!
a. The book was very interesting.
b. Reading is my favourite activity.
c. At this moment I'm reading a great book.
Which '-ing' form here is a gerund? Normally my students say the -ing form of a verb, no matter how it's used, is a gerund, perhaps in Latin languages this is the case (verb forms ending in -indo, -ando or -endo in Portuguese) This is not necessarily so in English, the -ing form of the verb is called a present participle. A present participle can take on the role of an adjective (example a.), a noun (b.) or a verb in a continuous tense (c.). When it is used as a noun, the present participle is a gerund, so from our three examples, b. Reading is my favourite activity; reading here is a gerund, like you would say, Pizzas are my favourite food or I like pizzas and reading.
a. The book was very interesting.
b. Reading is my favourite activity.
c. At this moment I'm reading a great book.
Which '-ing' form here is a gerund? Normally my students say the -ing form of a verb, no matter how it's used, is a gerund, perhaps in Latin languages this is the case (verb forms ending in -indo, -ando or -endo in Portuguese) This is not necessarily so in English, the -ing form of the verb is called a present participle. A present participle can take on the role of an adjective (example a.), a noun (b.) or a verb in a continuous tense (c.). When it is used as a noun, the present participle is a gerund, so from our three examples, b. Reading is my favourite activity; reading here is a gerund, like you would say, Pizzas are my favourite food or I like pizzas and reading.
sexta-feira, 18 de janeiro de 2008
What the Firkin's is Past Perfect?!
As if there isn't gargantuan amounts to write about Present Perfect, then along comes Past Perfect, and fucks us all up.
a. The house had been built before war broke out.
b. Tension had been building up before war broke out.
Then, there's past perfect simple (a.) and past perfect continuous (b.). Well first up lets see the use of just past perfect. We use pp. to talk about an action or event in the past that happened BEFORE another action, event or reference to time in the past, in the examples war broke out is the past simple, what happened before that (the house had been built / tension had been building up) is expressed in the past perfect. Easy uh?
Why, if a. is simple and b. is continuous, do they both have been? I've deliberately used the same verb in both examples, though they have a different meaning. In a. build = construct, in b. it's a phrasal verb, build up = gradually increase. Okay but WHY been in both, surely been is for continuous, been doing, been living etc.?? Yes, though not always.
Let's see the difference between a. simple and b. continuous first. In a. the action is completed, finished, a single event that happened some time (it doesn't matter how long) before war broke out, the house is complete and brand shiny new (then it gets freaking' bombed in the war), so we use the simple form (but why been?? wait...). In b. the nature of the phrasal verb (gradually increase) tells us that it happened over a period of time leading right up to the outbreak of war. Perhaps a political misunderstanding between two countries started 9 months before the war, things got worse during this time (the tension building up) then WHAMMY, war. Got it?
Oh, the been in the first is because it's passive voice, Like The house was built. As opposed to active, They built the house. So been in a. is to form the passive, passive always has be which changes in form according to what verb tense you are using; been in b. is to form the continuous. Hence, a. been + past participle. b. been + present participle (verb-ing) .
Clear?
a. The house had been built before war broke out.
b. Tension had been building up before war broke out.
Then, there's past perfect simple (a.) and past perfect continuous (b.). Well first up lets see the use of just past perfect. We use pp. to talk about an action or event in the past that happened BEFORE another action, event or reference to time in the past, in the examples war broke out is the past simple, what happened before that (the house had been built / tension had been building up) is expressed in the past perfect. Easy uh?
Why, if a. is simple and b. is continuous, do they both have been? I've deliberately used the same verb in both examples, though they have a different meaning. In a. build = construct, in b. it's a phrasal verb, build up = gradually increase. Okay but WHY been in both, surely been is for continuous, been doing, been living etc.?? Yes, though not always.
Let's see the difference between a. simple and b. continuous first. In a. the action is completed, finished, a single event that happened some time (it doesn't matter how long) before war broke out, the house is complete and brand shiny new (then it gets freaking' bombed in the war), so we use the simple form (but why been?? wait...). In b. the nature of the phrasal verb (gradually increase) tells us that it happened over a period of time leading right up to the outbreak of war. Perhaps a political misunderstanding between two countries started 9 months before the war, things got worse during this time (the tension building up) then WHAMMY, war. Got it?
Oh, the been in the first is because it's passive voice, Like The house was built. As opposed to active, They built the house. So been in a. is to form the passive, passive always has be which changes in form according to what verb tense you are using; been in b. is to form the continuous. Hence, a. been + past participle. b. been + present participle (verb-ing) .
Clear?
terça-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2008
PRE fixes
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
invaluable, inflammable, inhabited.
Why is the prefix in a bit odd in these cases? If indeed it is a prefix here.
If bi is a prefix (biplane, bicycle) meaning two of something, then biscuit is two scuits ?? So that must be those ones with two round things and a flavoured filling (those trakina thingies), so just a single one then would be a monoscuit, or uniscuit?
invaluable, inflammable, inhabited.
Why is the prefix in a bit odd in these cases? If indeed it is a prefix here.
If bi is a prefix (biplane, bicycle) meaning two of something, then biscuit is two scuits ?? So that must be those ones with two round things and a flavoured filling (those trakina thingies), so just a single one then would be a monoscuit, or uniscuit?
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
