Results 1 to 6 of 6
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Armenian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 2,554
    #1

    because he was with me all the time

    1-John did not steal the diamond, because he was with me all the time.

    2-John does not do nasty things to people, because nobody has seen him be nasty.


    3-John does help people, because he helped me yesterday.


    I think '1' works just fine. I am not sure about the other two. The 'because' clause is telling us why the affirmation was made. I am saying that 'John does not...' because we know for a fact that....


    Gratefully,
    Navi.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Laos

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 57,879
    #2

    Re: because he was with me all the time

    In 1, I would use can't/couldn't have stolen. 3 might work better with a semi-colon instead of comma + because.

  1. emsr2d2's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • UK

    • Join Date: Jul 2009
    • Posts: 41,844
    #3

    Re: because he was with me all the time

    I would go with Tdol's "can't/couldn't have stolen" or with "I know John didn't steal the diamond - he was with me the whole time".
    Remember - if you don't use correct capitalisation, punctuation and spacing, anything you write will be incorrect.

  2. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,091
    #4

    Re: because he was with me all the time

    I think 1 and 3 would work in the right context. 2 is illogical.

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Armenian
      • Home Country:
      • Iran
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Nov 2002
    • Posts: 2,554
    #5

    Re: because he was with me all the time

    Thank you all very much.

    Well, I guess the assumption in '2' is that if he did nasty things to people, someone would have seen it. So far, everything is fine, as the person one is being nasty to sees one be nasty to them. But how do we establish that nobody has seen him be nasty? We can't ask everybody if they have seen him be nasty or not....

    There the reasoning is weak. But I am not sure it is illogical.


    Gratefully,
    Navi.

  3. Raymott's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Australia
      • Current Location:
      • Australia

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 24,091
    #6

    Re: because he was with me all the time

    So there are no serial killers, embezzlers, child abusers, etc. that nobody (willing or able to speak) has seen do nasty things?
    When you say or write "Nobody has seen it", it has to mean "Nobody that I know of / Nobody on record / Nobody who has complained or is willing to admit to having seen him be nasty" - unless you are omniscient. Otherwise, where do you get the justification to say that sentence?
    OK, I'll agree to saying that the reasoning is weak.

Similar Threads

  1. [Cover Letter] long time reader, first time poster: please check my cover letter!
    By sssupersssnake in forum CVs, Resumes and Applications
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29-Jul-2013, 21:09
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-Jul-2013, 15:27
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20-Apr-2013, 20:59
  4. [General] plenty of time/ample time/as if with some purpose/deliberately/
    By vil in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23-Aug-2009, 04:48
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-Apr-2009, 14:01

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •