| QUESTION |
Hi,
I am confused with the following grammar problem. I was taught that "since" should be used together with the perfect tense, but I read something like "Since the world ended, I don't go out much". Though an english professor says that is OK, I am still confused.
Thank you very much
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Athens, Georgia  Friday, June 19, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| If you use "since" in that sentence as written, it will be read as "because," and that's not what you mean. If you use it to expression the notion of time passed, the present perfect would, indeed, seem preferable: "Since the world ended, I have not gone out much." (Actually, we'd probably reverse the clauses, wouldn't we?) It's not that the simple present isn't possible, it's just that it turns the word "since" into something ambiguous.
|
| QUESTION |
| 1. Should "fish", "fruit" and "vegetable" always be in the singular? If not, when should these words be used in the plural?
2. Which of the following sentence is grammatically correct?
- Both John and I AM late.
- Both John and I ARE late.
Eagerly waiting for your reply. Thanks a million!
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Unknown Saturday, June 20, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Usually, "fish" is the same whether you're talking about one fish or more than one. ("Fishes" is possible, though, when you talking about many, many fish or kinds of fish -- the "fishes of the Mediterranean," for example.) "Fruit" and "vegetable," however, have simple plurals -- just add "s."
"Both" creates a plural. Both John and I are late.
|
| QUESTION |
1st question:
How to determine the subject-verb agreement when it comes to subject with gerund?
e.g. Using the finest raw materials (ensure or ensures) good quality?
2nd question:
There's one remote controller for every TV set. With "with," what form is to be used?
e.g. TV sets with remote controller or remote controllers?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Taipei, Taiwan Saturday, June 20, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| A gerund is a singular thing: use ensures. The answer to your second question will depend on context. You probably mean there is one remote controller with each TV set, so you'd be wise to say, "TV sets with remote controller." You could be less ambiguous if you spoke of "each TV set with a remote controller." Incidentally, in the U.S., anyway, we use the term "a remote control" or just "a remote."
|
| QUESTION |
| Hello,
Want to know following questions:
- What is the dfferent between was ___ed and have ___ed?
A report describes something happened last week,
e.g. A computer (was/has/has been) repaired, some faulty components (were/ /have been)replaced.
What words should be selected in above sentence?
- What means "in due course" and "for the time being"? Any alternative words for them?
- When to use formal and informal writng style?
Thanks for your help!
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Somewhere, China Saturday, June 20, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| 1. I would start that sentence with the present perfect and end with the simple past: "The (not "A") computer has been repaired; some faulty component were replaced." 2. "In due course" means that something will happen when it's supposed to happen, and not before. "For the time being" is that period of time between one event and another or the period of time until something specific happens. For instance, if you're going to buy a new car, but you don't have enough money, you could say you'll have to make do with the old buggy "for the time being." And you will get your new car "in due course." 3. Informal writing is what you use in casual letters to friends and family, in casual memos to very friendly co-workers (but be careful there!). Formal writing is used in business and technical applications and all academic situations (unless your instructor invites you to write informally). It's sort of like manners, in other words.
|
| QUESTION |
Please explain in following sentence, author wrote, "would be wanting". Regarding this I have a doubt, it might "would be wanted". If, my thought is wrong, please explain the rule he has followed to express.
The compilers of this book would be wanting in courtesy if they did not expressly say what might otherwise be safely left to the reader's discernment.
Thank you very much.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Doha-Qatar Saturday, June 20, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| No, that's a good use of the word "wanting." In that context, it means "lacking" (or "deficient," "not having").
|
| QUESTION |
I would like to know the following.
- "Do you have time?"means "Are you free?"
- "Do you have the time?"means "What time is it now?"
The change of meaning cccurs because of only THE the definite article.
What I like to know is what role THE definite article plays not only in above sentence but also in any other sentence in English as a whole.
I would be very much appreciated if you let me know the reason.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Ulsan, Korea Sunday, June 21, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Both of these sentences are idiomatic expressions -- this is not unusual, as you know, for expressions involving time. And, yes, the word the makes a big difference. I suggest you take a look at our section on Articles and Determiners and look at how the definite article the modifies things, often (but not always) making things specific. Incidentally, "Do you have the time," does not necessarily mean, "Do you know what time it is?" It, too, can mean, "Do you have enough time to help me (or whatever)?"
|
| QUESTION |
The pond, frozen over since this December, is now safe for ice-skating.
For example, in the sentence above, do you think it is also grammatically correct not to set off the prase "frozen over,,," by commas? Because I know it's not wrong to modify a subject in relative pronoun that you can leave out. Like this:
The meeting held yesterday was a success.
Well, tell me if i can do it on the first one,
a type of participial phrase, like the other one is. Thank you very much.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Sunray, Texas Sunday, June 21, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| No, you can't leave the commas out of that first sentence. It's hard to say why. I think it has something to do with the fact that we're talking about one pond, and there's no doubt about which pond we're talking about; the fact that it's been frozen over since December is thus added information -- thus the commas. The meeting was a success. Which meeting? The meeting [that was] held yesterday. The information in the phrase (which is really a clause without the "that was," isn't it?) is necessary information, so I don't set off the information with commas.
|
Previous Grammar Log