16 Apr 13
Originally posted by FMFI think you'll find this article helpful:
Yes they are. If I was more motivated, I would provide more details! The one-is-right and the-other-is-wrong thing is probably the result of thousands of ELT teachers, over the decades, making up A Rule because they felt they ought to when cornered by students... who often have trouble processing the English language's idiosyncrasy-strewn reality and crave 'A Ru ...[text shortened]... e' mood is indicated by the use of the past tense, whether it's 'was' or 'were'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive
16 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by HandyAndyMaybe someone should go and edit wikipedia.
I think you'll find this article helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive
edit: although this bit seems to reflect reality:
"The main use of the past subjunctive form is in counterfactual if clauses:
If I were a woman, I would choose that color. He would let us know if he were planning to arrive late. Note that the indicative form was can be used equally well in sentences of this type, but were is sometimes preferred especially in more formal English."
24 Apr 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySo the statements are ambigious enough to allow all interpretations.
Okay, Okay, You Dudes and Dudettes Play Rough. Let's Try One More Easy Set of Five Fibber Statements for The Gipper: 1. The Body Color of Most North American Ducks is Sometimes Dark Purple; 2. Black Bears are Very Strong but Ducks are Even Stronger; 3. You Can't Get Down from An Elephant but Can From a Duck; 4. Tigers and Lions Would be No Match for An ...[text shortened]... s Will Be Disqualied On The Spot.
That Includes[hidden][b]YOU[/hidden]Got That?!
-B.[/b]
1. The body color is probably the body not the feathers? oris it?
2. "Strong" in respect to what absolute force of what exactly? Or relatively (what muscle in relation to what weight, length...?
3. what constitutes "being on an elephant" or "being on a duck"? Is "cold turkey" a duck by definition that ducks encompass all fowls or any sneaky definition????
4. Of course a tiger or a lion is no match for an enrgaed duck, since neither animal can fight well swimming or flying...
5.Evidently if only one of the statements are true this is trivial, since it states just that: either I (the fifth statemnt) am true or one oof the others.
So maybe for the intellectual challenged like me a set of statement with stricter definition would do?
24 Apr 13
3 edits
Originally posted by Ponderable"3. What constitutes "being on an elephant" or "being on a duck"?"
So the statements are ambigious enough to allow all interpretations.
1. The body color is probably the body not the feathers? oris it?
2. "Strong" in respect to what absolute force of what exactly? Or relatively (what muscle in relation to what weight, length...?
3. what constitutes "being on an elephant" or "being on a duck"? Is "cold turkey" a duck by ...[text shortened]... or the intellectual challenged like me a set of statement with stricter definition would do?
"Let's Try One More Easy Set of Five Fibber Statements for The Gipper:"
1. The Body Color of Most North American Ducks is Sometimes Dark Purple; False
2. Black Bears are Very Strong but Ducks are Even Stronger; False
3. a) You Can't Get Down from An Elephant; b) but Can Get Down From a Duck; False*
4. Tigers and Lions Would be No Match for An Enraged Male Duck in The Heat of The Moment; False
5. All Four Statements [1. through 4.] are Incorrect."True
*Comment: "You Can Get "Down" from Elephants in the Physical Sense of Climbing Down (with or without assistance) but you Can't Get "Down" from Elephants in the Technical (Soft Feather Flesh Covering) Sense which Does Apply In the Overall Context to The Species of Birds and Ducks. Because of This Imbedded Contradiction, Statement 3 Remains Partially True and Partially False. Therefore, Statement 5 Stands Alone as The Only One Statement of The Five Statements Which is Completely “True”.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_feather