|
#1
| |||
| |||
| Context:: Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. ============================= But it has been surprisingly hard to pin down exactly how this nuclear reaction takes place. Does "pin down" mean "limite"? Or should it mean "to explain clearly"? |
|
#2
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
were it left to me - This is normally "if it were left to me". It's possible to begin a second or third conditional sentence with "were". This could be considered an inversion. It's more formal. It's not something that is used often in English, but it is used. It has a more serious tone. were + noun or noun phrase = if + noun or noun phrase + were were + it = if it were In your example sentence "pin down" means "define". I take "pin down" to mean "define". As Cambridge Dictionaries Online points out, "pin down" can also mean "discover exact details about something". I suppose if we discover exact details about something, then we can also say that we discover the definition of something. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...&dict=CALD Dictionary.com has this to say about "pin down": pin down To fix or establish clearly: was finally able to pin down the cause of the disease. pin down Fix or establish clearly, as in The firefighters finally were able to pin down the source of the odor. [Mid-1900s] Here, it would appear that Dictionary.com understands "pin down" as I do in your example sentence. pin down v 1: define clearly; "I cannot narrow down the rules for this game" http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...amp;q=pin+down |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| Cool! Thank you! PS。 I didn't get "It's possible to begin a second or third conditional sentence with "were"" fully. The sentence in the thread is a "second conditional sentence"? Or third? |
|
#4
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Your example sentence in the thread is a second conditional. Its formal tone is marked not only by beginning the sentence with "were", but also by using "should" in the result clause. Normally, "would" is used. Now, in order to understand the second and third conditional, I'll refer you to a link right here at UsingEnglish. I could explain it, but I think I'll save that work for when I write my own conditional sentence tutorial. 8) http://www.usingenglish.com/articles...ditionals.html Read the next section of this tutorial - The Zero Conditional Other sections: Zero Conditional | First Conditional | Second Conditional | Third Conditional http://www.usingenglish.com/articles...nditional.html http://www.usingenglish.com/articles...nditional.html http://www.usingenglish.com/articles...nditional.html http://www.usingenglish.com/articles...nditional.html |
|
#5
| |||
| |||
| Five links! I'd read them carefully later. Thank you. |
|
#6
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
I'll read them carefully later. will - spontaneous decision to do something in the future We don't use "would" in that manner for the future. We use "would" for possibilities we imagine in the present or the future, as well as other things of course. If I had time, I'd read it now. I'd read it tomorrow morning, but I won't have time then either. It'll have to wait until tomorrow night. would have + past participle - imaginary result for a completed action I would've called you to say I'd be late if I had known there was going to be so much traffic. 1. I didn't call. 2. I didn't know there was going to be so much traffic. |
|
#7
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
1. If it were left up to me... 2. If the decision to have a government without newspapers or to have newspapers without a government were left up to me, I should not hestitate a moment to prefer the latter. :wink: Note that, If it were left up to me... means the same things as Were it left up to me.... There's also, If he had ~ Had he. By changing the word order (i.e., it were to were it; he had to had he), "If" is no longer required. All the best, :D |
|
#8
| ||||
| ||||
| By changing the word order (i.e., it were to were it; he had to had he), "If" is no longer required. << I should've remembered to include that in my post. It's good that you caught it. :D |
|
#9
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Are you sure about the second conditional inversion???? |
|
#10
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
Here's a pdf document. I only use page two of this document. Take a look at page two, and see what Simon says. Simon says: http://www.longman.com/ae/incharge1/pdf/ic1_unit11.pdf http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...+for+this+*%22 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...mp;btnG=Search 8) |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| normal, grammatical, order |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Course and order | NewHope | Ask a Teacher | 2 | 21-Oct-2004 14:01 |
| in order to | Anonymous | Ask a Teacher | 2 | 14-Dec-2003 21:29 |
| normal for | FW | Ask a Teacher | 2 | 21-Aug-2003 13:29 |
| Questions about Inversions - Inverted Word Order | Anonymous | General Language Discussions | 21 | 31-May-2003 22:43 |
| in order to | navi tasan | Ask a Teacher | 8 | 06-Apr-2003 11:52 |