aaleks's log

[Ani]

And then, I guess, it's just impossible to explain through rules the difference between "did" and "have done" in a certain context. I mean there's a difference between: did, have done and 've done, had done and 'd done, etc. a little shift of meaning. I think one has to be a native speaker to explain what I mean.

And then you complicate things with Americans avoiding the use of the pluperfect unless *absolutely* necessary. I doubt there's a grammar book in the world that will run you through situations to test whether pluperfect is avoidable or necessary. So really in the end, there's no choice but to learn the way you did.

[aaleks]

del.

[aaleks]

del.

[StringerBell]

Something to keep in mind, which I'm sure you already know, is that language is constantly evolving, so that what might have been considered "correct" at some point (and still might be technically "correct") falls out of usage as people slowly start using the language differently. Grammar rules tend to be calcified and don't always reflect the fluid nature of language, which might account for the inconsistency you're seeing.

Native English speakers also don't often use grammar correctly when they write or speak. As you pointed out in a previous post, "should have" is often pronounced like "should of" as an example. As a result, people who are either uneducated and/or in general don't read much and therefore don't have a decent grasp of their own language now often tend to write things like "should of" not even realizing that they're wrong. Or they have no idea how to use they're vs. their vs. there correctly, or they don't understand that you shouldn't use an apostrophe when making a word plural.

Unfortunately, my generation and those younger than me didn't study much grammar in school (there are surely exceptions, but this is true for the majority). The results of of practically ignoring the study of grammar are appalling. Nowadays English speakers develop a decent sense of grammar (at least as an American)by reading a lot - unless you are driven to self-study grammar, which most people aren't.

By reading extensively from a very young age, I was able to get a good sense of what sounds right or wrong, but it wasn't until I decided to start investigating some grammar rules on my own (as an adult!) that I realized things I should have known much sooner. My husband (who is not a native English speaker) has sometimes had to explain English grammar to me, which is kind of embarrassing when you think about it.

Do you study a lot of Russian grammar in your schools?

[aaleks]

del.

[StringerBell]

Speaking of English rules. I've notice that usually when I'm reading a text written by a non-native speaker (with good command of English) I can understand, or easily guess, why for example the author use that or this tense, and all the tenses would be neatly put according the "textbook" rules. But it isn't the same with the texts written by native speakers, including professional writers. Often their choice of tenses, articles, etc. might come as a surprise and seems to go against the rules.

If you want, the next time you come across a sentence where you can't figure out why a certain tense was used, why not post it here? I'm sure other native English speakers (in addition to me) would be happy to try to shed some light on the situation. There is a lot that can be learned on your own, but sometimes it really helps to have some insight from a native speaker. It might be that after a few discussions about a particularly vexing verb tense it makes more sense.

[aaleks]

del.

[aaleks]

del.

[rdearman]

I came across two such sentences recently.

#1
"... consulted one of a dozen clipboards hanging on the wall behind him, Caitlin realizing for the first time that he hadn't even switched his computer on."

Why "Caitlin realizing" but not "Caitlin realized" for example?

#2
"She started to move for the door, then stopped."

Why "started to move" but not "started moving"? Is it because of the second part "then stopped"? And what the difference for a native speaker between "to do" and "doing" in that kind/type of sentences. It seems that confusing these two is one of my most persistent mistakes, close to so-called fossilized ones.

Maybe someone can explain it to me in layman's terms?

I'm not sure completely, and I'm not very good with grammar, but I'll give you my impression as an English speaker.

#1 I am not really sure about this one, however I believe that in this context "realising" means he is realising it right now, in that instant. Where as "realized" implies some time in the past, even if it was a few seconds ago.
#2 - To me the difference between "started to move" and "started moving" is "started to move" means the move was thought about but not started. However, "started moving" means that the action has begun, but was then stopped.

[rfnsoares]

I came across two such sentences recently.

#1
"... consulted one of a dozen clipboards hanging on the wall behind him, Caitlin realizing for the first time that he hadn't even switched his computer on."

Why "Caitlin realizing" but not "Caitlin realized" for example?

#2
"She started to move for the door, then stopped."

Why "started to move" but not "started moving"? Is it because of the second part "then stopped"? And what the difference for a native speaker between "to do" and "doing" in that kind/type of sentences. It seems that confusing these two is one of my most persistent mistakes, close to so-called fossilized ones.

Maybe someone can explain it to me in layman's terms?

1) I think I know why... because "Caitlin was realizing for the first time...". In russian I believe you'd apply the adverbial participle. The same usage in english, I guess

2) Have you read this article? It might be helpul.
https://www.italki.com/article/1048/ger ... e-question