English 101 with Trihan sometimes!

[Matti]

Trihan, this is really funny actually, cause I thought of starting a thread like this since a few weeks, not because I'm so good in English, but instead because I'm not sure about some words or phrases every now and then and always wanted to ask about it.

But... now I can't think of anything but I'll post next time I have a problem  .

[Stupot]

That may be true, however there are instances where it's not.

In this case you should still have a comma after 'however'.

Of course, this is only if you want to please the pedants.  Since I started studying Linguistics, though, they've been banging into us how we should take a descriptive attitude to English usage rather than a prescriptive one... if enough people are not using a comma after 'however', then that's what they are doing, and as long as they are understood then it shouldn't be described as 'wrong' or 'bad English' (although, ironically they still check our grammar in our exams and essays...).

[Mr Flibble]

I never understood why language teachers think colloquialisms are such a good thing.

[Vince Twelve]

Ooh, I need this.  I have this line in an email in my game that I have no idea how to punctuate.  To make things worse, it is written by a newspaper editor, so it had better freaking be right, right?

Listen, about that story you're working on, tread carefully.

Do I need a semicolon in there or something.  I don't think that second comma is right...

[Stupot]

@Vince - I'd say a semi-colon would be correct. You might even get away with a full-stop, but a comma would be wrong.

Me being me I'd probbaly use elipses...
but thats just a bad habit and I'm not entirely sure of it's correct function...

[edit]
Oooh... so we know that someone is working on a story, and that they need to tread carefully...  I feel spoiled now... don't think I'll bother to play Resonance anymore. 

[Anian]

You know, I always thought english is probably the simplest language to start using. Not like it's "simple", because it is very developed in such a way to ease people into it. For example you can see how it's more developed than ie latin, or even german - latin has a lot of changing of nouns etc., while german doesn't follow a normal process of thinking  (or thinking like other languages function, like putting verbs at the end of the sentences and how parts change their meaning completly if not placed in just the right order).
English is simple in that way that a beginner can try and use it and be understood. It has some issuses with read and speaking it properly and there are exceptions but all in all, you can easily construct sentences and thoughts.

Maybe it's just me, growing up on the net and watching Cartoon network and stuff since early age...but I think that just helps (for example to recognise frases) and expands the dictionary.

Do I need a semicolon in there or something.  I don't think that second comma is right...

Everything is ok with that sentence. It is clean, simple and still shows exactly what you mean to say.
I'm usually pretty good with grammar in my language and my profesor told me the rules are the same for english, in that aspect, so I'm pretty sure I'm right.

[Mr Flibble]

Listen, about that story you're working on, tread carefully.

Is fine.

"Listen; about that story you're working on, tread carefully."
"Listen, about that story you're working on: tread carefully."
"Listen, about that story you're working on. Tread carefully."

You could replace it with any of those but I don't consider them to be preferable in any way. Keep it as it is, it's fine.

[Stupot]

I'm not sure.  The comma seems like the least preferable option to me... but maybe this is an illusion because the main clause is considerably shorter than the rest of it.

[Ishmael]

If it was me writing I'd put either three dots or a dash in. None of the above seem wrong to me, some just less fitting than others.

[nihilyst]

What I always wanted to know is: What's the difference between these examples:

1. I painted the room.
2. I have painted the room.
3. I was painting the room.
4. I have been painting the room.

I guess you use 1 in a normal narration, 2 if you are in the present and refer to something you did in the past, that still is of matter now, 3 if you want to introduce a scene, that is interrupted and therefore not complete yet (I was painting the room, when suddenly ...), and 4, if you refer to the act of painting itself (like in "Wow, you're splattered with paint.-- Yes, I've been painting the room).? Or am I totally wrong there?

[Stupot]

Generally...

1. I painted the room.

Simple Past
An action that took place at some point in the past.


2. I have painted the room.

Present Perfect Simple
An action that is has been recently completed

3. I was painting the room.

Past Progressive
An action that was going on at a certain time in the past


4. I have been painting the room.

Present Perfect Progressive
An action in the past that has recently stopped or is still going on or a finished action that hasinfluenced the present.

http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/tenses

[Matti]

Nihylist, isn't it the very same in german? At least 1-3, I'm not quite sure about 4. I've always been very good in grammar though I don't know anything about grammatical theory.

[TerranRich]

1.

Present Perfects are also used in narrative. Usually narratives (stories) are set in the present tense:

It was a dark and stormy night. John killed a man.

But if you're referring to events in the narrative's past, you use present perfect tenses, like so:

But then John remembered back to last Tuesday. There had been a knock at the door.

So John is remembering the past, and we are told that, at the time, there was a knock on the door.

John had answered the door, only to see the man. He was there to paint the bathroom.

Now that we've already established the time frame of "narrative's past", we can slip back into regular past tense.

I hope that makes sense.

2.

As for parentheses, the full-stop within or outside the parentheses really depends.

This is acceptable (and used to provide a thought that wouldn't be a sentence on its own).
This is also acceptable. (Note that this is now a separate sentence on its own, but still a thought outside of the subject matter.)

Hope that helps.

3.

Finally, the following would be the correct way to say the "listen" thing:

Listen, about that story: it sucks.

[Gilbert]

Seems to be a perfect thread for me to ask this (if there's a similar reply already, sorry about that, as I haven't read all the posts):

I once heard people saying when you're writing something about an incident, you cannot mix tenses (don't know if it's really the case), i.e. everything must be using the same tense in the same sentence, maybe even in the same paragraph. Now, I run into some problems, like in the following example (don't mind the genuinity of the matter as it's just randomly made up):

"I visited the Great Wall last week. It was one of the miracles of the world. It contained many... blah, blah..."

It would be obviously that the first "visited" should be in past tense, but how about the "was" and "contained" that follow? As these are considered univerally true facts can I use present tense there?

I recently asked a fellow member and she replied that it's indeed the case that people usually use past tense for the whole thing, so I'd take this advice.

However, today one of our consultants (note: not a consultant of the English subject) mentioned that "we can use present tense to describe something which is still there although the event has happened some time ago. So your example could be as follows:
I visited the Great Wall last week. It is one of the miracles of the world. It contains many... blah, blah..."

Now, I'm a bit confused. Is this just something that both kinds of presenting are accepted in general and it's not important either way I write it?

[TheJBurger]

Listen, about that story you're working on, tread carefully.

If it was me (I?), I think I would use a colon or a dash (out of personal preference, I could be wrong!).

"Listen, about that story you're working on: tread carefully."
"Listen, about that story you're working on--tread carefully."

[Lionmonkey]

There is one thing, we were rehearsing this year, which I seem to have already completely forgotten. I've also forgotten, how this situation is called, so let us use an example. Tell me, one of these is correct:
1)A guy and some politicians were bulding a house
2)A guy and some politicians was building a house

Now, my intuition tells me, number 1 is correct, but it may be wrong. Anyway, please someone explain me the ruleset for these cases.


On a side note, intuition is a funny thing. My sudy of English started simultaneously both at school and home, where I was playing many interesting computer games with many unfamiliar words. So, when I spotted one, I'd open my grandfather's ENG-to-RU vocabulary, printed back in '92.
So, during primary school I'd often subconsciencly remember how this or that word or phrase is written and trust my intuition in tests, with no regard to grammar theory.
In secondary school I've finaly started to seriously study it. And now I've got a problem. Whenever a tricky spot appears, my intuition and knowelge of theory start fighting, terribly confusing me.

[TheJBurger]

I believe you use 'were' when the subject of the sentence is plural (more than one person). You would use 'was' when the subject is singular (a single person).

So, you would say: "John was building a house."
But you wouldn't say: "John, Jessica, Jason, and Jeremy was building a house."
You would use 'were' in that case.

[Oliwerko]

In secondary school I've finaly started to seriously study it. And now I've got a problem. Whenever a tricky spot appears, my intuition and knowelge of theory start fighting, terribly confusing me.

I know that and I can tell you one thing - thinking about the spot does things even worse and does not help at all at most times for me. When I'm in doubt, I usually trust the intuition - and mostly, it's correct. I don't know how, but it mostly is.

[TerranRich]

Now, I'm a bit confused. Is this just something that both kinds of presenting are accepted in general and it's not important either way I write it?

It's true that you use present tense to describe facts that are still true today.

[paolo]

When answering these questions, it's important to recognise that different varieties of English use different rules. An American writing the previous sentence would have written "recognize", for example, and this can also be used in British English (it is the form preferred by the Oxford English and used by the Times newspaper) but endings in -ise are more common and are equally valid. The argument for the "-ize" form is that these words derive from Greek verbs ending in "-izein".

In answer to the apostrophe question: in British English, the underlying rule is that you add an "s" after the apostrophe if you pronounce it, and don't if you don't. Hence "a dog's breakfast" (= the breakfast of a dog) needs an "s" after the apostrophe because we add one to "dog" when pronouncing this, but "the dogs' owners (= the owners of the dogs) has no "s" after the apostrophe because "dogs" (plural) already has one. Proper nouns ending in "s" can either take an extra "s" or not, according to preference and whether it "sounds right". So if you prefer to say "Davisiz ..." for something belonging to Davis, then you write "Davis's ...", but if you think this sounds clumsy and prefer to say "Davis ..." instead, you write "Davis' ...". Dublin has "St. James's Hospital" because whoever named it chose to pronounce two "s"s in the second word, but the football (soccer) stadium in Newcastle-upon-Tyne is "St James' Park" because whoever named it pronounced only one.

American usage differs... from my experience, there seems to be a rule that any noun ending in in "s" or even "z" has no extra "s" after the apostrophe (eg, "the bus' passengers", "the Ritz' clients") whether or not one is pronounced, although I might be mistaken. This looks odd to my British eyes because "the bus' passengers" looks like it should be pronounced "the bus passengers" rather than "the bussiz passengers".

So the point of my post... a lot of these rules depend which type of English (British/Commonwealth English or American English) you are referring to, so, when posting, it is helpful to point out which variety of English you are referring to as things may be different elsewhere in the world.