English Language Learners

Damkerng T.

05:05

1

Q: Difference between "they had" versus "they have"

What i know is, whenever we talk about past we use had unless its not a negative sentence where we use didn't with have. But i have seen one sentence today where they user "they have in last 10 years.". I am again confused now about they use of have or had in sentences referring to past. EDIT C...

> Members of the 16th Lok Sabha worked harder in the budget session than they have in the last 10 years, parliamentary data shows.

Does BrE use tenses that way? I guess not.

F.E.

05:40

The OP's example is a good one, and was planning to bring it into this chatroom -- but you beat me to it! :)

Notice that the OP's example is a comparative, and could involve backshift.

Comparatives often have reduction in the 2nd element.

> Members of the 16th Lok Sabha worked harder in the budget session than [they have ~~worked~~ in the last 10 years], parliamentary data shows.

And, due to the matrix clause's head verb "worked", which is a preterite, then, backshift can occur in the subordinate clause:

> Members of the 16th Lok Sabha worked harder in the budget session than [they had __(i) worked in the last 10 years], parliamentary data shows.

I see that there is an answer over there, I'll go and take a look-see . . .

Damkerng T.

I stopped reading at "If you use "had" instead, it gives the idea that something HAS happened at a certain point in time, and then that's it. It didn't happen anymore."

F.E.

That's one of the pitfalls that are often made: trying to coerce every instance of a preterite into a past time usage. Here, for that "had", the most likely interpretation would be a backshift "had".

I want to quickly check something, about time adjuncts and the perfects . . .

Damkerng T.

To me, the sentence would be okay if the budget session wasn't part of their work in the last 10 years.

F.E.

05:57

@DamkerngT. How so? . . . So, does that mean if that time adjunct was deleted, that then it would be okay for you?

> Members of the 16th Lok Sabha worked harder ~~in the budget session~~ than [they have __(i) worked in the last 10 years], parliamentary data shows.

Damkerng T.

> Members of the 16th Lok Sabha worked harder in the budget session than the other team have (worked) in the last 10 years, parliamentary data shows.

F.E.

What about: "Robot worked harder last night on his project than he has in the last 10 years."

Damkerng T.

It might be different in language, but logic-wise, I read it as "Their latest work is harder than their previous work, which also includes this latest work."

@F.E. I read it okay. The meaning is clear, but I probably won't write it.

F.E.

Compared to the last example, isn't this understood:

> "Robot worked harder last night on his project than he has on anything else in the last 10 years."

Damkerng T.

I like this one better!

(Though I think I still tend to use had rather than has.)

F.E.

06:02

But that is understood when the previous one is said, for it is obvious that he can't work harder on X than he did on that same X in the last 10 years.

Damkerng T.

That's why I think it might be different in language and in math.

F.E.

I think the "had" might sound better (for many) for two reasons: 1) it's a backshift, and 2) due to the association of the preterite perfect being used when two events are discussed when both events happened in the past.

Damkerng T.

nods

F.E.

The reader sorta kinda thinks of the last 20 years to all be further in the past than this recent event when robot/they worked harder.

Damkerng T.

My gut feeling says using have (or have worked) there in the OP's example sounds wrong, but I'm not really sure on this one (whether it's really incorrect).

F.E.

06:07

But I'm just making this rationale stuff up on the fly. :)

The OP's "have" version would correspond to the Robot "has" version.

They both are part of a perfect construction, the past-participle is gapped.

@DamkerngT. That's why I did a pause in order to check on the time adjuncts as used with the perfects . . .

Damkerng T.

nods

Oh, another thought. I think using the simple past is also possible (and better than the present perfect).

F.E.

@DamkerngT. Could you provide an example? (by modifying the OP's example)

Damkerng T.

> Members of the 16th Lok Sabha worked harder in the budget session than they ~~have~~ did in the last 10 years, parliamentary data shows.

Hmm... Sounds odd.

Perhaps it's conflicted with "in the last 10 years".

Maybe I should find something to eat. :D

It's difficult to think when the stomach is empty.

F.E.

> Members of the 16th Lok Sabha worked harder in the budget session than [they worked in the last 10 years], parliamentary data shows. -- ( ? )

Dang, I got a bad typo in an earlier example. :(

> Members of the 16th Lok Sabha worked harder in the budget session than [they had __(i) ~~worked~~ in the last 10 years], parliamentary data shows. -- (that "worked" in the 2nd element should not be in there, as the gap represents that missing word "worked")

What the answerer in that thread is missing is that there is an understood gap in the 2nd element, and so, there is a "present perfect" or "past perfect" in there:

> Members of the 16th Lok Sabha worked harder in the budget session than [they have/had (worked) in the last 10 years], parliamentary data shows.

For the 2nd element doesn't make sense without the understood "worked" in it.

And then, there's that backshift "had" option . . .

The "had (worked)" version could be seen (by some) as being used to make it explicit that the 2nd element is talking about a 10 year period that was all further in the past than that budget session event -- which the present perfect probably wouldn't be seen as doing.

But pragmatically, for that speaker's situation, both versions would basically mean the same thing.

And of course, the "had (worked)" version could also be interpreted to be a backshift version of the "have (worked)". :)

Damkerng T.

06:28

nods

I wonder which version (between have and had) is more natural for most native speakers.

F.E.

And, unfortunately, that answer post links to that terrible thread on "tenses and aspect in English". (sad expression)

Can you believe it, that one answer post (with the diagram) has +100 votes.

Damkerng T.

I haven't checked it out. Should I follow their link?

F.E.

Yes.

Damkerng T.

Okay...

F.E.

I would've downvoted it, but alas, I only have so many rep-points as it is. But what is one down vote against 100 up votes.

Damkerng T.

06:32

Ahh... a nice infographic.

F.E.

Yes, a nice misleading info graph.

Damkerng T.

Ahh... nods -- I agree. It might be good for beginners, though.

F.E.

No, it is a bad info graph.

Look at their line for "I have been eating".

There are entailments, and there are implicatures.

There info graph doesn't seem to take them into account, or, more likely, messed up.

Damkerng T.

I noticed that one, too.

But I still remember that most ELL/ESL teachers would teach their students that way. (It's similar to a common explanation on the definite article the, which is usually explained as unique.)

F.E.

Yes, I saw that discussion in this chatroom.

F.E.

06:48

Someone should answer that question, me thinks.

For the current answer post is slightly erroneous. For the "had" past-perfect is different from the "have" present-perfect in that the past-perfect cuts out the present time. It is not different in the way the answerer put it.

Damkerng T.

I hope Tiger will help the OP. :-)

F.E.

I'd rather Robot do.

Or is it: I'd rather Robot done.

Damkerng T.

Ahh... Robot's machine is crawling on its knees now.

F.E.

That BrE thingie is so . . .

I don't think I could ever fake a BrE dialect.

0

Q: There is a little point in doing anything about it

The sentence There is a little point in doing anything about it is completely unclear for me. I've been trying to translate it, but there is nonsense in my native language. Could you explain the meaning of the sentence in another way?

sentence-meaning

Should that be: "There is little point in doing anything about it" ( ? )

Of course, there also is: "There is no point in doing anything about it"

Damkerng T.

Agree, and agree.

F.E.

07:00

Well, I left a comment over there.

But this late at night, everything sounds a bit, er, different, now to my ear, where I'm not so sure of what-is-what. . . .

0

Q: Can “whom” serve complement in a relative clause?

Can “whom” serve complement in a relative clause? Does the sentence "He is no longer the person whom he was ten years ago" sound natural? Thanks in advance!

grammar relative-pronouns

The OP has been a member for 30 days, and has 57 questions so far.

7

Q: Why is "herself" required in this particular sentence?

Why is a reflexive pronoun, i.e. herself, grammatically required in the following sentence? I gave Susie a picture of herself. Compare with: I gave Susie a picture of her. This sentence doesn't seem to be able to mean I gave Susie a picture of Susie. It means I gave her a ...

grammar grammaticality pronouns reflexives

@DamkerngT. Robot, look, there's still 4 hours left! 200 rep-point! Scoop 'em up! :D

A reference grammar can come in handy in answering a question like that one. :)

How about: "Do it yourself, you!" :D

Oh, how about: "You do it yourself, you!" :D

And there's the simple: "Do it, you!"

Anonymous

10:53

@F.E. Fixed!

Anonymous

@F.E. Apple's AutoCorrect is terrible when it comes to technical vocabulary. You'd think it would also know basic word formation rules, have a list of productive affixes and such, but it doesn't appear to

Nico

11:18

I thought I'd share another sample of British humour:

bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0233rzy

Anonymous

bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00c68sd

Nico

:)

Nico

19:40

"The snail crashed by careless feet makes our lord's heart miss a beat" By William Blake

"He wrestled with gigant snails all that summer, then got drunk" By Ernest Hemingway

...

"You mother-effing snail" By Quentin Tarantino

"Snails are like little willies" By dad

Damkerng T.

21:22

A random thought of the day: Three desirable qualities of a grammar textbook for L2 learners: accurate, comprehensive, and simplified

An almost impossible task.

But anything that comes closer to the ideal would make an impression of being a "good" or even "great" textbook for L2 learners.

@F.E. It's in grace period now! "Grace period ends in 14 hours"

Nico

What do you think of Swan's book as a grammar book?

Damkerng T.

Almost perfectly accurate, adequately comprehensive, and satisfying simplified

By the way, did Hemingway really wrote that!? (I wonder whether he wrote it or said it.)

Nico

It looks like it fits all your requirements

Damkerng T.

nods -- It's the closest one I know of.

user116848

21:38

howdy!

Damkerng T.

Hi!

Damkerng T.

21:48

Ahh... I think BBC iPlayer TV only works in the UK. I can't watch that video clip (Leave Me Alone).

Nico

let me see if it's on youtube

►

Damkerng T.

LOL -- Thanks!

Now I know where I can find BBC Three video clips, even! :D

(What does that tongue thing mean? Is it Miley Cyrus' thing? -- I'm not a big fan though I like some of her songs.)

Nico

snagglepuss-speak, please don't get it started or I won't get it out of my head

@DamkerngT. I'm looking for the first part of the clip, which gives a bit of context

No luck

Damkerng T.

22:08

Ahh... Never mind that. It's funny by and in itself already. :)

Would you like some more Snagglepuss speaks?

Nico

No, please!!!

Damkerng T.

I k-new that, methinks!

Nico

@DamkerngT. It helps knowing Miley Cirus and Mumford&Sons

Damkerng T.

I guess it would bring it to another level if I knew Mumford & Sons (and that tongue thing :).

I guess they're well-known comedians there.

Nico

@DamkerngT. That and knowing what twerking is

Damkerng T.

22:12

A-ha!

Nico

Time to retire to my quarters! G'Night!

Damkerng T.

Have a good sleep! See you soon.

user116848

starts humming 'I am partying all on my own...'

Damkerng T.

LOL

user116848

:)

user116848

22:22

Not a very good song :)

Damkerng T.

Its melody and presentation are fun. :D

user116848

That it is.

user116848

But as compared to US radios BBC is kinda boring, don't you think?

user116848

I hate BBC radio :)

Damkerng T.

Oh, which BBC channels did you try?

(I think BBC Radio 4 Extra is kinda fun. :-)

user116848

22:26

I used to listen to their news channel but their accent would get on my nerves

user116848

I then tried "A Way with Words" some US channel and liked it. Here is a link: waywordradio.org

Damkerng T.

I'd say BrE accent is a bit easier to understand than AmE. I'm not sure how to describe this quality (not even in my first language). Maybe it's because it's more syllabic-like.

user116848

It's some English program that one ^^

Damkerng T.

A Way With Words is a great name!

user116848

Yes it is. It is presented by English experts Grant and Martha I guess.

user116848

22:30

They mainly focus on vocabulary I reckon.

Damkerng T.

Hmm... I don't know why their soundclips don't play on my PC.

Oh, they have an option for MP3 downloads. I'll try it.

By the way, your use of "I reckon" just sent me to review its usage.

I think it's okay.

Wow, it's a really slow download. (Still downloading...)

Ahh... Their accent is perhaps the most common accent used by anchors in the US. It sounds so familiar to me.

Hah! Commode vs toilet.

@Arrowfar Thanks for introducing me to a great site!

Transcript for

English Language Learners