Results 1 to 5 of 5

    • Join Date: Jan 2008
    • Posts: 18
    #1

    tell me why?

    Hi,I have two questions one is wellington led the english army ____(defeat) the frenches. I don't know whether I use the past-partipal or the present?
    The other is he's lived all his live,i think it express the meaning that he was lived here,and he no longer live here,isn't that right?THANKS


    • Join Date: Nov 2007
    • Posts: 5,409
    #2

    Re: tell me why?

    Hi,I have two questions one is wellington led the english army ____(defeat) the frenches. I don't know whether I use the past-partipal or the present?
    The other is he's lived all his live,i think it express the meaning that he was lived here,and he no longer live here,isn't that right?THANKS


    Hi,I have two questions. One is,"Wellington led the English army that defeated the Frenchies."
    I don't know whether I use the (past perfect??) or the present?

    I don't understand why you think it would be present? 'led' is past tense, so the sentence is not using the historical present. Do you mean, should I use past perfect? as in "that had defeated the Frenchies."

    Use of the past perfect would be correct in the context of this:
    Wellington fought the Aussies in some battle ; and 'he led the (same) English army that had defeated the Frenchies the year before.'

    The other is:
    "He's lived all his life (in England).
    I think it express the meaning that he was lived here,and he no longer live here,isn't that right?

    No.It means, from when he was born up to this very moment, he has lived in England.
    You could say: He's lived all his life in England, so when he moves to Australia, he'll find the heat and the flies a bit hard to adjust to."


    • Join Date: Jan 2008
    • Posts: 18
    #3

    Re: tell me why?

    [quote=David L.;308671]Wellington fought the Aussies in some battle ; and 'he led the (same) English army that had defeated the Frenchies the year before.'
    can I say he led the english army which had defeated the frenchies instead that ?Or simply delete it ? THANKS

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Tamil
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • India

    • Join Date: May 2008
    • Posts: 619
    #4

    Re: tell me why?

    [quote=franklin xia;308710]
    Quote Originally Posted by David L. View Post
    Wellington fought the Aussies in some battle ; and 'he led the (same) English army that had defeated the Frenchies the year before.'
    can I say he led the english army which had defeated the frenchies instead that ?Or simply delete it ? THANKS
    No.'That' can't be replaced by 'which'. That refers both people and things. 'That' can not be deleted as it is the relative pronoun for'the army'.
    Regards,
    rj1948.
    Last edited by rj1948; 12-Jun-2008 at 16:34.

  1. tzfujimino's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Japanese
      • Home Country:
      • Japan
      • Current Location:
      • Japan

    • Join Date: Dec 2007
    • Posts: 2,698
    #5

    Re: tell me why?

    Quote Originally Posted by David L. View Post
    So in your sentence, 'that' must be used because it tells us specifically which army he led - the one he had led against the Frenchies the year before, not some new army.
    Compare:
    "Wellington led his army against the Aussies, which was a silly thing to do if they can't even win against the pygmies of Eatumwhiteman Land!"
    Here, the second piece of information after 'which' does not further identify or specify the army, but merely adds the information that they can't be very good soldiers.
    I'm really sorry to barge in.
    So...are you suggesting that "which" is less likely to be used in the "restrictive clause"?

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
  •