Site Search:
 
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

grammar in context

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Learning English
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hela



Joined: 02 May 2004
Posts: 420
Location: Tunisia

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:03 am    Post subject: grammar in context Reply with quote

Dear teachers,

Would you please tell me if my answers are correct ?

Put the verbs in brackets in the right tense and form and fill in the blanks with the right word (ONE word).

Superintendent Spence looked at the table in front of him. There (1) (be) was a wrist-watch with a smashed glass, a small gold lighter with initials on it, a lipstick in a gilt holder, and a pair of heavy steel fire-tongs, the heavy head of which was stained a rusty brown.

Sergeant Graves looked in and said that Mr Rowley Cloade (2) (wait) was waiting. Spence nodded and the Sergeant showed Rowley (3) in.

Just as he knew all about Beatrice Lippincott, so the Superintendent knew all about Rowley Cloade. If Rowley (4) (come) came to the police station, it was because Rowley had got something to say and that something would be solid, reliable and unimaginative. It would, in fact, be worth hearing. At the same time, Rowley being a deliberate type of person [what does this mean, please ?], it (5) (take) took HIM (?) some time (6) (say) to say. And you couldn't hurry the Rowley Cloade type. If you did, they became rattled, repeated themselves, and generally took twice (7) as long�

'Good morning, Mr Cloade. Pleased to see you. Can you throw any light on this problem of (Cool mine? The man who (9) (kill) was killed at the Stag.'

Rather to Spence's surprise, Rowley began with a question. He asked abruptly:

'Have you identified the fellow?'

'No,' said Spence slowly. 'I wouldn't say we had. He signed the register Enoch Arden. There's nothing in his possession to show he was Enoch Arden.'

Rowley frowned.

'Isn't that � rather odd?'

It was exceedingly odd, but Superintendent Spence (10) (not propose + discuss) was not supposed to discuss with Rowley Cloade just how odd he thought it was. Instead he said pleasantly: 'Come now, Mr Cloade, I'm the one who asks the questions. You went to see the dead man last night. Why?'

'You know Beatrice Lippincott, Superintendent? At the Stag.'

'Yes, of course. And,' said the Superintendent, taking (11) what he hoped would be a short cut, 'I've heard her story. She came to me with it.'

Rowley looked relieved.

'Good. I was afraid she (12) (modal + not + want + mix up) might / would not want to mix up with police matter. These people are funny that way sometimes.' The Superintendent nodded. 'Well, then, Beatrice told me what she (13) (overhear) had overheard and it seemed to me � I don't know if it does to you � decidedly fishy. What I mean is � we're, well, we're interested parties.'

Again the Superintendent nodded. He had taken a keen local interest in Gordon Cloade's death and in common with general local opinion he considered that Gordon's family had been badly treated. He endorsed the common opinion that Mrs Gordon Cloade 'wasn't a lady'.

'I don't suppose I need explain to you, Superintendent, that if Mrs Gordon's first husband is still alive, it will make a big difference to us as a family. This story (14) of Beatrice's was the first intimation I had that such a state of affairs might exist. I (15) (never + dream) would never have dreamt of such a thing. Thought that she was definitely a widow. And I may say that it shook me up a lot. Took me a bit of time to realize it, as you (16) (modal + say) would say (?).

Thank you very much for your help and happy new year to you.

All the best,

Hela
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bud



Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 2111
Location: New Jersey, US

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
'Good. I was afraid she (12) (modal + not + want + mix up) might / would not want to mix up with police matter.


Either could make sense, but "would" makes more sense. "Would" implies that, as an aspect of her personality, she would never want to get mixed up in a police matter. "Might" means only that in this particular case, she possibly would not want to get involved.

Note: You need either "a police matter" or "police matters." Either is fine. Also, it's more common to say. "... get mixed up with/in..." This works OK, though, as is.

Quote:
I (15) (never + dream) would never have dreamt of such a thing.


The instructions did not say to use a modal. That means you are left with "never dreamt." However, it is much more natural to use a modal there, exactly as you phrased it... And "I never dreamt..." does not make perfect sense in this story. There would have been no reason to dream of such a thing until a day or two ago, after the crime was committed... "would never had dreamt" implies that he never had a reason to think about it, but if he had, then he wouldn't have imagined it... "never dreamt" means more that he just never thought about thinking of the possibility, but the possibilty of thinking about it existed. (That last part is probably not very clear. If not, don't worry about it).

Quote:
Took me a bit of time to realize it, as you (16) (modal + say) would say (?).


"Would" is possible. "Could" or "might" are the likeliest. "You could say" and "You might say" are equivalent ways of understating a fact. It's the opposite of exaggeration. So this sentence is saying that it took more time than you would have expected.

However,"as you would say" also make sense. Here, "you" (whoever he is) has a habit of saying, "It took me a bit of time to realize it." In his circle of friends and acquaintences, anyone hearing that statement from someone else would be reminded of that guy ("you").

A deliberate type of person - it is a person who is slow and careful in speech, movement or action. Notice that "it took him some time to say" what he had to say. If he had been interrupted, he would maybe have had to start over (or at least repeat the last part of what he had already said) before he'd be able to continue.

All the rest are fine.

Happy New Year, Hela.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hela



Joined: 02 May 2004
Posts: 420
Location: Tunisia

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you VERY much for all your explanations, Bud. That is VERY kind of you and very helpful of course.

I'll read them again very carefully and I'll come back to you if necessary.

Now, - would it also be possible to write "had come" for #4?

- In #5 should I add "HIM" ? Was it forgotten when the exercise was printed or not?

- I made a mistake in #10. The verb is not "to suppose" but "to propose", so should the answer be "was not proposing / did not propose to discuss"?

Thanks a million,
Hela
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bud



Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 2111
Location: New Jersey, US

PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Now, - would it also be possible to write "had come" for #4?


Actually, I think it has to be "had come," because the arrival was in a slightly more distant past than the main story line. Good catch! (But in everyday English, many people would say "came," I think)

Quote:
In #5 should I add "HIM" ? Was it forgotten when the exercise was printed or not?


Oh, I see... No, "him" is not necessary. Neither is it wrong. I think most people would include it. At least, it sounds a little more natural to me with it in there.

Quote:
I made a mistake in #10. The verb is not "to suppose" but "to propose", so should the answer be "was not proposing / did not propose to discuss"?


I think "did not propose" is the correct choice, because it was a distinct action (or lack thereof) in the past - thus, simple past. But then again, I can look at "was not proposing" as sounding correct also. But I'd lean toward simple past.

Hela, as you know, I'm no grammar guru, so take my answers with a grain of salt. They are more like educated guesses, based on instinct, rather than an in-depth knowledge of grammar. That said, I hope they prove useful!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hela



Joined: 02 May 2004
Posts: 420
Location: Tunisia

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even if you're not a "grammar guru" I appreciate your help and explanations immensely. Very Happy

If you wish, when I get the original answers, I'll let you know.

May all that you wish come true, in 2006!
Kind regards,
Hela
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bud



Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 2111
Location: New Jersey, US

PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, Hela.

By all means, please post the answers. That would be very helpful to me.

All the best in 2006!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Learning English All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Dave's ESL Cafe is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Banner Advertising | Bookstore / Alta Books | FAQs | Articles | Interview with Dave
Copyright © 2018 Dave's ESL Cafe | All Rights Reserved | Contact Dave's ESL Cafe | Site Map

Teachers College, Columbia University: Train to Teach English Here or Abroad
SIT
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group