| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Korussian
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: Grammar: IN+time versus AFTER+time - what's the solid rule? |
 |
|
Koreans tend to mix up when to use "in 5 minutes" versus, say, "after 5 minutes".
I want to teach my students a rule for figuring out in which circumstance to use which, but I can't nail one down.
At first I thought perhaps it is related to tense:
Present/Future: I am leaving IN five minutes.
Past: The restaurant was busy, so I left AFTER 30 minutes of waiting.
But then, what about the sentence:
"If the restaurant will be busy tomorrow, then we will wait for a while and and we will leave after 30 minutes"?
Could someone kindly elucidate this one for me?
Thanks in advance! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
branchsnapper
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We use "in" when we mean from the moment we are speaking, I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tobias
Joined: 02 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: Das ist relativ |
|
|
| Korussian wrote: |
....
Present/Future: I am leaving IN five minutes.
Past: The restaurant was busy, so I left AFTER 30 minutes of waiting.
But then, what about the sentence:
"If the restaurant will be busy tomorrow, then we will wait for a while and and we will leave after 30 minutes"?.....
|
Your problem stems from your 'staying put' in time in your mind, and you can't do that. You have to think ahead.
Let's take the restaurant example you use above. First, I'd rewrite the IF clause:
If the restaurant IS busy tomorrow....
When arrival at the restaurant comes tomorrow, the speaker will then be in the present.
Next, I'd keep the consequence statement just as it is, as the arrival at the restaurant will be in the PAST after the speaker has waited thirty minutes.
If the restaurant is busy tomorrow, we will wait for a while then leave after thirty minutes.
Last edited by Tobias on Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
branchsnapper
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So after all this slippin' and slidin', what is the rule that was actually asked for Tobias? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tobias
Joined: 02 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: The rule of practice |
|
|
Tobias' rule #5 in TESOL:
Practice makes 'better'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
branchsnapper
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Never mind the edits and rule no.5, what's the rule the OP wanted?
Mine seems to work, but I don't remember coming across the issue before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easter Clark
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Location: Hiding from Yie Eun-woong
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think "in" is a preposition of time, meaning "within" or "in(side the space of)"
"after" is usually a subordinate clause, in this case "After 30 minutes (have passed / finish)..."
That's the way I'd explain it anyway. But then, I've been wrong before.
"We're going to leave after 30 minutes" is not colloquial English at any rate:
"If the restaurant is busy tomorrow, then we will wait for half an hour or so before leaving." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoul'n'Corea
Joined: 06 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Easter Clark wrote: |
I think "in" is a preposition of time, meaning "within" or "in(side the space of)"
"after" is usually a subordinate clause, in this case "After 30 minutes (have passed / finish)..."
That's the way I'd explain it anyway. But then, I've been wrong before.
"We're going to leave after 30 minutes" is not colloquial English at any rate:
"If the restaurant is busy tomorrow, then we will wait for half an hour or so before leaving." |
I hear this from EVERYONE here too. I think it is because hu/chinaso in Korean means after, but it is because they think the should reverse this in English since we are SVO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Korussian
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Easter Clark wrote: |
I think "in" is a preposition of time, meaning "within" or "in(side the space of)"
"after" is usually a subordinate clause, in this case "After 30 minutes (have passed / finish)..."
That's the way I'd explain it anyway. But then, I've been wrong before.
"We're going to leave after 30 minutes" is not colloquial English at any rate:
"If the restaurant is busy tomorrow, then we will wait for half an hour or so before leaving." |
Thanks for all of your responses so far!
I agree that "after" is usually a subordinate clause and have been thinking that there must be some relevance of that to the rule.
It also simplifies things to say that "in" is used when talking about times relative to now, whereas "after" usually refers to times relative to other times.
I don't think "in" = "within" nor "inside the space of", since that would mean that if I said, "I'll be home in 2 hours", you wouldn't be at all surprised if I came home in 10 minutes instead.
Also, although Tobias' explanation for why we seem to say "after" when talking about future events (but are actually talking about present/past events) may turn out to be the best one, it certainly does make my head spin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
branchsnapper
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clauses have verbs in. Also, clearly the prepositional phrases "in 30 minutes" or "after 30 minutes" are the same species, so to go that way is a red herring.
He left after 30 minutes.
I will leave in 30 minutes.
I'll wait until she shows up, then I'll leave after 30 minutes.
It seems straightfoward enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easter Clark
Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Location: Hiding from Yie Eun-woong
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| branchsnapper wrote: |
Clauses have verbs in. Also, clearly the prepositional phrases "in 30 minutes" or "after 30 minutes" are the same species, so to go that way is a red herring.
He left after 30 minutes.
I will leave in 30 minutes.
I'll wait until she shows up, then I'll leave after 30 minutes.
It seems straightfoward enough. |
He left after 30 minutes (had passed).
I will leave in 30 minutes (have passed).
"After 30 minutes have passed, I will leave."
there's your verb
edit: just teach what we would normally say in that situation instead of why one way is better than the other! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
branchsnapper
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That doesn't justify the statement "after is usually a subordinate clause". It just shows it can appear in one. I suppose you can see "I will leave after 30 minutes" as a truncated version of "I will leave after 30 minutes have passed" but I don't see any special reason to do so, and certainly we rarely say the extended version.
Anyway, what difference does it make? Why would we avoid a subordinate clause when talking about times which precede from the moment of speech? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianInSuwon
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will leave within 30 minutes. (No exact time given. Between now and 30 minutes. But pretty close to the 30 minute mark. But on the shy side of 30 minutes.) I will leave in 30 minutes. (Exactly at the 30 minute mark) I will leave after 30 minutes. (No exact time given. Sometime after the 30 minute mark. But pretty close to the 30 minute mark. But on the far side of 30 minutes.) I will leave after the baseball game.
My rule: Do you want to be vague or precise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
branchsnapper
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's what you might think at first glance Brian. Think about it a little though, and you'll see that doesn't correspond with actual usage. We don't tell people "I'll leave after 30 minutes" in order to be less precise. We say "I'll leave in about 30 minutes". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BrianInSuwon
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Korussian, In seems to measure time from now. So, its difficult to make a past or future tense statement using "in 20 minutes". After and within are far more flexible.
I tried to wait for you yesterday. But after/within 30 minutes, I was bored and so, I left.
When teaching this grammar point, I would point out in's limited usefulness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
