The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Drag0nspeaker
About
User Name: Drag0nspeaker
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation: Security Guard
Interests: Life, languages, Scientology
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, September 12, 2011
Last Visit: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 1:08:15 AM
Number of Posts: 32,773
[3.47% of all post / 11.44 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: on one's way
Posted: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 1:08:14 AM
Hi nightdream.
Blodybeef is right.

There is nothing grammatically wrong with your sentences really - it is more a trouble with the choice of words.

"Go" is not an easy verb to play with (or to use as an example). It has too many meanings - and there are several idiomatic phrases which use "go".
You will not hear a native speaker use 'go' as a word on its own.
"Go" and "went" are not used without other data - you may go to somewhere, go from somewhere, go along a path, go to do something - but you rarely see a sentence which just says "They went" or "They went and went".

They had been travelling/walking/hiking for a long time and came across a hole.
They had been travelling/walking/hiking for a long time when they came across a hole.
They had been travelling/walking/hiking and saw a red fox running, so they stopped to watch.
They had been travelling/walking/hiking when they saw a red fox running, so they stopped to watch.
They had been going through the forest for a long time and came across a hole.
They went along the path till they came to a hole.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: the verb "Go" and past simple tense
Posted: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:45:35 AM
The tenses are not a problem really. It's the use of "went" as the verb.

You can't really just say "They went for a long time."
Went where?
OR - went without what?
Went from where?
They had been going where when dawn came?

As taurine says - the first is lacking information and the third doesn't seem to add up.

**************
There is a datum (which seems to have a lot of truth) that the most difficult words are the smallest words: as, be, go, get, at, to.
"Went" is a form of "go".

Try to use a common word (but not one of the multi-use two-letter or four-letter words).

They went for days and nights without stopping.
Try these:
They waited for a long time.
They waited till dawn came.


One doesn't usually use "had been . . ." with "till". It is usually followed by "when" and an event.
They had been waiting a long time when dawn came.
They'd been waiting five hours when dawn came.




Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: ...jacket, that...
Posted: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:20:11 AM
Hello Koh Elaine.
There are two possible meanings for the sentence. The difference is the commas!
The use of "that" and "which" depends on the commas, really.

She limped with her right leg and, in her brown knitted jacket that was faded by the sun and washed out by the rain, she looked like a poor, wretched, dirty servant.


This shows (by the lack of a comma before "that") that the faded, washed-out appearance of the jacket is important to the meaning of the sentence.
I think (like FounDit) that this is correct. The faded, washed-out jacket contributed to her dirty, wretched appearance, and is as important as her limp.

Some style-guides say that only "that" is correct without a comma. Others say that "that" and "which" are both correct.
Many American people (and some British people) only use "that".
Many British people (and some Americans) use "that or "which".


***************
The other possible meaning is this:

She limped with her right leg, and in her brown knitted jacket, which was faded by the sun and washed out by the rain, she looked like a poor, wretched, dirty servant.


This says that the clause "which was faded by the sun and washed out by the rain" is NOT important - it is just an extra bit of description of the jacket and could be omitted.
It also says that the jacket itself is unimportant and is just a minor description of the woman.

ALL style guides (and grammarians) say that only "which" can be used in this sort of sentence.
Americans and British people agree that "that" is incorrect.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: "for a long time", "very long" and tense
Posted: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 11:54:13 PM
There is some difficulty with the verb "went" - just because it has several meanings, and these meanings are really different types of verb.

It can mean "left one place in order to travel to another". This happens in an instant at a point in time. They were here, then they went. It usually uses the simple past and an exact time notation (at 8:30).
They went at 8:30, to get to work at 9:00.

It can mean "travelled". This takes time, not just an instant. It can use the simple past OR the progressive. It usually has a "period" time notation (last year, yesterday). It is not used with a duration.
They went to London last week.
They were going to London when the accident happened.

They went to London for eight hours.
They were going to London for six hours.
(meaning the journey took six hours)

It can mean "visited" or "stayed" - in any tense, and possibly with a duration.
They went to London for six weeks. (meaning the whole visit was six weeks long)

It can mean "existed" or "survived". It uses the simple past and a duration (and usually "without . . .").
They went five days without sleep.

**************
Because of these various meanings, you don't often hear the verb "went" used to mean "travelled" - it can be a bit ambiguous.

"They went for a long time" doesn't seem to mean anything it needs a destination. "They went to London for a long time."
"They went for very long" doesn't make sense. Even with other verbs, "very long" is normally used only in the negative.
They didn't sleep for very long.
They slept for a long time.
This is the opposite.

*******************
He went on his way and went for a very long time, he went for all eternity.

GOSH!
This looks like three different meanings of the same word - all in one sentence.

He set off, travelled for a very long time and stayed away for eternity.


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: which of the variants would be correct?
Posted: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 10:55:12 PM
nightdream wrote:
Could you give me some explanations in the rest 2 topics with the same names?

I'll try


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: The sequense of tense
Posted: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 10:46:52 PM
There are several 'things' happen in a sequence.
I don't usually think about it, but the way I fit tenses together is that:
- actions now are in one of the present tenses (usually the present progressive, but possibly the simple present)
- actions leading up to now, or one step into the past are in a past tense (simple past, past progressive) or can be in the perfect (have done or have been) but the perfect is not very common.
- actions more than one step into the past are often in the past perfect.

When I learned about tenses (back in the 1950s), the tenses were 'considered' slightly differently - it may help to look at that:
There are the present tenses - for things happening now (and NOW may be a long period or an instant). These are the present simple and the present progressive.
There are past tenses - for things once removed into the past - the past simple, past progressive and perfect.
There is the "pluperfect" (plus-pefect) - for things happening BEFORE things in the past. Two steps into the past. This is now called the past perfect.

Participle phrases (like "seeing her" and "admiring") are tenseless - they take their place in time from the main verb of the clause.

Seeing her, he forgot about the beast he hunted/(that) he was hunting/he had been hunting and gazed at her, admiring.

1. He was hunting a beast - this was earliest
2a. He saw her - this was in the past, but an instant after the hunting
2b. He forgot the hunt. This was at that same instant that he saw her.
2c. He gazed at her, admiringly. This was at that same instant that he saw her, and continuing on from then.
3. The sentence is being read. - this is the present

So I would put "hunt" in the past perfect - and all the other verbs in a past tense or in a participle phrase.

Seeing her, he forgot about the beast he had been hunting and gazed at her admiringly.

*******************
There is another way to look at the sequence - it depends on the speaker's considerations about time (ask Einstein for details Dancing ).

1a. He was hunting a beast - this was earliest
1b. He saw her - this was in the past, during the last second of the hunt
1c. He forgot the beast. This was at that same instant that he saw her, in the last second of the hunt.
1d. He gazed at her, admiringly. This was at that same instant that he saw her, and continuing on from then.
2. The sentence is being read. - this is the present

So they all happened at the same instant of the past (and then the gazing continued).

So all the verbs can be in the past tense, or participle phrases.

Seeing her, he forgot about the beast he was hunting and gazed at her admiringly.

*******************
It doesn't work really, to use the past perfect (non-progressive) as this puts the hunt further into the past. "He hunted" is a completed action. It's finished.

Seeing her, he forgot about the beast he had hunted and gazed at her, admiringly.
1. He hunted a beast - this was earliest
2. The hunt finished and some time elapsed (it may have been seconds or years, or anything in between)
3a. He saw her - this was in the past, but after the hunting had finished
3b. He forgot the hunt. This was at that same instant that he saw her.
3c. He gazed at her, admiringly. This was at that same instant that he saw her, and continuing on from then.
4. The sentence is being read. - this is the present

For another subject, another set of "happenings", this would be fine. It just doesn't seem to fit with this particular story.




Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: which of the variants would be correct?
Posted: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 10:04:35 PM
The first point (not what you are asking) is that you do not surrender someone.
Well you could, but it would not fit in this sentence.
A security guard, who had caught a thief, would surrender the thief to the police when they arrived - but a thief surrendering a rich man . . . to whom?

I think you mean "surrender to him" - which means the thief stops fighting or trying to escape and allows himself to be arrested.

**************
Now - your question:
The two variations seem to mean the same (but they do not make a lot of sense). However, just looking at the grammar:
They are complex sentences, with two actions by the same subject.

1. A. The rich man thought that, having deceived him, the thief was going to surrender to him.
1. B. The rich man ran back fast.

2. A. The rich man thought that the thief, having deceived him, was going to surrender to him.
2. B. The rich man ran back fast.

The clauses "B" do not change anything so can be omitted. They seem to be the later result of the thought.

1.A. - The phrase "having deceived him" is in the second clause - the object of "thought" - and so is connected to the thief.
The rich man's idea was - "The thief has deceived me, so he is going to surrender to me."

2.A. - The phrase "having deceived him" immediately follows the noun "thief" and so is connected to the thief.
The rich man's idea was - "The thief has deceived me, so he is going to surrender to me."

So - to me - your sentences say.
The rich man thought "The thief has deceived me, so he is going to surrender to me", then the rich man ran back fast.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: which of the variants would be correct?
Posted: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:30:40 PM
Hi!
I think that the difficulty is that your sentences are long and complicated (people just don't speak that way) and they seem to mean very little.
What connection is there between the colour of his horse and the lake evaporating? It's OK to have a couple of thoughts in one sentence, but then:
What does him feeling dizzy have to do with the oxen not drinking? and:
What connection is there between patting his horse and the lake evaporating? and:
How can one confuse seeing the lake evaporating with feeling dizzy?
It's not the grammar, it's just very difficult to think with the examples you ask about.

The several "forms of sentences" here seem to be all "correct forms". They are three independent clauses, with the third clause containing an adverbial phrase and being a complex clause in itself (having two clauses as the possible objects - "that he was feeling dizzy" or "that the lake was evaporating").

The first two clauses do not affect the form of the third.

1. He patted his black horse.
2. He wondered why the oxen did not drink.

3a. He thought, looking at the lake, that he was feeling dizzy or the lake was evaporating.
3b. He thought that, looking at the lake, he was feeling dizzy or the lake was evaporating.
3c. He thought that he was feeling dizzy or the lake was evaporating, looking at the lake.
3d. Looking at the lake, he thought that he was feeling dizzy or the lake was evaporating.

These four possibilities mean slightly different things - he definitely thought that he was feeling dizzy or that the lake was evaporating, but:
a. it was at the same time as he looked at the lake. ("Looking at the lake" is an adverbial phrase of time.)
b. it was because of something he saw while looking at the lake. ("Looking at the lake" is an adverbial phrase of cause.)
c. it might have been because of something that he saw - or might have been coincidentally while he was looking at the lake. ("Looking at the lake" might be an adverbial phrase of time, or an adverbial phrase of cause, or an adverbial clause of result.)
d. it was at the same time as he looked at the lake. ("Looking at the lake" is an adverbial phrase of time.)

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: which of the variants would be correct?
Posted: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:32:33 PM
The thing is that "on his way" doesn't tell you anything.
On his way to where? or on his way from where?
This makes sentences 1,2 and 4 look meaningless when they are presented in isolation.

With another sentence, it may be possible . . .

He came here from the hospital. On his way, while he was running, he saw a man carrying a sack.


It would seem a little odd to use your sentence #4.
"On his way" refers to "to here" and "from the hospital" - so it should be positioned in the sentence as near to "here from the hospital" as possible.

*****************
In general - as you have shown here - adverbial phrases like "on his way here" and "while running" (or adverbial clauses like "while he was running") can be moved around in the sentence without affecting the meaning much.
The main "rule" is that adverbial phrases have to be in the correct clause.

Sentences 1 and 2 (with both adverbials at the end) are a bit ambiguous. It is definite that he saw a man, and that the man was carrying the sack. However, was HE on his way or the man? And was the man running, or HIM?
I read them both as meaning: 1. the man was carrying the sack; 2. the man was on his way; 3. the man was running 4. HE saw all this.
But did you mean that: 1. the man was carrying the sack; 2. HE saw the man; 3. HE was on his way; 4. HE was running?
#1 seems to mean one and #2 seems to mean the other - but neither of them is certain.

#3 seems not quite so ambiguous - but there is still a little doubt: Was HE running while seeing, or was the man carrying the sack running?

Another important point is that adjectival phrases or clauses (like "carrying a sack" in this sentence) generally come right after the noun they modify (or as soon as practically possible). It is "the man" who is carrying the sack, not "he".
That would be "He saw a man while he, carrying a sack, was running." or "He saw a man while he was running carrying a sack."


Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Topic: How to express in English?
Posted: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 7:39:11 PM
The best suggestion I can come up with is "Not even one word of news was heard of him."

"Even" can#'t really be use with an uncountable.

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.