ELL's Cabin

Damkerng T.

00:31

@Rathony Sure. See you around.

Rathony

03:42

@DamkerngT. Hi, are you here?

Damkerng T.

Yes, I'm around.

Rathony

I have a question. Simple one.

Damkerng T.

Okay

Rathony

I understand what you commented yesterday and I don't have any objection to it.

I don't think it is who is right and who is wrong.

Damkerng T.

Me either!

Rathony

03:44

Rather it is a question about how to explain it to learners.

Damkerng T.

nods

Rathony

My focus was to explain in the context of a movie theater as in the OP's example.

I went to the movie to watch Gravity. I saw George acting/act and he brought the character to life. Do you see any problem in this construction?

Damkerng T.

It's not something I would choose to say.

Rathony

How about I saw that George was acting or I saw that George acted?

I understand. I want you to focus on "see".

Damkerng T.

Frankly, my first impression when I saw your example, I thought, why wouldn't we simply say I saw George's acting/act and he brought the character to life instead?

Rathony

03:49

Well, I would agree.

Damkerng T.

@Rathony I know, but as we would agree, context is important, so instead of trying to judge marginal sentences, how about let's consider real ones together?

Rathony

Let me rephrase. I saw George playing the character's role

Damkerng T.

That sounds better, yes.

Rathony

How abouto I saw that George played the character's role.

Damkerng T.

That would be fine with me as well.

Rathony

03:51

It has different connotation.

Damkerng T.

Sure

Rathony

Completely different.

Then,

In the OP's context, would you agree to use "see that" construction?

Damkerng T.

My first impression was that it sounded weird, but it might be because I read the other alternative given by the OP first.

Rathony

I think there is a clear distinction between to "see" and to "hear".

Damkerng T.

Then I tried to think of it as a sentence on its own, and I think it's fine.

Rathony

03:53

Well, in what context will you use "I saw George played the character's role"? Can you rephrase it using other words?

Damkerng T.

I think most of the alternative verbs would sound a bit awkward.

Rathony

such as?

Damkerng T.

learned, for example.

noticed, discovered, realized? All of them change the connotation a little.

Rathony

How about "I heard Tom Cruise would be in the movie (Maybe I misunderstood). But I saw George played the character." Does it make sense?

Damkerng T.

It makes sense, of course. The problem is, is it idiomatic?

Rathony

03:56

Yes

That's my point

That's why I said it is not idiomatic when you describe a situation where you are watching something with your eyes.

Damkerng T.

It's probably not really about the situation, in my idea. It's probably about how we deliver the information.

Rathony

"I saw Goege played the character" means "I found/discovered/ccme to know of the fact that Goerge, not Tom Cruise, played the character".

How is it idiomatic?

Damkerng T.

@Rathony Why is it not?

Rathony

Well, why not use found/discovered/came to know/noticed/realized or whatever?

Damkerng T.

I think there are some examples in the comments posted yesterday.

Rathony

03:59

There are tens of other verbs

Damkerng T.

I think it could be use if the speaker realized or came to realize that when he saw it.

Rathony

I am not saying those examples are wrong.

Damkerng T.

Which is why I don't think it's strictly about the situation, but rather information delivery.

Rathony

Maybe it's personal style and preference, I would never use to "see" to deliver the information.

I heard that George played the character. I heard George playing the character.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... okay, I think I understand you now.

Rathony

04:02

When you use to "hear", it is black and white. Will you agree?

Damkerng T.

What do you think about those examples? I know you said they're not wrong. But do you think they sound off in anyway?

@Rathony I'm a rather grey person. :P

Rathony

I don't think it is a matter of which is sounding off.

It is a matter of why would you choose to use the verb to "see".

I saw him standing between the rails. I saw that he was standing between the rails.

What difference do these two sentences make?

Damkerng T.

Well, if a speaker chose to use see, they must've thought see was the best choice in their opinion, consciously or unconsciously.

Rathony

You are talking about a native speaker, now.

From learner's point of view,

Damkerng T.

@Rathony That was exactly my point.

Rathony

04:04

I don't think it should be used that way.

Damkerng T.

@Rathony Yes

Rathony

Do learner's understand the Bible, especially old version?

Damkerng T.

Hmm... why should we expect our learners to use the language differently from native speakers?

@Rathony Sure, some of them do, I think.

Rathony

I checked the sentence Strandon quoted and saw to "see" was used to mean other verbs.

Damkerng T.

Well, if you really want to divide "see" into different senses. Then again, when I read it the first time, I understood it as "see". Isn't that funny?

Rathony

04:06

To me, the usage of to "see" in that way can cause confusion to learners.

They will understand what it means when they become more fluent.

And they will not hear it being used that way very often.

Damkerng T.

nods -- Words that are supposed to be easy are actually the most difficult ones.

Rathony

I have never heard to see used that way.

In actual conversation.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... really? I doubt that. Oh!

Rathony

Of course, I read it.

I understand what it means.

In the movie context, I don't think it is right to use "see that" construction.

Damkerng T.

@Rathony I can imagine that our learners may run into this kind of see in their classes or seminars or conferences and such.

Rathony

04:09

You are watching a move for 2 hours. You keep seeing them bringing characters to life.

Well, then, the learner would not ask the question. Would he?

I see from your appraisal report that you have asked for training

This is a different construction.

It has a prepositional phrase.

which clears any misunderstanding.

to see here means to understand.

Damkerng T.

She opened the curtains to see the ground covered in snow -- This sounds fine, right?

Rathony

This usage is very popular and common. I heard it used that way for millions of times.

covered has nothing to do with to "see".

Damkerng T.

@Rathony In most conversations, yes.

Rathony

I see that you have asked for training.

It is also very common.

I heard it used many times.

Damkerng T.

How about this one? When she turned I saw her standing over me with the stick raised.

Rathony

04:14

Why? Because it is clear to see means to understand. It doesn't cause any confusion.

Yeap.

Damkerng T.

How about this? When she turned I saw that she was standing over me with the stick raised.

Rathony

Will you use "I saw that she was standing over me"?

Damkerng T.

I accept both.

Rathony

There is difference.

They don't mean the same.

Damkerng T.

Sure, a little. But it doesn't make either of them ungrammatical or unidiomatic.

Rathony

04:18

Well, I don't agree. books.google.com/ngrams/…

Damkerng T.

Change that to saw that he stood,saw he was standing

Oh, sorry!

Rathony

books.google.com/ngrams/…

Damkerng T.

I think you're right about the Ngram.

Rathony

You use to "see" to describe what you are actually seeing most of the time.

It is different from to hear.

Now, which is more idiomatic?

Damkerng T.

Does "more" mean idiomatic? :-)

Rathony

04:21

For learners, it is important to understand how the usage works most of the time.

Damkerng T.

Sure, and they should be aware that that's just "most of the time".

Rathony

It is more important than to know the usage which is applied to probably 10% or less context.

Most of the time can be rephrased to idiomatic.

You example in the comment, he saw that he was standing between the rails.

Damkerng T.

How many times have we seen a learner claim that this sentence or that sentence is incorrect/ungrammatical/etc. just because their grammar books or their teachers taught them only basic rules?

Rathony

is perfectly fine.

A learner would understand what it means

It means almost identical to I saw him standing between the rails.

Well, why did we learn basic usages first?

Damkerng T.

It's probably the easiest way to teach.

Rathony

04:25

Well, kids learn basic words. they don't care about semantics

or grammar until they grow older.

I think the writer used "He saw that he was standing..." because it was not expected.

Damkerng T.

How many of our learners are kids? Not many, don't you think?

Rathony

Well, I am comparing them to native kids.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I don't think learners are kids.

Rathony

who start to learn how to see and to hear work.

Well, 6-year old native speakers would never ask 90% of the question on ELL.

Maybe 9 year old.

Damkerng T.

Then again, when basic rules make it clear that it's incomplete and there are exception cases, it's fine. It could be misleading when it suggests that this is all there is.

Rathony

04:28

It's not important.

That's the problem I saw. I think the misunderstanding lies there. I clearly mentioned I don't see any reason why "see that" can't be used.

Why didn't I elaborate?

I didn't see any reason to elaborate on "see that" usage.

Factually, it is not broadly used.

It is not idiomatic.

Maybe it would be completely wrong and arrogant for me, "hey, you are a learner. You don't have to learn it yet."

If I said that way.

I said it is not broadly used.

Damkerng T.

IIRC, you said it's ungrammatical.

Rathony

Well, it is ungrammatical when you want to describe the situation where you are watching with your own eyes.

Damkerng T.

Anyway, I think we have our points, and we agree that we try our best to help our learners.

Rathony

You know the question was edited once. And the answer with "ungrammatical" was posted before the edit.

I thought about changing it, but what the hell. It looks like they are ungrammatical.

You have to use see / object / bare or PP construction.

Damkerng T.

@Rathony And yet those that he/she was standing were used when they see with their own eyes, right? Which is why it's quite tricky to explain.

Rathony

04:33

That's grammatical.

That has a different connotation.

I only said "I saw him cross/crossing the street" is grammatical compared with "I saw that he crossed the street".

To me, the latter is ungrammatical.

Rarely used in a very unlikely context.

Damkerng T.

@Rathony It's very tricky to explain these connotations, I know. I remember that you used "understand" at first. Then later added "come to know" and "discover", I think.

Rathony

Just because a sentence makes sense doesn't make it idiomatic.

There could be tens more.

Maybe hundreds

The issue is why would you say "I saw that he crossed the street"?

Damkerng T.

I don't think linguists would judge whether something is idiomatic or not by frequency.

That's very misleading. Just my idea, anyway.

Rathony

Well, is ELL for linguists?

That's very misleading is idiomatic.

Damkerng T.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Rathony

04:37

Why? Because you hear it often.

I saw that he crossed the street is unidiomatic.

Damkerng T.

You made such a claim on the main site. I made some comments. That's already enough for me.

Rathony

Yeap.

Thanks for your time.

Damkerng T.

No problem!

Damkerng T.

05:49

@Rathony I just realized that I was too busy trying to understand your points and forgot to tell you this thought I wished to tell you ...

I don't think your answer is bad. Actually, it's quite good. The only thing, in its current form according to the latest revision, that stops me from voting up your answer is because you choose to say that I saw him crossed the street is ungrammatical/unidiomatic (even under your clause about those senses).

If you rephrase it to something like "We don't normally/commonly/most of the time use I saw that he crossed the street" or "We use I saw him cross/crossing the street rather than I saw that he crossed the street most of the time/in most contexts", I'll upvote your answer, even.

That was what I wanted to tell you.

See you around!

Rathony

06:14

@DamkerngT. I edited my post. I don't see much difference, but there is no reason not to follow your advice. Thanks.

Damkerng T.

You're welcome!

CowperKettle

16:27

1

A: wants vs wanted help easy?

You should use "wants": Tom wants you to pick him up. If you use "wanted", it will mean "Tom wanted you to pick him up, but now he does not want that". This could be either because Tom has changed his mind, or because it is no longer possible to pick him up. Why can't we use "wanted"? Bec...

I hope I'm not wrong on that one.

Good evening, Dam, Katyusha.

Catija

17:21

@CowperKettle No, actually, you're not.

CowperKettle

@Catija Oh, thanks! I'm never sure.

Catija

saying "Tom wanted you to pick him up" makes it sound like Tom has already been picked up or that he got home on his own somehow and that Tom was disappointed at Mom not picking him up.

CowperKettle

So I thought.

Catija

If Tom hasn't been picked up yet, he still wants to be picked up.

I think you should undelete, personally.

CowperKettle

Wish granted!

Language is so complex.

Catija

17:24

Your extension using the past tense is also quite right... "I talked to Tom a minute ago and he said that he wants you to pick him up". Said/says are technically both possible but "says" is a bit informal.

CowperKettle

"says" is informal?

It's interesting. It's quite formal when we write "Churchill says in his WWII that in 1939 he did not foresee.."

I'll go read chem a bit. (0:

BBL!

Rathony

17:37

@Catija Well, I think there could be a couple of more scenarios where (1) Tom wanted to be picked up, Mom picks him up (eventually). (2) Tom wanted to be picked up, but Mom can't (doesn't) pick him up, (3) Tom wanted to be picked up, but he doesn't want any more (He has a friend to give him a ride).

@Catija Now, the issue is what would No.2 imply without context?

@Catija I don't understand why No. 2 would be interpreted as "he changed his mind". He could have, he could have not. We don't know.

@Catija And I don't agree with you that using "said" is right. English doesn't differentiate the present tense and past tense when it comes to reported speech. "I talked to Tim a minute ago and he says that he wants you to pick him up". I don't see any problem with this sentence.

@Catija Are you a native English speaker?

Catija

18:55

@Rathony I'm sorry but I really don't want to interact with you.

Freddy

19:59

have anyone ever tried mobile version of chatroom on computer

Transcript for