1
Language Questions / Re: were linked or have been linked
« Last post by admin on Today at 10:49:59 am »#2 is better. The land bridges were there and complete in the past.
Recent Posts
2
Language Questions / Re: I have lived because you were by my side.
« Last post by admin on Today at 10:48:23 am »All four are fine. #2 and #4 ae probably more likely.
3
Language Questions / Re: a good game to lose
« Last post by admin on Today at 10:46:51 am »They ae both fine and mean what you suppose.
4
Language Questions / Re: themselves
« Last post by admin on Today at 10:45:58 am »There is little ambiguity here - it is, as you suppose, #1
5
Language Questions / themselves
« Last post by azz on May 24, 2022, 08:26:52 am »a. These people only care about themselves.
Is this sentence ambiguous?
Maybe
1. Each of them cares for himself or herself.
Maybe
2. They care about themselves as a group and take care of each other.
I'd think it would tend to mean '1', but I think there is ambiguity.
Many thanks
Is this sentence ambiguous?
Maybe
1. Each of them cares for himself or herself.
Maybe
2. They care about themselves as a group and take care of each other.
I'd think it would tend to mean '1', but I think there is ambiguity.
Many thanks
6
Language Questions / a good game to lose
« Last post by azz on May 24, 2022, 01:38:06 am »a. This is a good game for Manchester United to lose. If they lose this game, they'll learn a lesson and will start getting their act together.
b. This is a good game for Manchester United to lose. If they lose this game, they'll be eliminated and we won't have to play against them.
In (a) the speaker has the interests of Manchester United in mind.
In (b) the speaker doesn't have the interests of Manchester United in mind. He wants them to be eliminated so his team won't have to play against them. It will be good for him if Man U
Which of the sentences are grammatically correct and meaningful?
I think (a) works. I have stronger doubts about (b).
Many thanks
b. This is a good game for Manchester United to lose. If they lose this game, they'll be eliminated and we won't have to play against them.
In (a) the speaker has the interests of Manchester United in mind.
In (b) the speaker doesn't have the interests of Manchester United in mind. He wants them to be eliminated so his team won't have to play against them. It will be good for him if Man U
Which of the sentences are grammatically correct and meaningful?
I think (a) works. I have stronger doubts about (b).
Many thanks
7
Cafe / Re: I WANT TO CREATE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE FOR A BOOK I JUST READ
« Last post by ericabeeney on May 23, 2022, 09:01:06 am »You can create a Wikipedia page by seeking information on different platforms likes blogs, articles, and youtube. It is easy to create, I also learnt it from Youtube and then created.
8
Language Questions / I have lived because you were by my side.
« Last post by hide on May 20, 2022, 09:02:33 am »Suppose: I married my wife 50 years ago. I have been married to my wife for 50 years.
Is it OK to say,
#1: I have lived (have been able to live) until now because my wife was by my side. ?
What about #2?
#2: I have lived (have been able to live) until now because my wife has been by my side.
This is the same kind of question as I posted last time.
#3: The other continents have been able to exchange various species because they were linked by land bridges.
#4: The other continents have been able to exchange various species because they have been linked by land bridges.
Is it OK to say,
#1: I have lived (have been able to live) until now because my wife was by my side. ?
What about #2?
#2: I have lived (have been able to live) until now because my wife has been by my side.
This is the same kind of question as I posted last time.
#3: The other continents have been able to exchange various species because they were linked by land bridges.
#4: The other continents have been able to exchange various species because they have been linked by land bridges.
9
Language Questions / were linked or have been linked
« Last post by hide on May 16, 2022, 11:48:25 am »Help me, please.
The original sentences are:
Australia's plants and animals are just about the closest things to alien life you are likely to encounter on Earth. That's because Australia has been isolated from the other continents for a very long time － at least 45 million years. #1 The other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times because they've been linked by land bridges. Just 15,000 years ago it was possible to walk from the southern tip of Africa right through Asia and the Americas to Tierra del Fuego. Not Australia, however. Its birds, mammals, reptiles and plants have taken their own separate and very different evolutionary journey, and the result today is the world?s most distinct － and one of its most diverse － natural realms.
Can I change #1 into #2?
#1:The other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times
because they've been linked by land bridges.
#2 The other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times
because they were linked by land bridges.
I don't think it's OK, because I think that the other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times because they have been linked by land bridges, not because they were ( linked ) in the past. In this sense, they are still linked, so they are now able to and will be able to exchange species as long as they are linked by land bridges from now on. But as for Australia, it has not been able to exchange species with the other continents because it was separated from the other continents at least 45 million years ago and it has been isolated from the other continents since then.
So, it should be #1:
The other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times
because they have been linked by land bridges.
What do you say about this?
The original sentences are:
Australia's plants and animals are just about the closest things to alien life you are likely to encounter on Earth. That's because Australia has been isolated from the other continents for a very long time － at least 45 million years. #1 The other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times because they've been linked by land bridges. Just 15,000 years ago it was possible to walk from the southern tip of Africa right through Asia and the Americas to Tierra del Fuego. Not Australia, however. Its birds, mammals, reptiles and plants have taken their own separate and very different evolutionary journey, and the result today is the world?s most distinct － and one of its most diverse － natural realms.
Can I change #1 into #2?
#1:The other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times
because they've been linked by land bridges.
#2 The other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times
because they were linked by land bridges.
I don't think it's OK, because I think that the other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times because they have been linked by land bridges, not because they were ( linked ) in the past. In this sense, they are still linked, so they are now able to and will be able to exchange species as long as they are linked by land bridges from now on. But as for Australia, it has not been able to exchange species with the other continents because it was separated from the other continents at least 45 million years ago and it has been isolated from the other continents since then.
So, it should be #1:
The other habitable continents have been able to exchange various species at different times
because they have been linked by land bridges.
What do you say about this?
10
Language Questions / Re: Is it possible to use 'yet' with past tense?
« Last post by admin on May 12, 2022, 09:32:19 am »That's perfect. It is reported speech so it works well. I also believe that North American English uses the "simple past" quite a lot. E.g: I didn't do it yet.