mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Profile: alex1981x
About
User Name: alex1981x
Forum Rank: Member
Gender: None Specified
Statistics
Joined: Friday, May 7, 2010
Last Visit: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:07:01 PM
Number of Posts: 24
[0.00% of all post / 0.01 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Help me with this interpretation
Posted: Thursday, June 17, 2010 6:21:07 AM
Teacherwoman maybe we're talking about the same thing over and over again but with a different terminology

As far as I know you can simply nd correctly use the Present Perfect to express your past experiences in general: 2I've seen that movie 3 times".

My doubt was about the fact that in this thread somebody has confused my meaning, confusing a duration of past event for x months !

What I wanted to express is that Present Perfect,unlike simple past, express something started in the past and dragged until now, up to now.
The words "for/since" are used to express duration and,in the case of the Present Perfect,express the temporal link with the Present,express "how long" something has lasted until now !..SIMPLY STATING THE DURATION OF A FACT

It's maybe true that the fact won't have a future,a sort of continuation. but it's absolutely linked with the present.
Otherwisw,as I said before,if you wanted to express something conluded and closed in the past,that as well lasted for a lapse of time,you MUST only use the simple past accompanied by for/since.
Or Past Perfect, depending on the context.

I hope I'm understood Teacher

Thanks for your contribution

Topic: Help me with this interpretation
Posted: Thursday, June 17, 2010 3:42:31 AM
oxymoron wrote:
alex1981x wrote:
Hi everybody

2 people said this sentences some days ago


-I've eaten lobster for 5 months

-I've been eating lobster for 5 months

Which is the difference ? Are they correct ?

Thanks


d'oh! They both mean precisely the same, hence no real difference [semantics]. They are equally correct. The rest is bollocks.Speak to the hand Now these lobsters.........andiamo!



Ok so they mean in general,eating lobster for a period of 5 months until now, more or less.
There's still a real link with the present.

Thanks Oxy,at least there's somebody that really knows english grammar rules.

Forza Italia
Topic: Help me with this interpretation
Posted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:30:43 PM
teacherwoman wrote:
alex1981x wrote:
Ok guys

...I should have used the simple past to state the I ate lobster for 5 months but in the past.
In my example i Think we're talking about something different.
I begun eating lobster 5 months ago but Until now,in the present.Maybe I'm not going to eat it in the future.
It is not a "past action" completely, because we are using the duration form with "for/since)

Am I right guys?

Does anybody agree ?



For 5 long months, I ate lobster / I had to eat lobster lobster - until I was rescued by ...
An action completely in the past.


It's the verb form (present perfect) that links past and present, not the duration form "for"


I don't agree with you
What do you mean exactly with "finished in the past" ? Sure that could be an action finished very recently or today as well, but not 5 months ago or 5 years ago,because in that case Simple Past + "for,since" is needed.
It's also the presence of "for", in this context the links past and present,meaning "up to now".
If I wanted to express something ended in the past,concluded in the past,but that lasted for a lapse of time,I should have used Simple Past. "I ATE LOBSTER FOR 5 MONTHS"

Here we're talking about something,that, surely started in the past but has also gone ahead until now or until recently.

Anyway, my example is neither a Past-Perfect nor a Simple Past

Topic: Help me with this interpretation
Posted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:27:44 AM
ahahahahah...!Come on oXY !...please tell me your grammar opinion about it !...maybe we can reach an arrangement on these fucking lobsters then :)
Topic: Help me with this interpretation
Posted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 3:12:27 AM
Ok guys

just I didn't get the use of a Present Perfect for a "past action"..
I mean,since I wrote "for 5 months" I'm implying that for 5 months UNTIL now I've been on a diet of lobster.Anyway,it is a more closed action in comparison with the Continious form. But the important thing is I eat lobster "until now".
Therefore it is something begaun in the past but related to the present.
I should have used the simple past to state the I ate lobster for 5 months but in the past.
In my example i Think we're talking about something different.
I begun eating lobster 5 months ago but Until now,in the present.Maybe I'm not going to eat it in the future.
It is not a "past action" completely, because we are using the duration form with "for/since)

Am I right guys?

Does anybody agree ?
Topic: Help me with this interpretation
Posted: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:59:47 PM
iciek wrote:
alex1981x wrote:
Hi everybody

2 people said this sentences some days ago


-I've eaten lobster for 5 months

-I've been eating lobster for 5 months

Which is the difference ? Are they correct ?

Thanks


Both are acceptable


Ok so for the grammar they're ok :)

What about the meaning ?

What do you think Iciek?..Why are they slightly different ?

I've been told that they don't mean exactly the same...

Thanks
Topic: Help me with this interpretation
Posted: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:56:48 PM
Hi everybody

2 people said this sentences some days ago


-I've eaten lobster for 5 months

-I've been eating lobster for 5 months

Which is the difference ? Are they correct ?

Thanks
Topic: se io sapessi della festa sarei venuto
Posted: Monday, June 7, 2010 4:31:12 AM
scorfede wrote:
^^ in questa frase DEVI usare l'indicativo :D perché hai creato una subordinata relativa, niente a che fare con l'oggettiva e con nessun valore che richiede il congiuntivo, per tanto in quest'ultima frase sì all'indicativo :D


Ok chiarissimo...maledette subordinate :)

Un ultima cosa Scorfede, sugli Indicativi + Congiuntivi :

1)"Ritengo che tu sia la persona più adatta per questo lavoro" (presente)
2)"Ritengo che tu fossi la persona più adatta... " (nel passato) Quando?
3)"Ritengo che tu fossi stata la persona più adatta...." (nel passato) Quando?

La 2 e la 3 sono corrette vero? Se si, che differenza temporale o di significato c'è tra le due ?

Possono essere intercambiabili scusa ? Anxious
Topic: se io sapessi della festa sarei venuto
Posted: Sunday, June 6, 2010 4:39:04 PM
oK Scorfede benissimo..quindi vada per il Congiuntivo presente allora :)

Se usassimo anche l'Indicativo dopo il "che" sarebbe una bestemmia pensi?

Ossia "Se non fossi una persona "che risparmia" ora sarei in crisi pieno di debiti"

Pensavo che d'altronde la sequenza "se NON fossi" implica che quindi "SEI" al contrario un qualcosa;quindi che hai davvero una certa caratteristica al momento in cui parli
.... e quindi è una constatazione della realtà e l'Indicativo starebbe a pennello invece che un Congiuntivo ! :)

Cosa ne pensi?
Topic: se io sapessi della festa sarei venuto
Posted: Sunday, June 6, 2010 3:35:39 PM
Quindi non c'è possibilità di modificare la mia frase ipotetica scusa?..il "che ..." che segue il primo "se" congiuntivo è sempre relativo al passato mi vuoi dire?...sempre a prescindere ?

Tu usi degli esempi con l'indicativo però!..quindi "se non fossi una persona che abbia dei risparmi" è sbagliata lo stesso?