"Someone came in five minutes ago, and said there has been a car accident on the M25. I have checked and know a driver is now being sent to the hospital."
"If we use WAS instead of HAS BEEN, it means the accident happened at the same time he CAME in reporting. It is illogical."
"Someone came in five minutes ago, and said there was a car accident on the M25. I have checked and know a driver is now being sent to the hospital" What's the matter with that?
Are we back with this "Nobody mentions "in the past few years" " again?
As I said before, it's in the world's best-selling intermediate grammar book, twice.
The Routine On Yesterday
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
What does it say, please? You said it is an exercise book, right? I guess you cannot find any explanation in such a book. Am I correct?JuanTwoThree wrote:
Are we back with this "Nobody mentions "in the past few years" " again?
As I said before, it's in the world's best-selling intermediate grammar book, twice.
JTT, your words here support my saying that I have talked about the Past Family for many times, with the answer, of course. Please be noted that I am not asking about them. I just referred them to a question Metal56 has posted. Please don't be irritated.JuanTwoThree wrote: Are we back with this "Nobody mentions "in the past few years" " again?
As I said before, it's in the world's best-selling intermediate grammar book, twice.
Furthermore, I am asking about GRAMMAR book, not exercise book. They are different, as you may not be aware. Grammar books give reason. And I am afraid you don't really have one. If you really hold the answer, you shall welcome me to post my question, so that you can use the answer, right?
Even if you have such a grammar, which you actually don't, what does it prove? The phenomenon of the Past Family being hidden by all grammar books disappears, jsut because a grammar book has talked about it? I shall not talk about the Past Family again, just because of a grammar book?
I beg your pardon, but you must be joking, let alone there is no such grammar book.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Xui, it's both a reference and practice book, produced by the Cambridge University Press. Page 30, half way down:
" Here are some more examples:
We've met a lot of people in the last few days.
Fred's been ill a lot in the past few years, hasn't he?"
I would guess that almost every teacher and advanced student in the British English speaking world has seen and used most of this book one way or another.
Look, I agree that the present perfect is complex, but most students end up using it really well. If you will permit me a little amateur psychology, it seems to me that you have come to the conclusion that if you can explain it to yourself then you will be able to use it properly. Why? What drives you? I don't know anybody who doesn't get into knots with this tense when they try to "explain it" . Why can't you just be happy that you use it correctly when you do and try again when you don't? The grammar writers don't make a good job of it, nobody else on this board seems much use and do you really think that you're the only person in the world who has got it sorted out?
Trying to explain everything is bad teaching and trying to understand everything is bad learning. The real goal is to be able to say, as we often do, "I just feel that it's correct but I can't say why"
" Here are some more examples:
We've met a lot of people in the last few days.
Fred's been ill a lot in the past few years, hasn't he?"
I would guess that almost every teacher and advanced student in the British English speaking world has seen and used most of this book one way or another.
Look, I agree that the present perfect is complex, but most students end up using it really well. If you will permit me a little amateur psychology, it seems to me that you have come to the conclusion that if you can explain it to yourself then you will be able to use it properly. Why? What drives you? I don't know anybody who doesn't get into knots with this tense when they try to "explain it" . Why can't you just be happy that you use it correctly when you do and try again when you don't? The grammar writers don't make a good job of it, nobody else on this board seems much use and do you really think that you're the only person in the world who has got it sorted out?
Trying to explain everything is bad teaching and trying to understand everything is bad learning. The real goal is to be able to say, as we often do, "I just feel that it's correct but I can't say why"
Last edited by JuanTwoThree on Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wait a minute! My goodness, you still have time to type other things, but you skip the "grammar" here? You think that I cannot find the examples myself, so you just type to me the examples? Is it true or not? I can't believe my eye. Why don't you just type the grammar of using "in the past xx years", and skip the examples?JuanTwoThree wrote:Xui, it's both a reference and practice book, produced by the Cambridge University Press. Page 30, half way down.
" Here are some more examples:
We've met a lot of people in the last few days.
Fred's been ill a lot in the past few years, hasn't he?
=====================
Let me take a big guess, there is no grammar there, am I correct?
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
I'm not sure what you mean by "the grammar". Do you mean that an intermediate grammar book needs to explain why everything is how it is?
You're absolutely right. Of course there isn't a single explanation of why we use certain time adjuncts and not others. The aim of the book is to improve students' English and get people doing it right. It's mostly pages of very well chosen examples followed by exercises. No "grammar" at all thank Heavens, which is why it's called "English Grammar in Use" and is far more useful! Though very boring.
Besides, if there were any "grammar" intermediate students wouldn't be able to understand any of it.
Seriously, Xiu, what obsesses you about English tenses? All this time you could have been reading a good book. Or watching English language tv. Your English would have got much better. What set you off on this weird pilgrimage? The "lies" in the books? Everybody is aware of the fact that their explanations are imperfect and that they choose examples to suit their purposes. Who doesn't? Get over it.
You're absolutely right. Of course there isn't a single explanation of why we use certain time adjuncts and not others. The aim of the book is to improve students' English and get people doing it right. It's mostly pages of very well chosen examples followed by exercises. No "grammar" at all thank Heavens, which is why it's called "English Grammar in Use" and is far more useful! Though very boring.
Besides, if there were any "grammar" intermediate students wouldn't be able to understand any of it.
Seriously, Xiu, what obsesses you about English tenses? All this time you could have been reading a good book. Or watching English language tv. Your English would have got much better. What set you off on this weird pilgrimage? The "lies" in the books? Everybody is aware of the fact that their explanations are imperfect and that they choose examples to suit their purposes. Who doesn't? Get over it.
Then seriously, what obsesses you about telling me to quit? Is your obsession better than mine?JuanTwoThree wrote: Seriously, Xiu, what obsesses you about English tenses? ......Get over it.
=======================
As for myself, I have a good answer that you cannot argue with: "I just feel that it's correct but I can't say why". Does this saying sound familiar to you?
Bests,
Xui
If this year is 2004, then Since 2000 is same as in the past four years. If Since prefers Present Perfect, so shall the Past Family. With this knowledge, those who have explained Since, can explain also the Past Family in a rather simple way. This is grammar, reasons to help students to decide something in writing. For ordinary students, this is enough. It is better than to list just a few examples without explanation. It is even much better than to hide the examples away. By the way, this knowledge comes from my obsession.JuanTwoThree wrote: Trying to explain everything is bad teaching and trying to understand everything is bad learning. The real goal is to be able to say, as we often do, "I just feel that it's correct but I can't say why"
========================
This is my humble opinion.
Xui
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Xui, everybody needs a hobby but you've spent, what, four years posting similar questions all over the place. You've liked few if any of the answers and you've asked again. Don't kid yourself that it's been for your benefit or that of your students. You could easily have perfected your English with all that time and effort.
My obsession, such as it is, is based on my frustration, as a teacher, at seeing someone setting about things in such an odd way. I'd feel the same about someone who said they were going to learn the dictionary.
Looking on the bright side though, you could have been spending all this time looking for the secret significance of the dimensions of The Great Pyramid.
My obsession, such as it is, is based on my frustration, as a teacher, at seeing someone setting about things in such an odd way. I'd feel the same about someone who said they were going to learn the dictionary.
Looking on the bright side though, you could have been spending all this time looking for the secret significance of the dimensions of The Great Pyramid.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Juan, that's the answer that the lads down at the poultry processing factory would give, if anyone was daft enough to ask their opinion about a language point. Is this some kind of extreme Daoism? Studying teaching destroys your natural teaching mind?The real goal is to be able to say, as we often do, "I just feel that it's correct but I can't say why"
Complex it may be, but I'm sure we can do better than that.
-
fluffyhamster
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Sure, WE can do better than that; the thing is, though, will Xui appreciate it?!! (Answer = No! Next obvious truth: let's not bother - as somebody kind of said to me, it is just intellectual vanity to think you'll be "The One" who can make Agent Xui appreciate all that reality has to offer).woodcutter wrote:Complex it may be, but I'm sure we can do better than that.
The Feeling
Hey everyone.
Taking this debate out on a slightly different limb....
In my classes in Interpretative ESL we do work on an aspect of L2 speaking which I have called "the feeling". Following is how "the feeling" is obtained by my students. I'm changing the grammar point to protect the innocent.
Objective: Automatic production of question auxiliaries and question word order. Liaison and reduction of sound chains. Rhythm and intonation. Focused listening for key words in a structure.
T says "Now we are going to do sentence exercise 49. We'll be making questions. For example, number 1, He has coffee at a cafeteria. Does he have coffee at a cafeteria? Juan, you begin with number one. He has coffee at a cafeteria."
Juan makes a mistake based on the objectives listed. Perhaps he says "do he" instead of "does he", so Juan must repeat "does he" five times and then redo the question. Perhaps he pushes each word through his lips as if it were a difficult bowel movement and so he has to do a sing-song exercise, clapping his hands in order to place emphasis correctly so that the sentence may be understood. Perhaps he hasn't changed the "has" to "have" so T says "Remember everybody, when we use 'Do, Does or Did' to begin a question, the principle verb is in its root form!" maybe adding "This is true as well in the use of 'don't, doesn't and didn't in the negative form of a sentence." Juan needs then to repeat the sentence in question several times, his classmates also repeating with him to give him a bit of moral support.
T moves on to María. The same process, a new sentence.
Finally, someone will correct themselves before T has the chance to stop them:
S says "Do he--no--does he....?" T immediately congratulates the student on having gotten a bit of the "feeling". The student is not at all ignorant of the grammatical explanation of this word displacement usage in English, but on top of that, he/she begins to feel when something said is not appropriate and what's more, rapidly finds the appropriate sounds to spit out in correction. Despite the lack of grammatical explanation of the question form in itself, the student has shown the first sign that the language is becomming habit in his/her mouth.
I see a lot of satisfaction in my students when they finally realize the inmense dedication needed to oral practice is something that can not be avoided and should also be made a habit. When students come in and say that they have done such-and-such an exercise five times orally at home, I understand that they have really gotten "the feeling" that this work can be valuable to them.
Since the main focus of my work is giving practice strategies and correcting pronunciation interferences I don't get into the grammar thing too deeply. I have always found that the information sticks better when it is briefly explained and extremely practiced, seen and reseen.
In this type of class, I certainly use Juan's "I just feel that it's correct but I can't say why" comment, perhaps not as a goal, but as a nice indication that we are all getting "the feeling".
peace,
revel.
Taking this debate out on a slightly different limb....
In my classes in Interpretative ESL we do work on an aspect of L2 speaking which I have called "the feeling". Following is how "the feeling" is obtained by my students. I'm changing the grammar point to protect the innocent.
Objective: Automatic production of question auxiliaries and question word order. Liaison and reduction of sound chains. Rhythm and intonation. Focused listening for key words in a structure.
T says "Now we are going to do sentence exercise 49. We'll be making questions. For example, number 1, He has coffee at a cafeteria. Does he have coffee at a cafeteria? Juan, you begin with number one. He has coffee at a cafeteria."
Juan makes a mistake based on the objectives listed. Perhaps he says "do he" instead of "does he", so Juan must repeat "does he" five times and then redo the question. Perhaps he pushes each word through his lips as if it were a difficult bowel movement and so he has to do a sing-song exercise, clapping his hands in order to place emphasis correctly so that the sentence may be understood. Perhaps he hasn't changed the "has" to "have" so T says "Remember everybody, when we use 'Do, Does or Did' to begin a question, the principle verb is in its root form!" maybe adding "This is true as well in the use of 'don't, doesn't and didn't in the negative form of a sentence." Juan needs then to repeat the sentence in question several times, his classmates also repeating with him to give him a bit of moral support.
T moves on to María. The same process, a new sentence.
Finally, someone will correct themselves before T has the chance to stop them:
S says "Do he--no--does he....?" T immediately congratulates the student on having gotten a bit of the "feeling". The student is not at all ignorant of the grammatical explanation of this word displacement usage in English, but on top of that, he/she begins to feel when something said is not appropriate and what's more, rapidly finds the appropriate sounds to spit out in correction. Despite the lack of grammatical explanation of the question form in itself, the student has shown the first sign that the language is becomming habit in his/her mouth.
I see a lot of satisfaction in my students when they finally realize the inmense dedication needed to oral practice is something that can not be avoided and should also be made a habit. When students come in and say that they have done such-and-such an exercise five times orally at home, I understand that they have really gotten "the feeling" that this work can be valuable to them.
Since the main focus of my work is giving practice strategies and correcting pronunciation interferences I don't get into the grammar thing too deeply. I have always found that the information sticks better when it is briefly explained and extremely practiced, seen and reseen.
In this type of class, I certainly use Juan's "I just feel that it's correct but I can't say why" comment, perhaps not as a goal, but as a nice indication that we are all getting "the feeling".
peace,
revel.