Grammar Questions by sb70012

[sb70012]

Are you or your father able to speak Japanese? (Self made)

Hello teachers,

I made it by myself but I have some problem with it. In my opinion it's not a good sentence because Are doesn't fit with your father. I mean, or your father is third person singular. Then how Are is used at the beginning of the question?

What do you think of the sentence? Is it Ok?

If it were : Are you and your father able to speak Japanese? On that time I think it works but I have some doubt about the upward sentence.


No Source / Self Made
Many thanks in advance.

[cacian]

hi sb.
I think that both are correct but mean differently.

''are you and your father'' means you are asking whether both, the stress is on both, speak Japanese.
''are you or your father'' here means it does not matter about both either one of them speak Japanese.
and is for adding and therefore it stresses on the both of them.
or is for either it does not matter either will do

I hope this helps :)

[sb70012]

Thank you. What if I reverse the sentence? I mean:

Is your father and you able to speak Japanese?

50 % of native English speakers say it's correct and other 50 % say it's incorrect.

But what's your idea about that?

[cacian]

for me I would ask the question differently
I would say this:

does your father or you speak Japanese?

but if you are wanting to use ''able'' then this how I would ask it:

is your father or you able to speak Japanese?
or
are your father and you able to speak Japanese?

are is for when you are aksing more then one person in this case you are asking both ''father and you''
is ,is for when you are addressing one person at a time and should go with OR because you are asking one or the other but not both at the same time.

so for me:
Is your father and you able to speak Japanese?
is incorrect because you are asking two people since ''and'' which is for adding is used.

[sb70012]

Sorry I made a mistake in post 3#. I should have written:

Is your father or you able to speak Japanese?

not

Is your father and you able to speak Japanese?

I know the second one is incorrect.

But for the first one, some say it's incorrect and some say it's correct.
What do you think of the first one? I mean: (Is your father or you able to speak Japanese?)

[cacian]

Sorry I made a mistake in post 3#. I should have written:

Is your father or you able to speak Japanese?

not

Is your father and you able to speak Japanese?

I know the second one is incorrect.

But for the first one, some say it's incorrect and some say it's correct.
What do you think of the first one? I mean: (Is your father or you able to speak Japanese?)

''Is your father or you able to speak Japanese?''
I would say it is correct.

[sb70012]

Thank you very much. We, nonnative English speakers owe a debt of gratitude to you English speakers. you have helped us a lot in these Forums. I will never forget your help.

Thanks for everything.

Hello teachers,
Suppose that I am talking to my friend Alex but I see him rarely because maybe he is busy. I want to tell him, see me sometimes or visit me sometimes, because we are close friends and don't forget me.

1.Me: Hello Alex, long time no see, visit me once in a while.
2.Me: Hello Alex, long time no see, come by sometime.
3.Me: Hello Alex, long time no see, drop by sometime.
4.Me: Hello Alex, long time no see, let's get together sometime.
5.Me: Hello Alex, long time no see, come by and see me sometime.
6.Me: Hello Alex, long time no see, drop by and see me sometime.

I didn't know the blue ones. Some say they are good to be used in that circumstance. But what do you think of the blue sentences? Are they correct to be used? If you were me, how would you say that? I couldn't find a thread related to my topic.

No source/Self made
Many thanks in advance.

[cacian]

Hi sb.
no1 is not so good because 'visit me once in a while' would be something you would either use in writing or in spoken telling someone about someone else that they only visit you once in a while.

2/3/4 are fine. 5 is the same as 2 and 6 is the same as 3. and they are all fine.

I personally would say:
hi there long time no see, come by sometimes when you can it would be good to get together.
or
why not drop and come and say hell it would be nice to see you.
I hope this is Ok.

[mal4mac]

If Alex is British I would be more emphatic, as he might take any of those phrases as "just being polite". So grab him by the arm and say, with passion, "you must come and see me more often Alex, we are close friends, you musn't forget me."

[LitNetIsGreat]

All are grammatically correct and fine to use. It is probably down to personal preference what you use. That said 2, 3, 5 and 6 sound more natural, whereas 1 is in danger of sounding like you are a little too desperate for him to visit and 4 is in danger of sounding a little homosexual! So of those probably 2 or 3 is the best.

[JBI]

For the sake of the forums, can you not make a new thread every time you have a new question? Why not just make a "I have a question" thread, and then post all your questions there. You are polite, so people will of course answer you, but this isn't exactly literature related.

[sb70012]

For the sake of the forums, can you not make a new thread every time you have a new question? Why not just make a "I have a question" thread, and then post all your questions there. You are polite, so people will of course answer you, but this isn't exactly literature related.

Then where should I ask such questions? Is there any other forum related to my questions? As far as I know they all are literature forums in here. I will be happy if you suggest me a link.

Thank you.

[Varenne Rodin]

When in doubt, the admins and veterans may correct me if I'm wrong, you could try posting miscellaneous types of threads in the general chat section.

There may already be threads around the site relating to sentence structure, options, and grammar, so I suggest running a quick search. Your questions didn't bother me at all, but it's not a bad idea to make a single thread for all of your questions. This forum has many fantastic long-running threads. You could call it something like, "Questions on sentence structure," or "Help me pick a sentence," or "Creating dialogue." I hope this is helpful. Don't stress. Have fun on Litnet. :)

[JBI]

For general linguistic inquiries, try the General Chat, for other inquiries, such as your questions on the Age of Johnson, you could make a particular thread related to that topic as a broad category, or ask on the Johnson subforum.

[Pen Name]

'Is' is singular 'are' is plural.

So "Are you or your father able to speak Japanese?" the object of the sentence is two people, hence plural, so one uses 'Are'.

"Is your father or you able to speak Japanese?", the object becomes 'your father' which is singular, you are then adding a supplementary question 'or you' to refer to two people, but as single individuals.

The former is the better English, (in fact very good English) and would be preferred, it is down to being simpler, and where possible always try to simplify English, as it is then usually easier to understand. Also it has a habit of putting an idea across better.

[Scheherazade]

'Is' is singular 'are' is plural.

So "Are you or your father able to speak Japanese?" the object of the sentence is two people, hence plural, so one uses 'Are'.

I disagree. Because of "or", the subject of this sentence will never be plural: It is either "you" (one person) or "your father" (one person); however, because "you" is required to take the "to be" verb "are", the correct usage in this sentence is: "Are you or your father able to speak Japanese?"

[sb70012]

Hello dear all,

Once I asked this question of a native English speaker:

Are these both correct?

Which one of these is correct?
Which one of these are correct?

********************************

In answer she told me: The first one (is) is correct but you should reverse the sentence and say:

"Of these which one is correct?"

Is she right? Is it needed to reverse it? If I don't reverse it, can it be true as well or not?


Thanks in advance.

[Kyriakos]

The first sentence seems utterly fine. Personally i would have formed it as "which of these is the correct one?" (assuming you were picking only one as correct)

The second is obviously wrong, given you ask which one is correct, so "are" has no place there.

[sb70012]

Thank you very much.

[Calidore]

All three variations given (so far) of the first option are correct.

[Pen Name]

I disagree. Because of "or", the subject of this sentence will never be plural: It is either "you" (one person) or "your father" (one person); however, because "you" is required to take the "to be" verb "are", the correct usage in this sentence is: "Are you or your father able to speak Japanese?"

Scheherazade, you are quite correct, "Are you" as opposed to "Is your", I didn't follow my own rule of simplifying the phrase to start with and splitting it up.

Which would have given the alternative but more cumbersome, "Are you or is your Father able to speak English." not something that is likely in everyday spoken English.

However it highlights why ~Are you~ is correct and not ~is your~

I blame my school for not having us parse sentences on a daily basis, I shall stand in the corner with the dunces hat on my head lol.

But oh the joys of the English language.

[Seasider]

Scheherazade, you are quite correct, "Are you" as opposed to "Is your", I didn't follow my own rule of simplifying the phrase to start with and splitting it up.

Which would have given the alternative but more cumbersome, "Are you or is your Father able to speak English." not something that is likely in everyday spoken English.

However it highlights why ~Are you~ is correct and not ~is your~

I blame my school for not having us parse sentences on a daily basis, I shall stand in the corner with the dunces hat on my head lol.

But oh the joys of the English language.

The verb To Be does not take an object. It takes a complement

[sb70012]

Hello teachers,
I don't know how to say that some of Iranian people can speak Azeri.
Would you please help me with it? If you were me, how would you say it? (I want to use 30000000 in my sentence)
I searched it in the forum but couldn't find a helpful thread related to my question.

1. 30 million Iranians' mothers tongue is Azeri.
2. 30 million Iranians' mothers' tongue is Azeri.
3. 30 millions Iranians' mothers tongue is Azeri.
4. 30 million Iranians' mothers' tongue is Azeri.
5. 30 millions Iranians' mothers' tongue is Azeri.
6. 30 million of Iranians' mothers' tongue is Azeri.
7. 30 millions of Iranians' mothers tongue is Azeri.
8. 30 millions of Iranian population's mother's tongue is Azeri.
9. 30 millions Iranian population mother's tongue is Azeri.

(I got confused and don't know how to say it)

No source/Self made
Many thanks in advance.

[Hawkman]

Well in every instance above, what you are actually saying is that 30 million Iranian mothers speak Azeri. You don't need to make mothers or Iranians possessive with an apostrophe. The simplest way to say that, '30 million Iranians have Azari as their mother tongue' is to say just that. You could also say: 'The mother tongue of 30 million Iranians is Azari.'

[JBI]

30 million Iranians speak Azari as their Mother tongue.

[Pen Name]

I would suggest instead of any of your quotes in blue,

Me: Hello Alex, long time no see, much too long, we should get together more often.

Long time no see, is a quick way of saying, 'we haven't seen each other for much longer than we should' so adding something along the lines of much too long then makes any follow up statement seem more natural.

Note most of the posters on here will be too young to remember an American film actress called Mae West, she was a very sexy lady, and one of her famous lines in a film was 'Come up and see me sometime' but would then add the line with two meanings 'When I haven't much on', the first innocent meaning being 'when I am not busy' however the same words could be taken to mean when I am undressed and ready for bed?

So your line come and see me some time sounds a little off.

To answer your other question, 'Yahoo answers' is an open forum that also answers questions on language, look in Society & Culture, 'Languages' there is a UK and USA version of Yahoo answers, they also answer questions on Literature in Arts and Humanities, I answer under my real name as they also don't try and claim Copyright on my work.

[cafolini]

Hello teachers,
I don't know how to say that some of Iranian people can speak Azeri.
Would you please help me with it? If you were me, how would you say it? (I want to use 30000000 in my sentence)
I searched it in the forum but couldn't find a helpful thread related to my question.

1. 30 million Iranians' mothers tongue is Azeri.
2. 30 million Iranians' mothers' tongue is Azeri.
3. 30 millions Iranians' mothers tongue is Azeri.
4. 30 million Iranians' mothers' tongue is Azeri.
5. 30 millions Iranians' mothers' tongue is Azeri.
6. 30 million of Iranians' mothers' tongue is Azeri.
7. 30 millions of Iranians' mothers tongue is Azeri.
8. 30 millions of Iranian population's mother's tongue is Azeri.
9. 30 millions Iranian population mother's tongue is Azeri.

(I got confused and don't know how to say it)

No source/Self made
Many thanks in advance.

Regardless of the grammar issues which are not things a good editor couldn't deal with, you are always going to be con-fused asking those questions because you are trying to reduce the issues to a common denominator which is not actual. Look at the actual complications:
"Azeri" redirects here. For other uses, see Azeri (disambiguation).
This article is about the Azerbaijani ethnic group. For an analysis of the population of the Republic of Azerbaijan, see Demographics of Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijanis
Azərbaycanlılar, Azərilər
آذربایجانلیلار، آذریلر Сефи 1-й 1629-42.jpg
Ismail I USSR stamp I.Nasimi 1973 4k.jpg
Nasimi Fuzûlî.jpg
Fuzûlî Naser edin shah by Kamalolmolk.jpg
Naser al-Din Shah Qajar Ayatollah khamenei 002.jpg
Khamenei
Khoysky.jpeg
Khoysky Mfakhundov.jpg
Akhundov Khan Nakhichevanski.jpg
Nakhchivanski Leyla Mammadbeyova.JPG
Mammadbeyova Tofik Bahramov stamp.jpg
Bahramov
Garayev Piano.jpg
Garayev [email protected]
Lotfi Zadeh Mir-Hossein Mousavi.jpg
Mousavi Rustam Ibragimbekov foto.jpg
Ibragimbekov Shahriyar.jpg
Shahriar
Sattar Khan.jpg
Sattar Khan Üzeyir Hacıbəyov5.gif
Hajibeyov Samiyusufnetherlands.jpg
Sami Yusuf Shahbanu of Iran.jpg
Diba (Pahlavi) Stamps of Azerbaijan, 2012-1047.jpg
Magomayev
Heydar Aliyev 1997.jpg
Aliyev Vahid Alakbarov.jpg
Alekperov Aziza BakuJazz2007.jpg
Mustafazadeh Ali-Daei.JPG
Ali Daei Emin bey.jpg
Rasulzade


Total population
approx. 28–35 million[1][2]
Regions with significant populations
Iran 15 million (Ethnologue and Encyclopædia Britannica)[3][4]

14.5 to 18 million (e.g. CIA factbook, Knüppel, etc.)[5][6]
18 to 25 million (e.g. criticism R. Elling)[7][8]
Azerbaijan 9,235,001[9]
Russia 621,800 to 1,500,000[10][11]
Turkey 530,000 to 2,500,000[11][12]
Georgia 284,761[13]
Kazakhstan 85,292[14]
Ukraine 45,176[15]
Uzbekistan 44,400[16]
Turkmenistan 33,365[17]
United States 24,377 to 400,000[18][19][20]
Netherlands 18,000[21]
Kyrgyzstan 17,823[22]
Germany 15,219[23]
United Kingdom 15,000[24]
Belarus 5,567[25]
Canada 4,580[26]
Latvia 1,697[27]
Austria 1,000[28]
Estonia 880[29]
Lithuania 788[30]
Languages
Azerbaijani
Religion
Predominantly Shia Islam; minorities practice Sunni Islam, Bahá'í Faith,[31][32] and Zoroastrianism[33][34][35]
Related ethnic groups
Other Turkic peoples, Iranian peoples, peoples of the Caucasus
The Azerbaijanis (/ˌæzərbaɪˈdʒɑːni/; Azerbaijani: Azərbaycanlılar, آذربایجانلیلار) are a Turkic-speaking people[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] living mainly in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran, as well as in the neighboring states. Also referred to as "Azeris" (Azərilər, آذریلر) or "Azerbaijani Turks"[43][44] (Azərbaycan türkləri, آذربایجان تورکلری) they live in a wider area from the Caucasus to the Iranian plateau. The Azerbaijanis are predominantly Shi'a Muslim[45][46] and have a mixed cultural heritage including Turkic, Iranian[47][48] and Caucasian elements.

Following the Russo-Persian Wars of 1813 and 1828, the territories of the Qajar Empire in the Caucasus were ceded to the Russian Empire and the treaties of Gulistan in 1813 and Turkmenchay in 1828 finalized the borders between Czarist Russia and Qajar Iran.[49][50] The formation of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic in 1918 established the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Despite living on two sides of an international border, the Azeris form a single ethnic group.[46] However, northerners and southerners differ due to nearly two centuries of separate social evolution Iranian Azerbaijanis and in Russian/Soviet-influenced Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani language unifies Azerbaijanis, and is mutually intelligible with Turkmen, Qashqai, Gagauz, Turkish, and the dialects spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen, all of which belong to the Oghuz, or Western, group of Turkic languages.[51]:105

[sb70012]

Thanks evrybody.

[sb70012]

1. I checked it in Google.
2. I checked it on Google.
3. I checked it of Google.
4. I checked it from Google.
5. I checked it off Google.

Hello teachers,
Would you please tell me which one is correct?
I searched it in the forum but couldn't find a thread related to my question.

Many thanks in advance.

[Calidore]

Best of those choices would be #2. Even better would be "I checked it with Google" (or "I checked it using Google"), as Google is simply the tool. You might hear people use #1, though it's not quite right, but you'll never hear #s 3, 4, and 5; they make no sense grammatically.

[JBI]

I googled it.

[sb70012]

Thank you both.

[sb70012]

Hello teachers,

A car can be absolutely useful when you are in a hurry. (incorrect)
A car can be very useful when you are in a hurry. (correct)
We use absolutely before adjectives which already contain “very” as part of their meaning: “absolutely awful” (awful=very bad), “absolutely fascinating” (fascinating=very interesting).

Source: ABC of Common Grammatical Errors by Nigel D Turton.

In spite of these explanations, it’s very hard to recognize whether an adjective contains Very to have Absolutely or not. Look at these sentences taken from Longman Dictionary:
1. He made his reasons for resigning absolutely clear. (does the word Clear really contain Very?)
2. Are you absolutely sure? (does the word Sure really contain Very?)
3. This cake is absolutely delicious. (does the word Delicious really contain Very?)

Now you see what makes me confused? This makes me confused that: It’s very difficult to recognize if an adjective contains Very in itself to have Absolutely. Do you have any better idea about the usage of Absolutely?
(it’s very hard to me to recognize it)

Many thanks in advance.
I searched it on the forum but it didn’t help me.

[sb70012]

Is the usage same as what you said if I use word Forum instead of Google?

I mean: I searched it on the forum.

Does the word Forum only use preposition (on) like Google?

[Calidore]

The difference would be that the forum is a thing that contains the information you're looking for, while Google is a search tool that points you to the information. You would search in the forum with Google, as you would look for a lost contact lens in the grass with a magnifying glass.

[sb70012]

Hello teachers,

I remember once a British told me "Very delicious food" is correct.
He/she also said "more delicious than...." is correct too.

But I disagree with these two sentences. The word Delicious, is a non gradable adjective and contains Very in itself.
I mean: Delicious = Tasty + Very = so we must say: the food is absolutely delicious.

And non gradable adjectives shouldn't be used in comparative forms although it's sometimes used among native English speakers but in my opinion it's not standard English.

For example, the word "freezing" means very cold and it's not correct to say "very freezing" but "absolutely freezing"

Now, what's your opinion about the topic? Do you agree with me?
I searched the topic in forum and I found some threads but the threads were not focused on my question.

Many thanks in advance

[Hawkman]

I think your problem stems from a misinterpretation of the word absolutely. It doesn't mean very, which implies "quite a lot." You would be better thinking of it as meaning, completely. Look at the root of 'absolutely'. absolute the synonyms of which are: utter - complete - perfect - total - sheer - outright.

[sb70012]

Useful. Thank you.

[Hawkman]

You're welcome. Something else which you should understand is "collocation" which refers to certain combinations of words which are frequently used together by native speakers of a language. For example, you will see written or hear spoken, "he was very dirty." You won't hear anyone say, "he was absolutely dirty." You would expect to see written, or hear it said' that, "He was absolutely filthy!" This is only one example. Your best method of familiarising yourself with collocations is to read as many contemporary English language books as you can. This way you will be exposed to customary usage and will assimilate the common structures. Also, watch as many English language films as you can. But not blockbuster action films. People gabble, and you'll probably have difficulty hearing the dialogue over the music and sound effects.

[sb70012]

I got it thanks.

[Hawkman]

Whilst "very delicious" is kind of tautologous, in that delicious means highly palatable, saying "very highly palatable" is not in itself grammatically incorrect. However, It would be unusual to hear someone say "very delicious." They are far more likely to just say "delicious" or "very tasty." "Absolutely" or "utterly" are both words which might be used with "delicious". Again, we are venturing into the territory of collocation.

However, how tasty an individual finds something is inevitably subjective. There is no reason why you shouldn't use delicious in a comparative sentence. Someone may like the taste of chocolate ice cream and also like the taste of raspberry ripple. Both to him are delicious, but he may prefer chocolate, so it would be perfectly acceptable to say, "He found the chocolate ice cream more delicious than the raspberry ripple." However, you might expect to find some kind of qualification used with more, for example: "he found the chocolate ice cream even more delicious than the raspberry ripple."

Your example of freezing is correct. Freezing implies the specific temperature when water freezes, although in conversation people are likely to exaggerate and say it's freezing when it's just cold and no ice is forming. Absolutely is the qualification most likely to be used with freezing to indicate extremely low temperatures.

[Ecurb]

In general, "very" is a weak, ineffective word, according to Strunk and White. "Freezing" does not mean (precisely) 'very cold'. Instead, it means "becoming ice" or "changing from liquid to solid". Although it is sometimes used metaphorically to mean "becoming very cold", it sounds silly to say "very freezing" because a liquid is either freezing, or it is not freezing.

[sb70012]

"He found the chocolate ice cream more delicious than the raspberry ripple."
Thanks for answering. But I disagree with that sentence. Although I am not native English speaker and although you use the sentence but it's incorrect and not standard English.
You should have said: "He found the chocolate ice cream tastier than the raspberry ripple."
"Delicious" is a non gradable adjective, and non gradable adjectives are not used in comparative or superlative form.

Do have look at these websites:
http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/?c=bnc&q=24787646
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/adjectives-non-gradable.htm
http://jottings.over-blog.com/article-gradable-non-gradable-adjectives-97830624.html
http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/grammar-reference/adjectives-gradable-non-gradable
http://jottings.over-blog.com/article-gradable-non-gradable-adjectives-97830624.html

I know you use "more delicious" in your daily conversations but it's not standard English and it's grammatically incorrect.

[Calidore]

I think it's incorrect because raspberry ripple is actually more delicious than chocolate.

[sb70012]

Hello teachers,
If you notice I have asked many confusing questions about non gradable adjectives.
I think if I know which ones are not non gradable, then I won’t be confused with them.
Some websites have suggested that these adjectives are non gradable. i.e. (can not get “very” and can not be used in superlative and comparative forms)

Would you please have look at these adjectives and tell me which ones are not non gradable? If I know the list I will overcome my confusion.

Right – diabolical – vital – fine – awful – stupid – great – necessary – horrendous – wonderful – gorgeous – Fascinating – wrong – terrific – sure – mint – delighted – correct – honest – ludicrous – incredible – clear – horrific – true – fantastic – beautiful – convinced – dreadful – essential – horrible – marvelous – superb – furious – delicious – crazy – certain – normal – crucial – amazed – terrible – excellent – central – free – disgraceful – perfect – impossible – amazing – critical – lovely – brilliant – knackered – ridiculous – appalling – fabulous – confident – Disgusting – immaculate – filthy – dead – stunning – obsessed – starving – fair – useless – freezing – straight – mad – super – enormous – positive – disgusted – imperative – steady – privileged – fed – ideal – quiet – massive – outrageous – silent – pure – minimal – plain – meaningless – fundamental – splendid – rigid – precise – full – sick – desperate – safe – typical – reliable – frightful – hopeless – disastrous – invaluable – tremendous – alive – black – Boiling – domestic – environmental - gigantic – huge – impossible – miniscule – mortal – overjoyed – pregnant – Principal – unique – unknown – white – whole – chemical – indoor – married – wooden – English – green – unclear – digital – ancient – deafening – exhausted – tiny – terrifying – supreme – final – fascinated – thrilling – hideous – astounding – spotless - hilarious.

Many thanks in advance.

[sb70012]

Hello teachers,

The word "Right" is gradable adjective or non gradable?

I mean can we say "very right"?
Or
Can we say "righter than ...."?

I also searched it in the forum but couldn't find a thread related to mine.

Suppose that a father has two sons. One is Alex and one is John. These two sons are discussing about something scientific. After the conclusion the father says to his wife: "I think Alex is righter than John" or "I think Alex is more right than Jon" What about now?

No source/Self made
Many thanks in advance.

Hello teachers,
I want to mean Alex is showing faster progress. (at school or at work)
Would you please have look at these sentences and tell me which one or ones aren't natural to you?
I want to omit the ones that are incorrect oor not natural.

4. Alex is ahead of John in some aspects.
5. Alex is ahead of John in some ways.
6. Alex is some/several levels above John.
7. Alex is a level above John in some subjects.
8. Alex is ahead of john in some subjects.
9. Alex is ahead of John on some levels.
10. Alex is ahead of John in some levels.
11. Alex is showing faster progress in some levels.
12. Alex is way ahead of John academically.
13. Alex is some levels ahead of John.

Thank you.

10. Direct = "Where were you born?" he asked me.
Indirect = He wanted to know where I was born.

Source: http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-exercise-reported-speech.php

As you know we change the tense while converting a direct speech into an indirect speech.
I think the blue part should have been "had been". Because the first sentence or the direct sentence has used simple past. So for indirect speech we should go one step further back which is past perfect (had been).

Aren't I right?

[Aylinn]

10. Direct = "Where were you born?" he asked me.
Indirect = He wanted to know where I was born.

Source: http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-exercise-reported-speech.php

As you know we change the tense while converting a direct speech into an indirect speech.
I think the blue part should have been "had been". Because the first sentence or the direct sentence has used simple past. So for indirect speech we should go one step further back which is past perfect (had been).

Aren't I right?
You are right that in theory the tenses should be changed in such situation, but past tenses are often left unchanged if it doesn't cause confusion about the relative times of the actions.

[sb70012]

************************************************** ************
Write each sentence in indirect speech:

8. Direct = Nick said, “Please don’t ask how the meeting went.”
Indirect = Nick said not to ask how the meeting had gone/went. (Answer Key)
************************************************** ************
Write each of the following in direct speech:

3. Indirect = Cousins said not to lose hope when a doctor says survival is impossible.
Direct = Cousins said, “Don’t lose hope when a doctor says survival is impossible.” (Answer Key)
************************************************** *************
Write each sentence in indirect speech:

4. Direct = Dad said, “Hurry up or we will be late"
Indirect = Dad told us to hurry up or we would be late. (Answer Key)
************************************************** ************
Hi,
I have encountered a big problem while teaching direct and indirect imperatives, and need your help.
The above ones are the practices in the book which I teach. My student asked me a question which I couldn't give him a logical answer and we both got confused.

My student: Sir, we usually convert tenses when changing direct to indirect right?
Me: "Right"
My student: "Then why in number 8 it's ok to use two senses (Had gone/ went) but in number 3 and 4 we can not change the tense? I mean why in number 3 we can't say (said-was) or why in number 4 we can't say (will) but (would)? Why in number 8 two tenses both are ok to be used but in 3 and 4 we can only use one tense? Isn't it confusing or hard for we? In exam if we see a direct imperative then how should we be sure that while converting it to an indirect imperative we can use only one tense or both two tenses are ok to be used? If in number 8 indirect, two tenses are ok to be used, then why in number 3 and 4, two tenses can not be correct?"

That was the time when I got confused myself too and couldn't answer him.
Would you please be nice enough to help me on that one? What should answer him?
(This problem happens to my students only in indirect imperatives not simple quotes)

Source: Summit 2B (by Joan Saslo and Allen Ascher) Pearson
Longman Press, Unit 8, Direct and Indirect Speeches.

Thank you.

Direct = "Call me when you get home."
Indirect = She said to call her when we .... home.

a. get
b. got

Hello teachers, Which one is correct?

[Aylinn]

Tenses that describe a state of affairs which still exists when the speech is reported remain unchanged. For example, let's say my husband is a lawyer and I said it to a newly acquainted person. Then, this person said it to another person a few days later using indirect speech. This is what the person should have said. Aylinn said her husband is a lawyer. (because my husband is still a lawyer the present tense remains unchanged.)

[kiki1982]

This particular issue has to do with the use of the perfective tenses in English, I think.

Perfected tenses (with to have or to be in archaic constructions as in French) are only used when the result is there, not to make anything more or less past. Thus, a person was born somewhere, has not been born, unless he is only a few hours old (then the result is still quite new, so to say). It's the same with books that were written, not have been written, unless it's in general about books. Many books have been written up to the present day, but Herta Müller's books were written in German (although she's still alive). Shakespeare wrote his plays in the Elizabethan age.

A building has recently been built in Bond Street, but the building was built for Natwest Bank or something.

Because the result is not important, as the activity itself is not important (the labour the other went through, the writing or the building work are not of any importance in the concept), the perfected tense is not used.

Also, converting direct into indirect discourse, you merely put the mode (perfective or imperfective) into the right time (past or present), in conjunction with what the tense of the context is. Therefore:

'What are you doing?' he asks me.
He asks me what I am doing.
BUT
'He asked me what I was doing.'
You always retain the tense itself, only change the time.

Born like build is an exception, because these things can only have happened in the past (otherwise the person or building wouldn't be there).
SO
He asksme when this building was built.
He asked me when this building was built.
and
He asks me when I was born.
He asked me when I was born.

The two of them.

If this is only for an exercise, 'got' is probably correect, but assuming the girl (she) asked in the past and the getting there is still going to happen in the future, then you can use 'get'.

Confusing, isn't it :D.

[sb70012]

Situation: Your friend is having trouble fitting some gifts in her luggage.

1. If you .......... (check) the size of your suitcase, you wouldn't have this problem now.

a. had checked
b. checked
c. both a and b are correct

Hello friends. Which one is the answer?

[Maximilianus]

I second kiki's explanation, and English is not the only language in which you can use either the past or the present with future connotation in this type of sentence.

a. had checked (it's the type of conditional that indicates that something should have been done, but the person failed to do it, and that's why there's a problem in the present).

[sb70012]

why not "checked"?

[JBI]

Because the tenses need to agree. Past perfect is required since the current situation considered has already transpired.

If we were writing in the current tense, such has, Since he checked his suitcase, he did not have this problem now, we don't need to use the pluperfect, but the time scheme is off when we are discussing a hypothetical situation that transpired in the past.

As having this problem begins in the past, something before that tense - meaning that time of action - having this problem, is required.

[kiki1982]

But I think for the purpose of the exercise that it should be 'got'. Usually exercises don't provide for exceptions.
We regularly have to give additional points to my husbands' students when we correct tests. For the lower levels we don't because they can't do this on purpose but only get it wrong (which is then right in certain situations anyway).

What a mess.

[Maximilianus]

Yeap, for strictly grammatical purposes I would say most textbooks and grammar books give the past form of the verb as the correct choice.

[sb70012]

Thank you all.

[sb70012]

If I weren’t Japanese, I might have needed a visa to enter the country.

If I weren’t Japanese, I might need a visa to enter the country.

Hi,

Are both correct?

No source/self made
Thank you.

[Aylinn]

Yes, they are both grammatically correct, they just have different meaning, as the first sentence is an example of the mixed conditional and the latter is an example of the second conditional.

[sb70012]

Thanks a million.

[kiki1982]

Agree with Aylinn.

First one is correct when you've passed the border control into the desired country.

Second one is correct if you haven't done so.

When you have returned from your trip and you're talking about it, you'd use the first one.

[sb70012]

1. Direct = He asked, “Did you see the movie?”

2. Indirect = He asked if I had seen the movie.

3. Indirect = He asked if I saw the movie.

Hi,

Can number 3 also be correct?

Self made
Thank you.

[Aylinn]

Yes, you could say 'He asked if I saw the movie.' because it doesn't cause confusion about the relative times of the actions. In this question it is quite clear that someone asks if 'saw the movie' is an action that has happened before asking. Besides, you may add 'before' to make it more clear. 'He asked if I saw the movie before.' As I said earlier, in indierct speech past tenses are often left unchanged if the meaing remains the same.

Verbs like love are more problematic, for example:

He said, 'I loved her.' can only become

He said he had loved her.

and not

He said he loved her. (because these two sentences have differnt meaning.)

[sb70012]

Verbs like love are more problematic, for example:

He said, 'I loved her.' can only become

He said he had loved her.

and not

He said he loved her. (because these two sentences have differnt meaning.)
Thanks for answering but I couldn't understand that why "he said he loved her" can not work?
You explained the reason but I couldn't understand. Would you please be nice enough to explain it to me one more time?

Thank you.

[Aylinn]

He said he had loved her. - He had loved her in the past, but he didn't love her anymore at the moment of speaking.

He said he loved her. - This one suggests that he loved her at the moment of speaking.

[sb70012]

Thank you now I got it.

[sb70012]

1. Direct = She said, "Call me when you get home."
2. Indirect = She said to call her when we get home.
3. Indirect = She said to call her when we got home.

Hello friends,
I am confused about 2 and 3. In grammar book, the author has given number one and asked me to rewrite it in indirect form.
Now I don't know which one to write. 2 or 3? can both be correct?

Thank you

[kiki1982]

I thought you already asked that one?

You can use both.

If the getting home was in the past too, then you'd use 2, if the getting home was in the future, you'd use 1:

Let's say you are talking to friends whom you are going out with for the evening, and you've just left home and your mother knows she won't be home when you get home that evening yourself, then you'd tell them that your mother told you to call her when you get home (later).

[Aylinn]

sb70012 It appears to me that you have a similar problem that I had in the past. Even though I was doing a lot of exercises, I was struggling to understand English grammar. My teacher noticed that and told me that only certain amount of exercises is necessary to master grammar and that if I struggle so much after doing them, it means I need to go back to reading grammar rules to make sure that I understand them and can apply them.

[sb70012]

Thanks a million my friends. Now I understood it.

[kiki1982]

I agree with the above, but it's sometimes mainly a case of meaning and you'll know the difference best if you know the meaning in context. Therefore, I found I could do grammar, but since I met my husband ten years ago and was subjected to hours and hours of relentless BBC watching :D, I got how to use the present perfect and things because I heard it so much.

Reading might help too.
You see, you know where to put the words and things (so your grammar is OK), but you don't know what the difference is between got and get in the sentence. If you realise in which context they're used, you also know what the difference is. Practice is the crede, unfortunately.

[sb70012]

We nonnative English speakers owe a debt of gratitude to you native English speakers because you have helped us a lot in our English. Dear native English speakers, we will never forgive your favors.

My friends, I am an English Literature student and in eight months I will have an exam on The History of English Literature but unfortunately I don't have enough samples of exam sheets to practice and get ready before taking the main exam.

I mean I need a website which provides me some quiz or some tests to make me ready for exam.

For example, some tests or quiz about these contents:

The middle Ages (To 1485)
Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400)
Everyman (1485)
Popular Ballads
Sir Thomas Malory (1405-1471)
William Caxton (1422-1491)
The Sixteenth Century (1485-1603)
etc.......

I will be happy if you propose me a website to give me some tests or quizes on them to prepare me for the big test which I will take after 8months.

Thanks in advance.

[sb70012]

Conversation:

Alex: I wonder if you could please do me a favor.
John: I'll try.
Alex: Well, I've been waiting in line here for a really long time now, and .... well .... I'd like to use the bathroom. Do you mind?
John: No problem, no problem. Go ahead.
Alex: Thanks a lot. You won't forget me when I get back, will you?
John: (haha, laughing), of course not. Don't worry about it.

Source: Summit 2, by Joan Saslow and Allen Ascher, Printed in the USA, unit 6, Travel hassles and experiences.

Hello,
Does the bold written part have spacial meaning? Why does he say like that?

Thank you

[Aylinn]

Does the bold written part have spacial meaning? Why does he say like that?
It's the first conditional.

I agree with kiki1982 that reading helps a lot. Also, do you have a good grammar book for advanced learners or access to them? It helps a lot. In a good grammar book all the small details you asked about are explained. If you are a student you may be able to find something at the university's library.

I don't know if it is of any help, but I had to learn grammar from these three books.
Advanced Grammar in Use, Martin Hewings, Cambridge University Press
A Practical English Grammar, Audrey Jean Thomson, A.V. Martinet, Oxford University Press
Advanced Language Practice, Michael Vince, Max Hueber Verlag

[kiki1982]

My husband is English trainer at the EU, and he and his colleagues (and the school he works for) all swear by the Grammar in Use books. There is basic, and advanced. You've also got vocabulary books and things. Very nice books.

[sb70012]

Hello friends,

I am an English Literature student. I need a website to explain me "Middle Ages of English Literature" comprehensively.
I have checked Google but the websites are not useful enough.
Do you know any websites to help me on that?

Thank you.

[Whifflingpin]

I'm not sure if "Middle Ages of English Literature" makes any sense, but "English Literature of the Middle Ages" would mean, more or less, English Literature from 1300AD to 1500AD. Geoffrey Chaucer is the dominant writer of the period. Other major works include "Gawain and the Green Knight" and Malory's "Morte d'Arthur."

[sb70012]

Hi,

1. On July 15, he ......
2. On 15th July, he ......
3. On July 15th, he .....
4. On 15 July, he .....

Hi,

Are the all structures correct?
If yes then which ones are the most used ones? I remember once one told me numbers 1 and 3 are American, 2 and 4 are British.
Do you agree? What's your opinion?

Thank you.

[Whifflingpin]

2 & 3 are English usage.
In spoken English, 2 would be "on the 15th of July, he"

[Maximilianus]

Hello friends,

I am an English Literature student. I need a website to explain me "Middle Ages of English Literature" comprehensively.

You may find the following articles useful:


http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/middleages/
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/English-Literature-in-the-Middle-Ages.htm

[sb70012]

Thank you.

[sb70012]

He put the things in his bag in case he ……… them.

a)should forget (Answer Key)
b)forgot
c)forgets
d)wouldn’t forget

Hi,

In my opinion "b" (forgot) can be correct as well.
Do you agree with me?

Source: taken form school exam sheets
Thank you

(I have asked it in other forums but I haven't received a confirmed answer)

[kiki1982]

My English teacher husband says 'forgot' is also OK, because it's 'past and past'. Personally, I would use 'should forget'. 'Wouldn't forget' you could use if the sentence read, '...so he wouldn't forget them'.

[sb70012]

We …… the car for 6 months when we discovered it ……..

a)owned_stolen
b)had owned_stealing
c)had owned_was stolen
d)owned_had been stolen (Answer Key)

Hello again,

I think this test is not standard too.
Can option "c" be correct too?
What's your opinion about this test?

Source: exam sheets
Thank you.

[kiki1982]

I personally think you could say 'had owned' for the car, but you usually say you discover something has happened because the effect is there, so you use present perfect, so it has to be answer d.

[sb70012]

Thank you.

[sb70012]

Alex felt …….. embarrassed when he had to stand up and make a speech.

a)some
b)much
c)a little (Answer Key)
d)too

Hi,

Can "b" or "d" be correct as well? If not then why? Would you please clarify it to me that why "b" and "d" can not work there?

(I have posted this question in different
forums but everyone gave me different
responses and made me more confused.)
Source: School exam sheet
Thank you

[kiki1982]

You can say 'too embarrassed', but in this case there would be something missing. You would have to say, 'He was too embarrassed when he had to get up and make a speech to continue for a very long time.' Too is most often followed by 'to do something'. As it's not there in this sentence, you can't really use too. Well, you can, but it's not really right stylistically.

'He felt much embarrassed...' I think, in extremis you could use this, but it's slightly lyrical and so you can't really say it just like that. It's a bit hoity-toity. Unless you want to sound erudite and educated (slightly old-fashioned), you shouldn't use it. It isn't wrong, but inappropriate.

[sb70012]

Thank you very much.

[qimissung]

Much is usually used with uncountable nouns like money, bread or water.

From WikiHow:


Choose the word "too" when it can be substituted for the word "also".
For example: "She felt awful, too (also)" or "I can see you too (also)".
Use "too" to modify or emphasize a word.
For example: "The weather is too (excessively) hot", "I've eaten too (excessively) much", or "The package is too (excessively/extra) big".
"He wasn't too (very) interested in my book."

Even though "too" can be used for emphasis, I have never heard it being used with "embarrassed." If you want to further describe someone's embarrassment, you would use an adverb, like "She was not very embarrassed when she belched in class." Or "She was terribly embarrassed when she belched in class."

[Nick Capozzoli]

Alex felt …….. embarrassed when he had to stand up and make a speech.

a)some
b)much
c)a little (Answer Key)
d)too

Hi,

Can "b" or "d" be correct as well? If not then why? Would you please clarify it to me that why "b" and "d" can not work there?

(I have posted this question in different
forums but everyone gave me different
responses and made me more confused.)
Source: School exam sheet
Thank you

Well, the only answer that is NOT at all allowable in English is a). b) and c) are possible, though b) would be more acceptable as "very" rather than "much." d) is remotely plausible, although "too" would really strain the English language. "Too" usually requires a following statement that clarifies what comes before, e.g. "Alex felt too embarrassed to speak when he had to stand up and make a speech." In point of fact b0 is the "best" answer, but c) is also acceptable.

[kiki1982]

agree

[sb70012]

Thank you.

[sb70012]

Hi,
Suppose that we are talking about a sentence which is not used these days:

1. It looks to had been fashionable in the past or ancient times.
2. It looked to had been fashionable in the past or ancient times.
3. It looks to have been fashionable in the past or ancient times.
4. It looked to have been fashionable in the past or ancient times.

Thank you

[kiki1982]

It's certainly always 'to have been'. Whether it 'looks to have been' or 'looked to have been' depends whether you're talking in the present or past. 'to' signifies the use of an infinitive (unless it is a preposition like in 'I look forward to hearing from you), so it's certainly 'to have'.

A bit clear? ;)

[Eman Resu]

It's certainly always 'to have been'. Whether it 'looks to have been' or 'looked to have been' depends whether you're talking in the present or past. 'to' signifies the use of an infinitive (unless it is a preposition like in 'I look forward to hearing from you), so it's certainly 'to have'.

A bit clear? ;)


Exactly; 3 and 4 are both correct, but 4 ("it looked to have been...") is correct only if wholly in the past tense, as it, "It looked to have been fashionable at one time, but it looks to be fashionable no longer...."

"Looks" is somewhat idiomatic, and using "seems" / "seemed" or "appears" / "appeared" might make this a bit clearer.

[sb70012]

Thank you my friends.

[sb70012]

Hello again my friends,

I want to tell a sentence to mean cutting off your phone so that the other person cannot answer.

Would you please be nice enough to tell me which one is the most used one among you native English speakers?

1. Mom, please missed call me when you arrive home.
2. Mom, please give me a buzz when you arrive home.
3. Mom, please buzz me when you arrive home.
4. Mom, please ding me when you arrive home.
5. Mom, please drop call me when you arrive home.
6. Mom, please give me two rings when you arrive home.

Thank you.

[mal4mac]

I want to tell a sentence to mean cutting off your phone so that the other person cannot answer.


I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean, "cutting off your phone so that the other person cannot call you". If so, that is "call blocking", and you might say, "I blocked calls from that dodgy insurance company".



2. Mom, please give me a buzz when you arrive home.
3. Mom, please buzz me when you arrive home.


Only these two can be used, but "buzz me" is too informal for "Mom"; I might use "buzz me" with friends, and without the formal "please" and "arrive", ending up with, "John, buzz me when you get home". Then again, "buzz" sounds wrong, I'd always use "ring". "John, ring me when you get home". I think most people from the UK would use "ring". Maybe "buzz" would be used more by Americans.

The others almost work, but should be:

4. Mom, please ring me when you get home.
5. Mom, please call me when you get home.
6. Mom, please give me a rings when you get home.

"Arrive" doesn't quite work; it implies that you want her to ring you at the very instant she arrives at home. I'm guessing you want to give her a chance to enter the house and sit down, hence "get".

[sb70012]

Thank you my friends.

[Nick Capozzoli]

By "cutting off your phone so that the other person cannot answer" I assume you mean you want someone to phone you, allowing your phone to ring in such a way as to let you know that you are being called by this person without your having answer the phone call (or have the caller leave a message in voice mail). There best way (if you don't have Caller ID) to do this would be to instruct the person to call your phone and let your phone ring a certain number of times (say one, two, or three rings) and then hang up their phone. This ring "code" would allow you to have a good idea that the person called you without having to "complete" their phone call.

If that is what you mean, the best answer is #6, since that tells your Mom to call your phone and let it ring 2 times and then hang up. A "drop[ped] call" is technically a call that rings your phone any number of times (but before you pick up or the automatic voicemail answers). This is a grammatically and idiomatically acceptable sentence, but it lacks specificity, as other callers could give you a "dropped call." To be more sure it's your mom, a specific ring count (like two rings), is better.

The choices:

2. Mom, please give me a buzz when you arrive home.
3. Mom, please buzz me when you arrive home.
4. Mom, please ding me when you arrive home.

Are all idiomatically acceptable, but they merely instruct your Mom to phone you. "Give me a buzz," "buzz me," and "ding me" all mean "phone me" or "call me," though "ding me" is not much used in the USA, and usually has other meanings here. The first choice, Mom, please missed call me when you arrive home, is neither idiomatically nor grammatically correct.

As regards the various idiomatic expressions for calling someone (by phone or in person), you need to be careful to understand the local idioms. When I was a graduate student years ago at a US university a fellow grad student, a rather attractive young women from the UK invited me to come by her apartment and "knock her up."

[sb70012]

Thank you.

[mal4mac]

4. Mom, please ding me when you arrive home.
Are all idiomatically acceptable, but they merely instruct your Mom to phone you. "Give me a buzz," "buzz me," and "ding me" all mean "phone me" or "call me," though "ding me" is not much used in the USA, and usually has other meanings here.

I can't think of it ever being used in the UK, in relation to phones. It might be used for some other object that made a ringing sound, e.g., "the cash registers were dinging". The basic understanding of the word, for British children, comes from that most famous of old nursery rhymes:

Ding, dong, bell,
Pussy’s in the well.
Who put her in?
Little Johnny Flynn.

Which relates to the two basic sounds of church bells: "ding" and "dong". So any English speaker would immediately know what you meant by "dong", but it's just wrong when used in relation to phones.



As regards the various idiomatic expressions for calling someone (by phone or in person), you need to be careful to understand the local idioms. When I was a graduate student years ago at a US university a fellow grad student, a rather attractive young women from the UK invited me to come by her apartment and "knock her up."

We know what "knock her up" means in the UK. She knew what she was doing. The British never stop trying to be funny, and their humour is full of sexual innuendo. I blame "Carry On" films and "Benny Hill". Shortening "knock on the door until I get up" to "knock me up" would be irresistible to any Brit. bird with a sense of patriotism. Depending on your relationship, it might also have been a "come on".

To be blunt, which the British never are, but this is a lesson, so: "dong" is a slang word for "penis", and a more acceptable slang "in polite company", and used by mothers with children is "ding-a-ling". There's a famous "innuendo song" that was a hit in Britain some years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaEC-lWSlmI

[Nick Capozzoli]

I can't think of it ever being used in the UK, in relation to phones. It might be used for some other object that made a ringing sound, e.g., "the cash registers were dinging". The basic understanding of the word, for British children, comes from that most famous of old nursery rhymes:

Ding, dong, bell,
Pussy’s in the well.
Who put her in?
Little Johnny Flynn.

Which relates to the two basic sounds of church bells: "ding" and "dong". So any English speaker would immediately know what you meant by "dong", but it's just wrong when used in relation to phones.



We know what "knock her up" means in the UK. She knew what she was doing. The British never stop trying to be funny, and their humour is full of sexual innuendo. I blame "Carry On" films and "Benny Hill". Shortening "knock on the door until I get up" to "knock me up" would be irresistible to any Brit. bird with a sense of patriotism. Depending on your relationship, it might also have been a "come on".

To be blunt, which the British never are, but this is a lesson, so: "dong" is a slang word for "penis", and a more acceptable slang "in polite company", and used by mothers with children is "ding-a-ling". There's a famous "innuendo song" that was a hit in Britain some years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaEC-lWSlmI

Yikes! Maybe she was flirting. Stupid me! Sometimes a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.

As regards "ding" and "dong" I guess they are onomatopoeic, representing the higher and lower pitched sounds of a clanging (another onomatopoeia) bell. The phone bell ring tends to be high pitched, "dinging" rather than "ding-donging," so I guess it would be appropriate to refer to the sound as a "ding." We don't use that here in the USA, and apparently you don't in the UK. Maybe it's idiomatic in other parts of the world.

And of course there is the "ding dong bell" in Ariel's song in The Tempest. We've gotten a bit off the OP's topic...

[sb70012]

Thank you so much.

[sb70012]

Hello,
I was continuing a bad habit of saying "now I got it" after you I checked your answers to my questions.
But some minutes ago one of the native English speakers told me not to say "now I got it" but say "now I get it"

Would you please clarify it to me a little more?
I mean, is "now I got it" really incorrect? Doesn't it mean "now I have understood it"?
Before, I thought that: "now I got it" = "now I have understood it"
Any thoughts?

Thank you

[Aylinn]

'now I got it' doesn't sound right, because you are mixing past simple with the word now that is used to describe present. 'now I get it' sounds much better. 'now I get it' = 'now I understand it' I suppose that is what you want to say.

[sb70012]

Thank you.

[mal4mac]

Thank you.

Did you get it? :)

[sb70012]

Yes now I get it. Thank you. haha

[Nick Capozzoli]

It's a matter of verb tense. The adverb, "Now," refers to the present time, and any verb that follows must make grammatical sense in reference to "now." "To get it" is an idiomatic expression meaning "to understand it." "Get is a verb whose principle parts are "get, got, gotten." You can use this verb in various tenses, such as simple present (get), past (got), imperfect past (was getting), and various other past constructions (have gotten, had gotten, etc.)

You can say, "Now I get it" (present), or, "Now I've gotten it" (present perfect), but you can't use "now" with simple or perfect past tenses (e.g. "Now I got it or "Now I had gotten it."

That being said, "Now I got it," although grammatically awkward and questionable, is in fact a usage that English speaker sometimes use. Language is constantly evolving, and "Now I got it," though technically wrong, is pretty clear as to meaning and might eventually become acceptable usage.

[kiki1982]

In UK English, we say 'I have GOT' it. 'Gotten' is an outdated past participle, of a similar mechanism as 'forget, forgot, forgotten'. Both are right, but not on both continents.

But, It's indeed 'Now, I get it.' Although, you may be toying with 'Now I've got it,' which some lazy people pronounce as 'Now I got it.' My husband says Americans tend to use less present perfect and more simple past. Therefore, they might be confusing what they should say ('I've got it') with what they do say ('I got it'). Although Brits do say 'Got it!' when they want to say they've understood you, but as soon as you add 'I' to the thing, you have to use the present perfect.
However, grammatically speaking you can't put a simple past (got) after 'now', because obviously 'now' means now, in the present moment. You can't use a past in the present moment, although in very rare cases you can use the present in the past, but that's another story (historic present).

You can either use 'Now I get it' or 'Now I've got it', but the former is better, because the latter expresses the idea that the present moment is the result of a process that started in the past. So if you have been thinking about how to solve a problem for some time and you finally find it, you can say 'Now, I've got it!' (a kind of Eureka moment), but you can't really say it if someone is explainng stuff to you. You either understand something or you don't, hence why you should use the present tense (general truth).
As I said, although there are people who say 'I got it', I guess it's weird to hear from a non-English speaker

[sb70012]

Relative Clauses:

a) The leather (that/which) we make the jackets with is expensive.
1. The leather with which we make the jackets is expensive.
2. The leather, with which we make the jackets, is expensive.
3. The leather that we make the jackets with is expensive.
4. The leather, that we make the jackets with, is expensive.
(Should I remove article "the" at the beginning of the sentences? I mean "The leather")

b) The leather is the material (that/which) we made the jackets with.
5. The leather is the material with which we made the jackets.
6. The leather is the material that we made the jackets with.
7. The material that we made the jackets with is leather.
(Should I remove article "the" at the beginning of the sentences? I mean "The leather")

c) The leather that is the material (that/which) we made the jackets with is expensive.
8. The leather, that is the material with which we made the jackets, is expensive.
9. The leather that is the material with which we made the jackets is expensive.
10. The leather, which is the material we made the jackets with, is expensive.
11. The leather which is the material we made the jackets with is expensive.
12. The leather, that is the material that we made the jackets with, is expensive.
13. The leather that is the material that we made the jackets with is expensive.
(Should I remove article "the" at the beginning of the sentences? I mean "The leather")

Hello again

First I apologize you if my question is a little long. You have answered to my question which was similar to this one but was not this long. I added some other self made examples for it too. Would you please be kind enough to have look at them and tell me which ones are incorrect and which ones are correct?S

It's a little boring question

Sorry for that and thanks for your time

[Nick Capozzoli]

"That" and "which" are "relative pronouns." Both introduce subordinate clauses. "That" is a "restrictive" relative pronoun that specifies a clause that is essential to clarify (restrict) the meaning of a sentence. It is not "parenthetical" and should not be set off by commas. "Which is a "non-restrictive" relative pronoun that is not essential to clarify meaning, but parenthetically adds information. As such, the subordinate clause it introduces should be set off by commas.

Examples of the two constructions are: 1)The car, which has a broken windshield, is in the repair shop. (Non-restrictive; implies that there is a car in the repair shop (among possibly other cars), but this one happens to have a broken windshield); and 2) The car that has a broken windshield is in the repair shop (Restrictive; refers to a specific car with a broken windshield that happens to be in the repair shop). Your use of "that" and "which" in the restrictive or non-restrictive sense is debatable. The use of commas to set off non-restrictive clauses is not debatable. There is a definite difference in meaning.

[sb70012]

Thank you.

[sb70012]

1. If I hadn't been late, I would not be unemployed. (correct) = mixed time conditional
2. If I hadn't been late, I wouldn't be fired.(incorrect) = mixed time conditional

Hello,
Would you please explain their difference to me? Why 1 is correct but 2 is not? They have the same structure. Then what's the difference? Is that because 2 is passive?

Thank you

[sb70012]

Hello,
If I weren't late, I wouldn't be fired.

This sentence tells us:
a. I am late and the boss will sack me.
or
b. I am late and the boss has sacked me already.

a is the paraphrase of the blue sentence or b?

[OrphanPip]

1. If I hadn't been late, I would not be unemployed. (correct) = mixed time conditional
2. If I hadn't been late, I wouldn't be fired.(incorrect) = mixed time conditional

Hello,
Would you please explain their difference to me? Why 1 is correct but 2 is not? They have the same structure. Then what's the difference? Is that because 2 is passive?

Thank you

You're probably being confused by the the unemployed/fired thing. Unemployed here is an adjective, your verb is "be" which is in the infinitive. In the 2nd one the verb is fired, and it is in the past tense, the main clause in a mixed time conditional must be present tense.

The basic construction of a mixed time conditional is that the conditional clause is in the past tense while the main clause is in the present. Thus, to correct #2 you must write it as: If I hadn't been late, he wouldn't fire me now.

[OrphanPip]

Seems like neither to me. First, the double negative is pointless and confusing. If I were late, I would be fired. It's a hypothetical with a probable outcome.

[Lykren]

Would 'If I hadn't been late, I would not have been fired' work as well?

[prendrelemick]

It reads to me as if both things have already happened. so I would say b. However the original statement is poor English, and so are the two options.

[Delta40]

What about the other way round?


I wouldn't be fired if I weren't late.

[Hawkman]

Don't confuse the poor chap. It's a bad sentence. The best way to say this is "I wouldn't have been fired if I hadn't been late."

[JBI]

Seems like neither to me. First, the double negative is pointless and confusing. If I were late, I would be fired. It's a hypothetical with a probable outcome.

It's a problem since the first verb should be wasn't. If I wasn't late, I wouldn't be fired.

yet even then, we want the word "have" in there. If I wasn't late, I wouldn't have been fired. It's a tense issue, not a negatives issue.

Plus, there is a mediocrity in the usage of the words. We do not say "I am fired" but "I was fired". Was implies a a "have" in the past tense as in I would have fired you. Since this is a passive idiomatic usage. You do not say, for instance, If I hadn't been late, I wouldn't robbed. You still need that additional verb.

If I wasn't late, I wouldn't have been fired. - this sentence however acts differently then state what could have been, it rather patronizes the audience by saying, I was fired, so you should have been able to defer that I was late. like saying, If I wasn't fat, I wouldn't have lost the race. It's bad usage, but somewhat grammatical. or, "If I wasn't late, I wouldn't have been fired now, would I?" or "If I wasn't a jerk I wouldn't have been dumped by my girlfriend."

[sandy14]

It looks like the third conditional, but you have missed out an auxiliary and a past participle.

If I weren't late, I wouldn't have been fired.

Like what JBI said.

It's an imaginary situation, because the speaker was late and was fired.

[mona amon]

If I weren't late, I wouldn't be fired.

It is a confusing sentence because of the double negative and something only Judith Butler might use, but I think it is grammatically correct.

It means - I am not late but If I were, then I would be fired.

[Emil Miller]

The problem here is that the first part of the sentence is in the subjunctive whereas the second is in it's opposite, the indicative, thus creating a conflict between the two parts.

[prendrelemick]

If A wunt late A wunt b'fired

Thus creating a harmonious balance to the two halves

[sb70012]

Orphan thanks for answering but I think the example you have give is grammatically incorrect.

If I hadn't fallen in blue paint, I wouldn't be blue. = (means now I am blue)
If I had been Japanese, I wouldn't need a visa. = (means now I need it)

But I think there must be a verb or adjective in the second part of your example to have a continuing meaning:
"If I hadn't been late, he wouldn't fire me now."

[mal4mac]

"Unemployment" is an ongoing state, "fired" is a one-off event. Both Orphan and Lykren are correct. In loose or poetic language "fired" may used to imply an ongoing state. For instance, someone who has been fired may say to a friend, "I'm so fired!" This means something like, "I have been fired, the boss was really nasty to me, there is no chance of me appealing to be kept on, and now I'm really upset". So "I'm so fired!" implies a one off event of "being fired", and an ongoing state of "being upset" and "being unemployed without any chance of getting the job back".

[Hawkman]

Your second example is wrong I'm afraid. "If I had been Japanese, I wouldn't have needed a visa." This is the third conditional tense, formed by If + Past Perfect and would have + past participle.

"If I were Japanese, I wouldn't need a visa." This is the second Conditional used to express a hypothetical situation. This is how one speculates about unlikely present and future situations or present and future impossibilities. It is formed by using if + past tense in the if clause and would + present tense verb in the main clause.

Your last example is wrong. No one would say this sentence. You could say, "If I hadn't been late he wouldn't be firing me now." However, the usual way someone expresses this is to refer to having been fired. "If I hadn't been late, I wouldn't have been fired."

A mixed conditional sentence like this is ok: "If I'd bought the lottery ticket, we'd be millionaires now." Ps Hawkman is a qualified TESOL teacher. ;)

[sb70012]

"Unemployment" is an ongoing state, "fired" is a one-off event. Both Orphan and Lykren are correct. In loose or poetic language "fired" may used to imply an ongoing state. For instance, someone who has been fired may say to a friend, "I'm so fired!" This means something like, "I have been fired, the boss was really nasty to me, there is no chance of me appealing to be kept on, and now I'm really upset". So "I'm so fired!" implies a one off event of "being fired", and an ongoing state of "being upset" and "being unemployed without any chance of getting the job back".
But "he wouldn't fire me now" is not an ongoing state.
In post #2 Orphan has said: "If I hadn't been late, he wouldn't fire me now. " = It's grammatically incorrect
He/she should have said: "If I hadn't been late, he wouldn't have fired me."

[sb70012]

Your second example is wrong I'm afraid. "If I had been Japanese, I wouldn't have needed a visa." This is the third conditional tense, formed by If + Past Perfect and would have + past participle.
Would you please tell me why "If I had been Japanese, I wouldn't need a visa." is incorrect?
Do you know what a mixed time conditional is?

If I had been Japanese, I wouldn't need a visa. = (Mixed time condition and it's an ongoing action and it means that I need a visa now)

If I had been Japanese, I wouldn't have needed a visa. = (Third conditional but it's not an ongoing action and it's something which has happened before. I needed a visa in the past)

Both are correct. Clear?

[sb70012]

Have look at these threads:
http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic135864.html#i_wouldnt_be_fired_i_would_not_b e_unemployed
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?webtag=dictionary&nav=messages&start=Start+Reading+%3E%3E&prettyurl=%2Fdictionary%2Fmessages%2F%3Fstart%3DSt art%2BReading%2B%253E%253E&gid=1890666118

[Hawkman]

Because your mixing of tenses is wrong. Don't argue. "If I were Japanese, I wouldn't need a visa" is correct. "If I had been" requires "have needed" to be grammatically correct. Don't ask if you don't want to learn. I won't bother trying to help you again.

[JBI]

For things that are attributive that use the verb is, the tense is a lot less restrictive. If I were Japanese, I would not need a visa. No need for all the other nonsense. "had been" is not needed.

If you want to use had been, you need a different time setting on the next clause. "If I had been Japanese, I would not have needed a visa." notice my sentence makes more sense now, since I have a tense agreement. If I hadn't been late, he would not HAVE fired me. Pay attention. This is like the 10th time I have pointed out this mistake, so you have very little reason to keep making it.

As for If I had not fallen in blue paint, I would not be blue, this sentence is also bad. Try IF I had not fallen in blue paint, I would not "have" been painted blue. To "be" in your sense is a strange grammar construction.

[Aylinn]

Would you please tell me why "If I had been Japanese, I wouldn't need a visa." is incorrect?
Do you know what a mixed time conditional is?

If I had been Japanese, I wouldn't need a visa. = (Mixed time condition and it's an ongoing action and it means that I need a visa now)

If I had been Japanese, I wouldn't have needed a visa. = (Third conditional but it's not an ongoing action and it's something which has happened before. I needed a visa in the past)

Both are correct. Clear?

sb70012, no, look:

If I were Japanese now, I wouldn't need a visa now.

If I had been Japanese in the past, I wouldn't have needed a visa in the past.


If I had been Japanese in the past, I wouldn't need a visa now.. - This sentence is illogical. You imagine a situation in which you don't need a visa now, so you also need to be Japanese now, not in the past.

[sb70012]

Don't ask if you don't want to learn. I won't bother trying to help you again.
Please accept my apology if the way I talked to you made you upset. I apologize you. I was just curious in learning.
I never like to be rude or make a user upset. Please accept my apology.
My best wishes to you.


If I had been Japanese in the past, I wouldn't need a visa now.. - This sentence is illogical. You imagine a situation in which you don't need a visa now, so you also need to be Japanese now, not in the past.
Yes now I understand it. Thank you so much.

[sb70012]

1. The person whom I phoned last night, is my teacher.
2. The person whom I phoned last night is my teacher.

Hello,
Which one is correct? 1 or 2? I mean I don't know whether using a comma in relative clauses is needed or not. Any thoughts?
************************************************** ***********************************

As you know the relative pronoun "whom" is usually used for a human.
Can we also use it in a sentence which in one part we have an object and in the other part a human?
I mean:
This is the man whom the ball hit while playing soccer.
Does it make sense to you?
************************************************** ************************************

As you know the relative pronoun "whom" is usually used for a human.
Can we also use it in a sentence which in one part we have an animal and in the other part a human?
I mean:
This is the man whom the dog bit.
************************************************** ************************************

Thank you so much in advance.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

whom: is a pronoun always referring to the object whatever the subject is.
In your first example: 1. The person whom I phoned last night, is my teacher.
The person whom you\ I \ someone \ others \ Ali\ he \ she \ they\ we phoned last night\ last time\ last week \ now\ before\ is my teacher\ my friend \ my father
For putting commas is to make your sentence restrictive or non-restrictive, this is somehow and sometimes it is optional and for instance in your sentence the relative clause is restrictive, i,e needing not commas because you referred to someone you have phoned at a certain time ( last night ), the adverb here is optional, you can say: The person whom I phoned is my teacher. And your sentence is totally clear need not to more identified, but if you said a person and stopped, the asker would ask, which person did you phone?
Interrogative:
Whom did you phone last night?
whom refers to object
I phoned my teacher?
Which person did you phone last night?
The person I phoned last night is my teacher.
The person = object
The person who phoned me last night is my teacher.
The person = subject me= object
For (which) the matter is totally different.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

This is the man (whom )the ball hit while playing soccer. No, you can say:
This is the man, the ball hits\ hit him while he is \ was playing soccer.
This is the man, the ball hits him, while he is playing soccer.
You need to put commas
Look! the origin is: The ball hits the man while he is playing soccer.
This is the man who was been hit by the ball while he was playing soccer. passive
It is as if someone asks about a certain man before a short time he pointed to him, and you say to him: This is the who was been hit...
If I say ( This is the man was been hit by.....) uncompleted

[sb70012]

A1. What brand are they?
A2. What's their brand?
A3. What are their brands?
A4. What brand do they have?
A5. What/which brands are they?

B1. They are all Nokias.
B2. They are Nokia.
B3. They are Nokia phones.
B4. Their brands are all Nokia.
B5. Their brand is Nokia.

Hello,
Would you please be kind enough to tell me which ones are correct and which ones are incorrect?
Thank you

[sb70012]

First example:

They sold their camera. They didn’t need it.
Second example:

"They had to decide what to keep and what to sell. They decided to keep the cell phone and the TV since they used those everyday. But they sold their camera. They didn't need that."

Hello,
I want to know why "it" does not work in the second example. I say to myself "it" can work in the second example.
Because "their camera" is specific so "it" stands for "their camera"
Why "it" works in the first example but does not work in the second example?

Thank you

[Wondra]

I think it has to do with the relation between the objects. In example one the camera is alone. In example two it is an object related to the other objects. I think that the sentence should be compound with a ",but" instead of starting a new sentence. That way it makes the relational quality between the objects clearer.

[barbara0207]

I think it's easier than that. In the first example, the pronoun "it" replaces the noun "the camera". So you could also say, "They didn't need the camara". In the second example, the demonstartive pronoun "that" does not stand for the camera but refers to what they did. You could also say, "They didn't need to do that", namely to sell the camera. I hope I've made myself clear.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

( That) in the second sentence isn't referring to the camera, it is referring to the manner they had to do.

[mona amon]

'That' in the second sentence is a demonstrative pronoun, standing for the camera. 'It' can also be used, so both examples are correct, but using 'that' gives a slightly different shade of meaning - it is a little more emphatic. You are pointing to the camera and saying they can do without it very well.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

mona amon

welcome
As you said ( That ) is a demonstrative pronoun is right ( they didn't need that something), so in this context as if someone of the team pointed by his finger to it....but let me explain more:

When I said ( that) isn't referring to the camera, I meant their working manner i.e. the type of their working needs not to camera, as the second sentence tells us:
They had to decide what to keep on and what to keep not, because the nature of their working needs only to TV and cell phone as if they are familiar in what to need.
From this view the linguistic view, I suggested That referring to what is implied in their mind as a pragmatic meaning, however, the meaning is the same.
Furthermore, both sentences pour into one linguistically integral cohesion, thus the first sentence obviously refers to the camera through the pronoun it, while in the second sentence the pronoun (it) is omitted.
So my resolving to this problem is; They didn't need anything other than TV, cell phone.... as if the camera is something is out of their minds.

They sold their camera. They didn’t need it.
"They had to decide what to keep and what to sell. They decided to keep the cell phone and the TV since they used those everyday. But they sold their camera. They didn't need that."

[sb70012]

Hello,

I want to ask you a question which I have asked it in three different forums but I have received different answers and now I am confused.

This is the test:

81. I have been here …….. the end of June.

a)for
b)by
c)since (Answer Key)
d)from
e)until

These were my questions:

1. Does "from" work in my context or not?
First answer: Yes. I have been here from the end of June. - is perfectly acceptable
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2782979

Second answer: No. It is the present perfect, 'have been' so you know it links up to the present.
The only word that means 'from the past to the present' is since.
'from' only states the start time. It needs 'to' or 'until' to mark the end.
I was there from June until August. That is simple past because it does not reach up to the present.
http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst52998_been-here------the-end-of-June-.aspx

Third answer: Are you suggesting, "I have been here from the end of June" to mean "starting late in June until now?"
I would say that that is not idiomatic English; say "since the end of June."
Time words such as since, yet and already, along with the associated tenses, seem to be troublesome for English learners, presumably because their native languages do not have exact parallels.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/dictionary/messages?msg=37431.10

2. Does "until" work in my test or not?
First answer: Yes. I have been here until the end of June is also possible.
"You take long holidays. How long have you stayed here these last few years?" "I have been here until the end of June."
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2782979

Second answer: No, sorry!
Because until marks the end. But 'have been' is present perfect, so that is up till the present. If the end is the present, you use 'since' - that is what the word is used for. Unless you say 'until now', 'until today' or something meaning the present.
Otherwise, any ending 'until' has to be the past or the future.
I have been here since June. [ from June until the present, since + present perfect tense.]
I was here until July. (I left in July. Simple past, finished.)
I will be here until August. [future plan, that is when I will leave]
http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst52998_been-here------the-end-of-June-.aspx

Third answer: It's a stretch. You could use until if you also included starting reference. The problem is that "How long have you stayed here?" asks for a length of time.
"I have been here until the end of June" doesn't, by itself, confirm or deny the statement "You take long holidays."
If a starting date were understood by both parties, or stated, it could work.
"You take long holidays. How long have you stayed here these last few years?"
"You're right. I usually arrive around May 20, but yes, these last few years I have been here until the end of June."
http://forums.delphiforums.com/dictionary/messages?msg=37431.10

Now I am confused. You see answers are different. What's your opinion about "from" and "until" in my test?

Thank you.

[OrphanPip]

Since means "from point x until now", so neither from nor until can capture that meaning on their own.

You could say one of these two:

I have been here since the end of June.

Or;

I have been here from the end of June until now.

"I have been here until the end of June" is just poor English since the only way this can be correct is if it is currently the end of June, which makes it redundant and someone might as well say "I have been here until now." Someone might say colloquially that "I have been here from the end of June", but that is only if they are leaving the "until now" implicit. I agree with the third answer you got that neither construction is idiomatic English and thus both sound awkward and would not be used.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

1- since \\ I have been here ....since ....the end of June... Why since?
It includes the duration from June to now....i.e. You are there from June up to now.
You can use ( from) but since is grammatically better

[sb70012]

1. I have been here from the end of June. (Incorrect)
2. I have been here since the end of June. (correct)
3. I will be here from the end of June. (correct)
4. I was here from the end of June. (not sure)
5. I had been here from the end of June. (not sure)

Source: self made grammar question

Hello,
I decided to start a new thread about "from" because I want to know more answers. because sometimes, even native English speakers give different answers. I will be happy if dear native English speakers give their opinions about those 5 sentences.

Note: I searched for it in the forum but the threads didn't help me.

Would you please comment on number 4 and 5? What's your opinion about them? Are they both correct?

Thank you

[sb70012]

89. Walking …. the city after dark is not on the whole a good idea.

a)along
b)through (Answer Key)
c)alone
d)across

Source: text book

Hello,
Can "across" be correct as well?

Thank you

[YesNo]

The b choice seems like the only one that I would say. Option c doesn't work. Option a makes me ask along what are you walking? Option d seems like a possibility, but I would normally use that to express the idea of walking across something like a field not through a whole city. There are more literate people here who probably know whether d would be understandable.

[mona amon]

'Across' sounds funny, as if you are a giant striding across, without having to walk through streets and so on. You can look up 'across' in the dictionary for examples of how it is used, like here for instance - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/across

[OrphanPip]

Across implies passing through something along the way from one point to another. Someone could conceivable walk across the city at night, but it's a bit awkward because it means they walked from one side of the city to the other side of it.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

89. Walking …. the city after dark is not on the whole a good idea.

a)along
b)through (Answer Key)
c)alone
d)across

Source: text book

Hello,
Can "across" be correct as well?

Thank you

Your sentence itself is incorrect, it lacks to the verb to emphasis the reason, i.e. to say: Walking ..through....... the city after the dark isn't on the whole, is a good idea.
walking through the city after dark isn't on the whole..., all the clause is subject, and of course, it is a non-finite adverbial clause....

[Mohammad Ahmad]

Why do you ask the same question, you just want to spam the forum!
2- You may know that as we are translators, we have learned the English grammar more than many native speakers themselves.
I surely have seen many posts in this forum lacking to the minimum degree of the grammar.....
Take this link perhaps you can find it useful:
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-since-and-vs-from/

[Dono]

The correct sequence is as follows:
I was here after the end of June.
I was here following the end of June.
I was here staring at the end of June.
June has filed a restraining order.
The end of April is also quite nice.
I am here following the end of April.

[mona amon]

1. I have been here from the end of June. (Incorrect)
2. I have been here since the end of June. (correct)
3. I will be here from the end of June. (correct)
4. I was here from the end of June. (not sure)
5. I had been here from the end of June. (not sure)

Source: self made grammar question

Hello,
I decided to start a new thread about "from" because I want to know more answers. because sometimes, even native English speakers give different answers. I will be happy if dear native English speakers give their opinions about those 5 sentences.

Note: I searched for it in the forum but the threads didn't help me.

Would you please comment on number 4 and 5? What's your opinion about them? Are they both correct?

Thank you

Hi sb! As far as I know -

1. I have been here from the end of June. (Incorrect) - 'I have been' - present perfect continuous, so 'since' is the best word to use here.

3. I will be here from the end of June. (correct) - I still feel it is better to specify the duration. "I will be here from the end of June till the beginning of August"...

4. I was here from the end of June. (not sure) - same as above. When you use 'from' you have to specify the duration.

5. I had been here from the end of June. (not sure) - "I had been" - pluperfect, so your sentence requires more information, including duration. "I had been here for a couple of months last year, before I went to Copenhagen."

[Mohammad Ahmad]

Hello dear all,

Once I asked this question of a native English speaker:

Are these both correct?

Which one of these is correct?
Which one of these are correct?

********************************

In answer she told me: The first one (is) is correct but you should reverse the sentence and say:

"Of these which one is correct?"

Is she right? Is it needed to reverse it? If I don't reverse it, can it be true as well or not?


Thanks in advance.

Let me return to the fifth primary class, but no matter, to answer all these questions since all of your posts pertaining to grammar are gathered into one topic..

In English there is something ( article, modifier, premodifier, pronoun, demonstrative, etc...) often we called, the anaphora & the cataphora.
The anaphora refers to a word comes before and the cataphora refers for a word comes after.
The ( one) itself is pronoun.
Now to your question:
When you ask: Which one of theses\ those\ is correct? What does your question imply? Basically your question is about this "one" though all of these to know whether it is the correct or not... Is It OK?
Then the verb is to which one belong? To these or to the one? Of course it refers to the one, and moreover the arrangement of the English sentence is:
Subject ( S) + verb ( V) + complement ( CO) Viz: SVC

[sb70012]

Hello,

I have asked a confusing question in almost three different forums but the answers are not the same. That's why I'm still confused. I want to ask it here and see what you think about that. This is my question:

Once our teacher told us (alone-asleep-ashamed-awake-upset-ill-well-afloat-afraid-alight-alike-alive) can not be before a noun.
Do you agree with him or not?
For example:
an upset man - an asleep baby - an alone boy - an ashamed girl - an awake man - an ill man - a well man -
an afraid man - an afloat ship - an alight lamp - an alike man - an alive man -

These are the answers I have received from native English speakers:

Answer 1: only "well man" or "well woman" exist.
Answer 2: "alone (alone keystone) - afraid - ashamed - upset - ill - well" can come before a noun.
Answer 3: "the ashamed girl" or "the upset man" exist but not with article "an".
Answer 4: Yes I do agree with your teacher.
Answer 5: "an upset man - an ashamed girl - an ill man - a well man" exist
Answer 6: Yes I agree with your teacher.


You see? Answers are different. May I know what your opinion is?

The reason I started to ask this question was because of this picture:

Please do see it: http://upload7.ir/imgs/2014-02/41176760638392730136.jpg

Source 1 : http://www.mygrammarlab.com/assets/downloads/pdfs/MyGrammarLab_Advanced.pdf
Source 2 : http://global.oup.com/booksites/content/9780199658237/Sample_pages.pdf