while/when

Status
Not open for further replies.

navi tasan

Key Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
Armenian
Home Country
Iran
Current Location
United States
Are these sentences correct:
1-When poor, I used to eat a lot of canned food.
2-While poor, I used to eat a lot of canned food.

Isn't 2 ambiguous? Couldn't it mean the same as 1, and also:
2b-Although I was poor, I used to eat a lot of canned food.
 

Tdol

Editor, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
2 doesn't work for me- you could use 'when'. The 'although' idea doesn't work. ;-)
 
W

Will

Guest
While both work, they both seem a little funky, I guess. I think it should read: When/While I was poor, I used to eat a lot of canned food. The first part (When/While poor,...) seems like you're saying it happens a lot. But when you get to the second part (I used to eat a lot of canned food), it seems like you're saying it's only happened once, and never again. Therefore, I think adding "I was" will clearify it.
 

Tdol

Editor, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
2b would only work as a sentence, if canned food were more expensive with the 'although' meaning. ;-)
 

dduck

Member
Joined
May 24, 2003
A couple of points. I suspect that the original poster is learning these sentences rote style thus I strongly suspect that s/he is studying under the Chinese Education System.

Secondly, there doesn't need to be an extra 'I was'. Under the education system of Yore, Will would probably have lost marks for suggesting so. In modern parlance, however, we do normal add in these tautilogical words - quite inelegant though it be.

Iain
 

RonBee

Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2003
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I agree with Will that "When I was poor, I used to...." makes for a more natural sentence.

:)
 
W

Will

Guest
Secondly, there doesn't need to be an extra 'I was'. Under the education system of Yore, Will would probably have lost marks for suggesting so. In modern parlance, however, we do normal add in these tautilogical words - quite inelegant though it be.

What do you mean the 'I was' would be tautilogical? The sentence doesn't seem very natural without it.
 

Tdol

Editor, UsingEnglish.com
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
I think it's fine without 'I was'. ;-)
 

dduck

Member
Joined
May 24, 2003
Will said:
What do you mean the 'I was' would be tautilogical? The sentence doesn't seem very natural without it.

Adding the words 'I was' adds no extra information, hence the information is redundant. The sentence, perhaps a little formal in todays terms, can be understood without this addition. Why say more than you have to?

Iain
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top