Job Discussion Forums

[going_places]

[Sheikh Inal Ovar]

[Perpetual Traveller]

The Kak is treating me just fine thanks furiousmilksheikali, I guess we failed to spot that Sheikh was employing sarcasm, funny that. Think it might be a case of "Who's that trip-trapping over my bridge?" So I'll leave it there.

PT

[Justin Trullinger]

Hi Guys,
And for *beep*�s sake, play nice.

I disagree, PT, that there's anything wrong with the sentence in question, at least in a certain context. Imagine:

At a family reunion, I am telling my brother that I have never forgiven him for starving our goldfish to death while I was away at summer camp when I was ten.

Me: It's been 25 years since you killed my goldfish, and I've still never forgiven you.

Brother: It can't have been 25 years! I'm only 23!

Me: Well, maybe it was only 20...

Brother: Come on, who would have let me take care of the fish when I was 3?

Me: Look, I don't remember exactly when it happened, but I know it was your fault! Whenever it finally died, it was because you starved it to death!

[/i]scene closes, and I return to my psychiatrist...

Used to emphasize the insignificance of the exact time of a past event, "whenever" is perfectly natural and correct in this context. It wouldn't even sound awkward if you heard it instead of read it.

If there was anything awkward about going_places' example, it's probably the use of "starved from malnutrition," but I suppose that's tangential to the argument at best. (What else do you starve from? Overfeeding?)

Honestly, though, without context, I can see why the example didn't make a lot of sense. Which is what PT was pointing out. So while I disagree, I don't think I'll insult her...


Best,
Justin

[Stephen Jones]

The sentence out of context is strange (and of course almost any sentence can be grammatical in the appropriate context).

I thought the sentence was wrong originally and still think so.

'whenever it was it died', or 'whatever time it died' or 'whenever it did die' would make the meaning clear.

[Stephen Jones]

[Justin Trullinger]

You starve as a result of inadequate food consumption, which could result from famine, imprisonment without food, a hunger strike, or some cancers that impede eating. If you were a goldfish, you could starve simply as a result your owner going on vacation.

But I hold that "starved from malnutrition" is an odd usage, at best.

Whether or not the sentence is "correct" isn't really my issue. I agree, Stephen, that your alternatives make it clearer. But in conversation, with appropriate word stress, there's nothing wrong with the original. (IMO)



Best,
Justin

[going_places]

[Gregor]

Here's a perfectly adequate answer to the question, to give to a student who asks such a thing (and I encounter it frequently):

"There's no important difference."
Now, depending on the level of the student, you can add this (for a very high level):
"If it sounds right, you're probably on fairly safe ground. No Usage Cop is going to arrest you if your meaning is clear. Many native speakers could potentially use the wrong word and no one would notice the difference. Just trust your ears. For almost any purpose, you'll be fine."

If a high level student wants to get seriously pedantic about it, you can get into it, but I would be very surprised if you didn't just manage to unnecessarily confuse the class (or even the one student) by a detailed analysis of the two words. If you can't tell the difference in meaning between the words, there is likely no important difference. I like to discourage students from examining unimportant issues too much. ESL students won't KNOW it's unimportant until we tell them. It's like the difference between "will" and "shall" these days, or the difference between (in Chinese) 我们 (wo men) and 咱们 (zan men) (both words for "we" or "us" - "zan men" originally meant to include the person spoken to, while "wo men" didn't, but these days it doesn't matter, though "wo men" is just the safest term for both usages). It just doesn't much matter.