awkward sentences help needed

[ostap77]

Here are the sentences from texts we were given to translate

1) "It was long since I had last seen her and if someone had not mentioned her name I hardly think I would have recognized her." There is something wrong in this sentence with "It was a long time since I had last seen her". Guess it's incorrect. On top of that, this part sounds weird to me "I hardly think I would have recognized her"????

2)"We're none of us getting younger."?? I would have said "None of us is getting younger." OK?

 

[ho_jc]

Here are the sentences from texts we were given to translate

1) "It was long since I had last seen her and if someone had not mentioned her name I hardly think I would have recognized her." There is something wrong in this sentence with "It was a long time since I had last seen her". Guess it's incorrect. On top of that, this part sund wierd for me "I hardly think I would have recognized her"????

i would say: It has been long since i last saw her.

2)"We're none of us getting younger."?? I would have said "None of us is getting younger." OK?

agree with you.

 

[5jj]

1. "We're none of us getting younger."?? I would have said 2. "None of us is getting younger." OK?

#1 is idiomatic but fine, and not uncommon.
#2 is also fine.

It is also common to put any in front of the comparitive adjective.

 

[ostap77]

#1 is idiomatic but fine, and not uncommon.
#2 is also fine.

It is also common to put any in front of the comparitive adjective.

What do you think about grammar in the first sentence "It was a long time since I had last seen her" kind of unusual? Is it OK to say " I hardly think I would have recognized her"? I would have said "I think I would have hardly recognized her"?

 

[~Mav~]

*** NOT A TEACHER ***

There is something wrong in this sentence with "It was a long time since I had last seen her". Guess it's incorrect.

Not, it isn't. The quoted sentence is from a narrative. The Past Perfect puts the second part before the narrative point, which is past.

On top of that, this part sounds weird to me "I hardly think I would have recognized her"????

It's also fine as it is. In my humble opinion, "hardly" plays similar role as "don't" would do. Consider this, "I don't think I would have recognized her".:idea:



PS: Incidentally, it is from "The Luncheon" by William Somerset Maugham. :up:

 

[ostap77]

*** NOT A TEACHER ***



Not, it isn't. The quoted sentence is from a narrative. The Past Perfect puts the second part before the narrative point, which is past.


It's also fine as it is. In my humble opinion, "hardly" plays similar role as "don't" would do. Consider this, "I don't think I would have recognized her".:idea:



PS: Incidentally, it is from "The Luncheon" by William Somerset Maugham. :up:

Do we use since + the past perfect in coversation? I've never heard that one. Did anyone ever hear that?

 

[5jj]

Do we use since + the past perfect in coversation. I've never heard that one. Did anyone ever hear that?

If by that one you mean since + past perfect, yes. I use it when it's appropriate. I have heard many others use it. It is not quite as commonly used in real life as the grammar books suggest, but it's there.

We don't notice it sometimes because the 'd is often hard to hear, especially before words beginning with a /d/ or /t/ sound

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

Here are the sentences from texts we were given to translate

1) "It was long since I had last seen her and if someone had not mentioned her name I hardly think I would have recognized her."

I'd say

It took long since I'd seen her and hadn't someone mentioned the name I think I'd have hardly recognised her.


In addition, ho_jc, if you used

It has been long since i last saw her.

how would you continue with the rest

and if someone had not mentioned her name I hardly think I would have recognized her.

?

 

[lauralie2]

Agreed, "We're none of us getting younger" is odd, to me (it doesn't ring North American English). The grammar I get; it's fine. It's the contraction "We're" for We are that's different.

 

[5jj]

Agreed, "We're none of us getting younger" is odd, to me (it doesn't ring North American English). The grammar I get; it's fine. It's the contraction "We're" for We are that's different.

I can live with the contaction there though I'd prefer any in front of younger, as I mentioned previously.


I can't accept the contraction in e2e4's:

hadn't someone mentioned her name I think I'd have hardly recognised her.

It's OK with: If someone hadn't mentioned her name I think I'd have hardly recognised her.

However when we use inversion and omit if, I feel that contraction is not acceptable. We must say:

Had not someone mentioned ..

It sound awkward, but the alternative is possibly ambiguous:

Had someone not mentioned ...

Apart from in discussions such as this, I would always use the if constructions for negatives.

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

No problem teacher fivejedjon.
"..and if someone hadn't mentioned the name..." is pretty fine for me for sure.

But my problem is that I am now a bit confused thinking about should there be "had taken" instead of "took", actually.

It had taken long since I had seen her and if someone hadn't mentioned the name I think I would have hardly recognised her.

It had taken long since I had seen her is actually "the past equivalent" for

It has taken long since I saw her.

Isn't it?:roll:

 

[5jj]

But my problem is that I am now a bit confused thinking about should there be "had taken" instead of "took", actually.
You are not the only one. I cut that section from your sentence when I dealt with the second half, because I didn't feel like going into it.


The most natural thing for me to say would be:

'It was so long since I had seen her...'

or, if appropriate:

'It had been so long since I had seen her'.

My problem is with the verb used in your original. It normally 'takes' a long time to do some thing, not to not-do. The unnaturalness of the verb made me think that the tenses were unnatural. They are not - in the right context.

5

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

The roots are here I think.

Please look at this sentence below

It is so long since I have seen her. It doesn't mean for me It has been so long since I saw her.

But the sentence

It is so long since I have not seen her. = It has been so long since I saw her. (the same meaning)

Because of this I prefer

It had been so long since I had seen her'.

In this sentence I had seen her is not the deep past for I have seen her but for I saw her.
So that in the first part must be It had been so long..

It had been so long since I had seen her so that I didn't recognise her.

Dear me! :roll:

I am really sorry but I, at the moment, see this this way.

 

[birdeen's call]

Agreed, "We're none of us getting younger" is odd, to me (it doesn't ring North American English). The grammar I get; it's fine. It's the contraction "We're" for We are that's different.

I don't get the grammar. Could you explain it?

 

[5jj]

It is so long since I have seen her. It doesn't mean for me It has been so long since I saw her.

For me, these two have practically the same meaning.

But the sentence

It is so long since I have not seen her. = It has been so long since I saw her. (the same meaning)

I know that the equivalent of your first sentence is possible in some languages. It is not in English with that meaning. It is just about possible in some context such as:

I used to see her most days, but there would be the occasional day when I didn't see her. However, for some time now, I have seen her every day. It has been so long since I haven't seen her ...

As regards the tense in the first clause, both is and has been are possible, with very little difference in meaning in practical terms. I suppose some might insist that the present perfect is obligatory, but I don't feel it is with this expression.

I'll come to the final part of your question after a stiff drink.

5

 

[5jj]

I don't get the grammar. Could you explain it?

I originally called it idiomatic. I think I'll stick with that,

 

[ostap77]

/A learner/


I'd say

It took long since I'd seen her and hadn't someone mentioned the name I think I'd have hardly recognised her.


In addition, ho_jc, if you used

It has been long since i last saw her.

how would you continue with the rest

and if someone had not mentioned her name I hardly think I would have recognized her.

?

We can not begin with the past simple and continue with past perfect, right ?

But we may begin with the past perfect and go on with the past simple as in

"He told me he'd been to many countries,visited different towns and saw many people."???

Taking a wild guess, how many people would notice the difference if there was a coma or period after "saw her"?

"It had been a long time since I last saw her,(.) and If someone hadn't mentioned her name I hardly think I would have recognized her." There is a chanse that someone might have said that because when we speak we can't construct our phrases completly in advance.???

 

[ostap77]

Agreed, "We're none of us getting younger" is odd, to me (it doesn't ring North American English). The grammar I get; it's fine. It's the contraction "We're" for We are that's different.

So it should have been "None of us is getting..."?

 

[5jj]

Because of this I prefer

It had been so long since I had seen her'.

In this sentence I had seen her is not the deep past for I have seen her but for I saw her.
So that in the first part must be It had been so long..

No.

You are confusing things slightly.

The tense in the dependent clause may be affected by the tense in the main clause. The reverse is not true.

So, whether we say I have seen her, I had seen her or I saw her will be influenced by whether we say It is so long, It has been so long, It was so long or It had been so long.

The primary task, therefore, is to establish the tense in the main clause.

The past perfect is appropriate in the main clause only if there is a reference (implied or expressed) to a subsequent time period or starting point. It is thus appropriate in:

I was delighted to see Joan. It had been so long since...

Only when we have established that, can we think about the tense in the dependent clause.

 

[5jj]

So it should have been "None of us is getting..."?

uh oh. we are getting into two completely different discussions here, and it's becoming difficult to follow.. I suggest that if anybody wishes to continue the none of us is getting... discussion, they open a new thread, and give a link in this thread.