Moderator:JackFrost
LifeDeath wrote:Hello! I've recently had my exams. And when I passed English I had to retell a text to a teacher. The text was about technologies/science and somethingstuff like that. Then the teacher would asked me a couple of questions. She said that with technologiesy people learned how to make weapons and started more wars. I said something like "it's not necessarily the only reason, but people just like to blame science for it". When I got home I remembered the conversation and seriously wondered it the phrase "People like to blame science for it" is correct. Because, I don't remember where, but I've heard things like "Blame on it" or "blame is on you". I thought that I might have confused "on" and "for". I then tried to look for some information on it on the internet. I found that if the consequence goes the first, we use "for". Like "People like to blame science for wars". But if the reason goes the first, then we use "on" - "People like to blame wars on science".
LifeDeath wrote:I think that in my sentence the reason (science) goes the first and then the consequence "it" (wars and other bad things).
So it must be "for". But I can't be sure as those examples that I've provided above won't let me. Can you say what option is correct?
LifeDeath wrote:Another question. I was listening again to "The Show Must Go On" and a couple of phrases interested me.
Almost at the end of the song there's following "I'll top the bill". What does it mean? I'd been of a wronghad a false perception of this sentence because long ago I saw a wrong Russian translation, it was "I'll pay the bill". But this time I noticed that it should mean something completely different. Does "top" mean "to get to the first position on a list"? But "bill" is an amount of money that you have to pay, how can one top it? Or maybe it can mean "list"? If so, I suppose that the sentence mean "I'll shift myself to the first and highest place (position) among some specific people (who are on the list)", doesn't it?
LifeDeath wrote:The next phrase is "I'll overkill". I didn't know what that means as a verb, but I found out that the noun means "to do something to an excessive degree, more that required". So the verb must just mean the action of it.
LifeDeath wrote:Maybe like "You overkilled at giving him 1000$, itI think that 20$ would be pretty enough".
LifeDeath wrote:But what does this sentence realated to? If you say that you "will overkill" you also have to mention in what field. Otherwise it's up in the air. It's like if I say to you "I will do". You'll probably want to know what I will do.
linguoboy wrote:The dollar sign precedes an amount, i.e. "$1000", "$20".
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:The dollar sign precedes an amount, i.e. "$1000", "$20".
I've noticed you've corrected me before. This is interesting. I thought that the sign just replaced the word. Cause people say "My child piggybanked 100 dollars"
LifeDeath wrote:So there must be any other reason infor using the sign rather than beside saving time and space in writing.
LifeDeath wrote:Do you think there's the difference between "sooner" and "earlier"? I caught myself thinking that they can be interchangeable in a context like "I needed to go there sooner/earlier".
LifeDeath wrote:Is there any difference between "over" and "rather than"? I suppose they sometimes can be interchangeable. Or am I wrong?
For example:
"I prefer the first one over/rather than the second."
"I have chosen that thing over/rather than the one that you suggested."
In fact, I'm not really sure if "over" is correct here. But I guess I've seen such usage somewhere.
LifeDeath wrote:In an English community one guy posted this picture. He asked whether the underlined "is" is a correct usage or not.
One woman said that it seems like a typo. She said that it absolutely makes sense when "is" is thrownleft off.
But there was another guy (who usually answers difficult questions and is considered to be an experienced teacher of English), who said that in this instanse "is" is a predicate of a very long subject which is "it was after (the interview started)".
He suggests this scheme: "I'm sure it...[subject]...is when he realized...".
But this sounds strange to me, too. I'd expect to hear something like "I'm sure it...[subject] when he realized...".
What do you think?
LifeDeath wrote:OneAn interesting thing happened yesterday. I really want to know your opinion. This was again in the English community. A girl posted this screenshot and asked why the last option is correct as she answered the first. I told her that theoretically they are both correct. Of course "bit" is the best and most natural here. But I said that there can be context where "bites" is an option no matter how bad it sounds but it's not ungrammmatical. I said that as the simple present it had a habitual meaning, but if we take another non-instantaneous verb instead we may have a pretty sensfulsensible sentence. But then came the guy that I mentioned in my previous post and answered her, too. And in his answer he said that it should be "bit" and it's totally wrong to use "bites".
Well, now I want to ask you what you think. First of all, I absolutely agree that the simple past sounds best while "bites" even in a proper context is too peculiar. But if we're talking about the theoretical possibility, does that really breaks all the grammartical rules? I think I came up with three possible types of context where it works. But before I list them, I want to notice that the guy pointed out that the expression "the other day" may refer only to the past.
Here's my list:
1. I don't know if it's possible in English but in Russian there's a method whenre we use present tense when talking about the past and using some past-markers, such as "yesterday", "seven days ago", "the other day", etc.
E.g.: "How was it?"
"Oh, you won't believe! Yesterday he just approaches me an tells me that I have to forgive him!"
I don't know what this thing's called. But it's possible in Russian and maybe in English.
LifeDeath wrote:2. The next context is sarcastic. Example:
"When dowill you give me my money back?"
"I give them to you yesterday".
Thereby the second guy hints that he won't give the money to the first guy. It can be used as a joke in Russian and I don't see why it can't be used like that in English.
LifeDeath wrote:3. I think this is the most appropriate and possible explanation. What if "the other day" is used here contextually?
I guess that non-natives learn English expressions as set phrases while native speakers know that they can be a part of a context. For example: "I have two free days: Tuesday and Wednesday. I do not plan to go there on Tuesday, so I think I will go there the other day".
Or maybe like this:
"There's a tradition in our family: my son has to bite me a couple of days before his birthday. His birthday is on Friday, today is Tuesday. Tomorrow he'll be out all the day".
"That means he won't be able to tomorrow? Your tradition is broken?"
"No, my son just bites me the other day. On Thursday."
I know it's dumb, but I've tried to show you what I mean. I don't see how something here is incorrect and what exactly might be.
LifeDeath wrote:I doubted a lot if that is possible but then I found this page on the internet and it has encouraged me a little. But I do not fully trust to a random native speaker. That's why I'm asking here for your opinion overin the matter. Is that possible in theory?
linguoboy wrote:I have never ever seen this done in English. It sounds hideously wrong to me.
linguoboy wrote:Aren't I just a random native speaker?
linguoboy wrote:But 99.999% of the time, it means "an unspecified day in the past".
linguoboy wrote:Native speakers know this, and that's how they choose their answers appropriately. So if the point of the test is to give the answers a native speaker would, you all should be approaching the questions in the same way, not racking your brains for some exceptional set of circumstances which makes one of the other options
acceptable. What's really the point of that?
LifeDeath wrote:Well, maybe I was wrong when I said that is sounds natural in Russian. But there's a strory that I remember reading as a child. It's short so I'll translate it and maybe you will understand what I mean.
"Once upon a time athe Devil (Chort in origin) borrowslends some money to a man. The man says to the Devil that he needs to come the following day to take themit back.
LifeDeath wrote: The next days things repeatthe same thing happens. NSo as not to have to answer every time himselfkeep saying the same thing, the man hunghangs a nameplate on which it wasis written "come tomorrow". So the Devil keptkeeps coming every single day.
LifeDeath wrote:One day he decides that noting will happen if he misses/omits one day because he doesn't want to go to see the same nameplate. But the next day, when he wentgoes to the man's house, he saw the nameplate where it was written on the nameplate "come yesterday". "It seems that I lost my money" - thoughtthinks the devil."
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:Aren't I just a random native speaker?
Before I used this website I thought that a native speaker was someone who just speaks English fluently. But after you and other guys here have answered my questions and explained so many hard linguistic issues (which I think are not even learnedtaught in English-speaking countries) I can't seriously consider those guys who think themselves gods just because they speak English fluently (cause they do not usually know any linguistic terms and are not able to explain some hard grammar). So, you surely have a hugea lot of authority.
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:But 99.999% of the time, it means "an unspecified day in the past".
I know this is an estimate but I didn't know that it was so huge. Because I don't see what's wrong towith referring to a day as "the other day" in the same way we usually use "the other" to refer to other adjectivesnouns. Does "day" have fewer rights?
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:Native speakers know this, and that's how they choose their answers appropriately. So if the point of the test is to give the answers a native speaker would, you all should be approaching the questions in the same way, not racking your brains for some exceptional set of circumstances which makes one of the other options acceptable. What's really the point of that?
Because I think that saying that any other options are not correct is destructive to those who learn. Those who design tests probably need to make all other answers obviously incorrect. And if someone is taught that only one option is correct and it is forbidden to use the others, his creativity will be killed. And that's really bad. I remember my teacher saying "Don't try to say what you are not able to express". But creativity is what helps people to speak, to make interesting sentences, to use grammar and vocabulary flexibly, to become a native-like speaker.
linguoboy wrote:Cute story, but I don't see how it relates to the point at hand.
There's a difference between being a prescriptivist and pointing out when a construction sounds unnatural. All language, even the most casual, slangy, low-prestige kind, has structure; not every conceivable turn of phrase will work or mean what you expect. Both linguoboy and I base our corrections mainly on that pre-existing structure. We describe that structure, making us "descriptivists". I think both of us are careful when explaining prescriptive rules to label them as such.LifeDeath wrote:This is the first thing I'd like to ask about. A couple of days ago I was arguing with my friend over the influence of grammar onto the use of a language (I mean, how grammar influences the way people communicate and express themselves). So that story shows that context can be untypical unusual/atypical or even paradoxical. But does that mean that such usages are strictly forbidden? No, I think people tend to use a language flexibly, that's how one's mind works, and sometimes it can be go against the grammar. My friend said that grammar constraints descriptiveness. Then maybe before deciding whether a usage is correct in a context or not, it'd be better to decide whether we're talking about using of grammar or using of language? What do you think? I remember here, on this forum, you called people who totally follow grammar rules "prescriptive pedants". But I don't think this is good. It makes it harder to use language harder for a learner and even for a native speaker.
Correction: Present perfect refers to an event that began in the past and is relevant in the present, not necessarily ongoing.LifeDeath wrote:In the Eminem song "Without Me" there's a sentence "I am the worst thing since Elvis Presley". Shouldn't it be "I have been the worst thing since Elvis Presley". It really sounds strange because I expect the perfect here. Isn't what we use it for as we've many times discussed here? Something that began in the past and is still ongoing. Well, I thought maybe it's some kind of slang. But slang is when you use some strange expressions, words. or incorrect forms. But this is the aspect and I think this is how natives think. It's really confusing me.
"To pigeon-hole" - to categorize someone, limiting them to that category, often based on stereotypes. Eminem is saying he doesn't like being limited to pop music.LifeDeath wrote:In another song of his "The Way I Am" there's "I'm not gonna be able to top on "My Name Is" and pigeon-holed into some poppy sensation". I've been trying to understand what "pigeon-holed" means here for more than a couple of months (or "more than a few months" / "several months") and I still haven't managed to. I've found some obscene definitions on the internet, but I can't see how they could work here. Probably the meaning is different. Can you help me understand it?
Dormouse559 wrote:For events defined by the fact that they are ongoing, you normally use the present progressive (be [verb]ing), but "to be" is one of the verbs that prefers the simple present. The sentence describes an ongoing state of being with the verb "to be"; therefore, you use simple present.
linguoboy wrote:Whenever I hear the first version, I know without a doubt that the speaker is non-native. This is one of the most common errors I hear from learners of English, even those who are fairly advanced otherwise. But I've never once heard a native speaker say it, not ever.LifeDeath wrote:"I am working for them for 2 years already."
"I have been working for them for two years already."
You are right about "be" in present progressive. But "be" in the simple present describes a state that is ongoing, whether it's temporary or enduring, singular or habitual. When someone says, "I am a teacher", it includes the past, present and future.LifeDeath wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:For events defined by the fact that they are ongoing, you normally use the present progressive (be [verb]ing), but "to be" is one of the verbs that prefers the simple present. The sentence describes an ongoing state of being with the verb "to be"; therefore, you use simple present.
Is it some general information on using the present progressive and perfect? Or is it an answer for the question? You say that in this case the "be" is ongoing and that's why it is in the simple present. But isn't that how people naturally use it? I mean, you say "be" if you talk about habitual things; you say "be being" if you put emphasis on the very present moment to describe the way someone's acting/behaving.
You're comparing two similar but uncomparable constructions. There's "since" when meant purely to introduce a temporal phrase. "I've loved rock-and-roll since Elvis Presley."LifeDeath wrote:Well, I would perfectly understand this as a common idiomatic usage but I remember this conversation:
...
Where am I wrong?
linguoboy wrote:I think it's a form of metonymy. In the first case, "shame" is used to mean "a shameful event". In the second, "love" is used to mean "a love affair".LifeDeath wrote:I think that emotions are usually mass nouns. So we don't say "a love" or "an anger" because those are mass nouns. I think that "shame" follows the same principle. But I've noticed that in some specific expressions that rule doesn't work! Like "What a shame!". What is this phenomenon called? Or "What a love they have! I think I'll never meet my own prince charming!".
LifeDeath wrote:linguoboy wrote:I think it's a form of metonymy. In the first case, "shame" is used to mean "a shameful event". In the second, "love" is used to mean "a love affair".LifeDeath wrote:I think that emotions are usually mass nouns. So we don't say "a love" or "an anger" because those are mass nouns. I think that "shame" follows the same principle. But I've noticed that in some specific expressions that rule doesn't work! Like "What a shame!". What is this phenomenon called? Or "What a love they have! I think I'll never meet my own prince charming!".
I want to ask, can "weather" be used in the same way as a metonym to refer to a 'kind of weather' or a 'spell (period) of weather'? On an English topic guys were discussing this. I tried to Google it myself and I've only found where people were saying that this is not correct. But what about the example that I've showedn above?
"What a weather!"
"What weather!"
I don't know why but the first exclamation sounds better to me. The second is awkward. It sounds as if it's an answer forto the question "You remember about the weather?" regardless of the intonation. What do you think?
LifeDeath wrote:Thank you for this answer and analysis.
Yes. Maybe it's when "losing opportunities" and "failing at something" is are kind of the same thing. For example, you bought a lotterty ticket, its number was winning and you won a billion (I need the name of a currency here because otherwise, it doesn't really make sense in this context), and on your way to take the prize, you accidentally dropped your ticket into a sewage grid when sewer while crossing a road. So after a couple of years, you can could say, "I could have had got(ten) a billion (currency name), but in fact, I didn't". So I think this is kind of loosing the opportunity.
Well the thing is that I guess that I know how to pronounce vowels properly in English. I think that I can say some simple and casual sentences pretty well (comparing to how I read), especially if I just speak. But when it comes to reading, things change. Maybe it's because I have to read another man's (I'd probably say "person's" here instead of "man's") thoughts, and because there are some words that I'm just not familiar with at all. Anyway I will be working on that problem.
Oh, I, on the other hand, contrariwisely thought that I overpronounced it,; I think it's especially noticeablye in the word "drinking" almost in at the end of the text.
Didn't know about "y", henceforth I will be trying to spell pronounce it correctly. But I always tried kept trying to pronounce "ea" properly, too bad I didn't succeed.
[...]
That's interesting, I didn't know about that. I think it's a popular word and I've heard it many times and knew how to pronounce it.
And about that. I think that I've always pronounced it analogically to by analogy with "certain", where the "t" is pronounced if I'm not mistaken.
Well it's also hard to learn where it should be voiced pronounced and where not. I am used to the fact that it's not voiced pronounced in "honesty". I thought that it would be unvoiced be silent/not be pronounced in other words of that type.
So I think that to learn all that, I need to practice and listen to native speakers a lot.
Babbsagg wrote:linguoboy wrote:Babbsagg wrote:I'm no specialist on AmE, but I think it's less common there. Maybe because those T's are usually pronounced like D's already? When listening to AmE, I always hear "bedder" instead of "better", "buddon" instead of "button" etc.
Those aren't d's. You're talking about a well-studied phenomenon known as "tapping" or "flapping": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapping. The sound in question is actually [ɾ], but it probably sounds like [d] to you since that's the closest equivalent in most varieties of German.
[...]
Thanks for the info, learning never stops.
linguoboy wrote:Instantaneous actions can be either semelfactive (from the Latin for "single occurrence") or iterative (from the Latin for "again").
LifeDeath wrote:And I wondered, can "of" and "from" be interchangeable? I thought about it when I was at the sentence "From the ashes a fire shall be woken". I think that "from" usually means something like "literally from the position". So "From the ashes" must mean that the ashes are the source of the fire, right? And right from that place where they are the fire starts. But I guess that in this instance, the ashes are the source, but not in terms of place yet in terms of material. It's like those ashes become a fire. But isn't is what we use "of" for? At least one of its usages. So I tried to say "Of the ashes a fire shall be woken". Do you think it's possible? Do you think there's a difference?
LifeDeath wrote:We are taught that the perfect usually requires a result. So, is this result something material or just factual and abstract? That's where misunderstandings shows up.
LifeDeath wrote:Imagine that you and your friend/girlfriend sleep in onethe same flat. There's a fly in athe room that's noisingmaking noise all night long. In the morning you smackswat the fly. And when you come to another room, your friend asks you: "Why is it so quiet here?". And you answer: "Because I swatted that fly!". Do we use the simple past here? I mean, there's no result of the action being done. And the action itself is factual. You just share some information overregarding the reason offor the ambience having become quiet.
LifeDeath wrote:Another example - the whole narration is the same, but at the end when being asked the question - you show yourthe palm of your hand with a squashed fly on it, pointing at it with a finger of the other hand, so now you'd answer "Because I have smacked that fly!". Here you use the perfect because there's the observable result - a body of the fly. HowWhat would you say?
LifeDeath wrote:ItThis can be extended to any situation. The general problem is, it's hard to see the result of instantaneous actions. I mean, what do we understand by "result"? Is it something that appears/is left after performing an action? Or is it the fact of performing an action itself? Well, if the answer is the second, then I understand why people have problems understanding it. Because every action that happensed by before the moment of speaking may be categorized in that way.
I remember this:linguoboy wrote:Instantaneous actions can be either semelfactive (from the Latin for "single occurrence") or iterative (from the Latin for "again").
So are semelfactive actions used in the perfect aspect? I assume that any action that happened only once is factual. So to say, it's just a fact - it either happened or it didn't happen.
LifeDeath wrote:And the simple past in English is used to talk about such actions. But, of course, I'm incorrect. The counterexample appears immediately: "I have seen him this week". But maybe I'm confusing something, is the action here semelfactive? Logically enough, it should be. The number of times I "experienced" seeing him during the week is "one".
LifeDeath wrote:So it proves that the perfect aspect extends its usage onto semelfactive actions, if I'm not mistaken.
LifeDeath wrote:But things're getting harder with iterative actions. What does iterative mean? Do those actions happen systematically and thus repeatedly? How many time does an action have to have happened in the past so that I could call it iterative? I suppose there's no rules on it. Is it an action that's happened at least twice by the moment of speaking?
LifeDeath wrote:I also noticed one interesting peculiar thing, when I want to stress iterativeness I use... progressive aspect.
"I've been seeing him this week". Sounds to me thatlike I saw him regularly or many times saw him during the week. And this is strange because progressive aspect serves to indicate the ongoing nature of an action as you said. And this is a well known fact. Do you agree with that or am I wrong? So it seems that an iterative action here is treated like an ongoing one, which is pretty strange.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests