Boy with the bruised eye

Hey Lena…well, I really hadn’t considered the passage as a whole to make it more conversational. It would be understandable with those revisions, but you’re correct about “sitting and playing”. If I were to completely rewrite this, I’d probably do it as follows:

A boy came home from school, and his mother asked him, “What a bruise you’ve got under your eye! What happened?”
“I fought with Peter today”
“How did it happen?”
“Well, I was sitting at my desk playing a game on my cellphone, and Pete came up to me and asked to play. I refused, and said that I wanted to play by myself. When he tried to pull the phone out of my hands, I hid it in my bag. That’s when he hit me in the face!”

It’s funny…I know what is correct, and what sounds right, but if you asked me to specifically say what the perfect tense of a particular verb is, I’d have to look it up online to tell you what is right by definition.

It’s great that you have had to correct the tense. It really shows how the language works.

Question 1. I see now how much more elegant your version is, “I was sitting at my desk playing”. Yet if you left my awquard version, would you say ”I was sitting at my desk. I was playing a game” or “I was sitting at my desk. I played a game”? I suppose it would be the former “I was sitting at my desk. I was playing a game”.

Question 2. If your final version is “I was sitting at my desk. I was playing a game” how would you describe “I sat at my desk. I played a game.” Can the misuse of the tense be called a rude mistake or is it the way people often say that? Can this with the Past Simple be said by your neighbor, a bank clerk, your president or a teenager chatting in a bus? I would like to feel the degree of mistake.

Question 3. Are you sure that “I fought with Peter today” is absolutely correct? Could the boy have said “I have fought with Peter today”?

Now that you have corrected my opus, Kevin, I deeply feel how important the correction of what one says is. I must have read and heared this pattern “I was sitting playing” a hundred of times, yet I have hardly payed much attention to it. As you saw I can easily go with my awquard “I was sitting and playing”. After correction it somehow gets curved ... no, not curved... carved? or stuck? or set? (Help me, Kevin:)) in the person’s mind, I guess.

It’s great that you have had to correct the tense. It really shows how the language works.

Question 1. I see now how much more elegant your version is, “I was sitting at my desk playing”. Yet if you left my awquard version, would you say ”I was sitting at my desk. I was playing a game” or “I was sitting at my desk. I played a game”? I suppose it would be the former “I was sitting at my desk. I was playing a game”.

About your question…I wouldn’t break that up into two sentences. It flows, and is more to the point and tense of the narration by saying “I was sitting at my desk playing.” The sentence “I played a game” denotes finality to the action, and destroys the tone of narrating an action that was not yet complete.

Question 2. If your final version is “I was sitting at my desk. I was playing a game” how would you describe “I sat at my desk. I played a game.” Can the misuse of the tense be called a rude mistake or is it the way people often say that? Can this with the Past Simple be said by your neighbor, a bank clerk, your president or a teenager chatting in a bus? I would like to feel the degree of mistake.

I wouldn’t describe the misuse as rude, but simply unsophisticated. I would describe both ways that you wrote that as not being fluent or comfortable with English. You could say it to anyone under any circumstance and not be considered rude, and be understood, but you would be identified as a foreigner and someone not fluent in English. It’s a matter of fluency only.

Question 3. Are you sure that “I fought with Peter today” is absolutely correct? Could the boy have said “I have fought with Peter today”?

Yes, I’m certain that is correct. But it could also be stated as “I had a fight with Peter today”. You could also say “I have fought with Peter today”, but again it’s a matter of fluency. Saying things correctly in a short form denotes fluency and flows. Are you familiar with contractions? One could say “I cannot go to the movie with you”, and it would be correct, but it’s strict and unnecessary. It’s more conversational and fluent to say “I can’t go to the movie with you”. The former is considered haughty, and strict, the latter as comfortable and fluid.

Now that you have corrected my opus, Kevin, I deeply feel how important the correction of what one says is. I must have read and heared this pattern “I was sitting playing” a hundred of times, yet I have hardly payed much attention to it. As you saw I can easily go with my awquard “I was sitting and playing”. After correction it somehow gets curved in the person’s mind, I guess.

Your spelling is incorrect on one word, Lena: “awkward”, not “awquard”. Also, I’d say “…distorted in the person’s mind…” and not “….curved in the person’s mind”. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kgcole

I wouldn’t break that up into two sentences. It flows, and is more to the point and tense of the narration by saying “I was sitting at my desk playing.” The sentence “I played a game” denotes finality to the action, and destroys the tone of narrating an action that was not yet complete.

---

I understand your explanation on “I was sitting at my desk playing” and completely agree. “Playing” here is not a part of the predicate as it was in my version, it’s participle. No questions. I was just wondering about the tense of the verb “to play”. Though I am certain now that if we didn’t mention that the boy was sitting, you would say, “I was playing a game on my phone”. Am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kgcole

Yes, I’m certain that is correct. But it could also be stated as “I had a fight with Peter today”. You could also say “I have fought with Peter today”, but again it’s a matter of fluency. Saying things correctly in a short form denotes fluency and flows. Are you familiar with contractions? One could say “I cannot go to the movie with you”, and it would be correct, but it’s strict and unnecessary. It’s more conversational and fluent to say “I can’t go to the movie with you”. The former is considered haughty, and strict, the latter as comfortable and fluid.

---

Aren’t “I’ve fought” or “I’ve done” or “I’ve met” almost that short? Why don’t you use them in that sentense if they make sense”?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kgcole

I’d say “…distorted in the person’s mind…” and not “….curved in the person’s mind”. :)

---

Distorted? No. I meant that I would remember your correction, that I would keep the correct version in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helenej

I understand your explanation on “I was sitting at my desk playing” and completely agree. “Playing” here is not a part of the predicate as it was in my version, it’s participle. No questions. I was just wondering about the tense of the verb “to play”. Though I am certain now that if we didn’t mention that the boy was sitting, you would say, “I was playing a game on my phone”. Am I right?

---

That's correct..."I was playing a game on my phone".


Aren’t “I’ve fought” or “I’ve done” or “I’ve met” almost that short? Why don’t you use them in that sentense if they make sense”?

Well, "I've" would be the same as saying "I have fought", so to contract that wouldn't change the tone. But to omit "have" and simply use the past tense "fought" conveys the meaning without the formality of "I have fought". It's a matter of tone here, Lena. To say "I have fought" is very pretentious and exact. Very formal. Another example would be what I wrote as "I cannot go to the movie with you". To say it that way makes one's words very insistent, incontrovertible, or resolute. But in this case there is no other form to use to convey the negative...short and conversational would be "I can't go to the movie with you". Can you see the difference in tone? The latter almost leaves room to be persuaded...the former is insistent that the decision can't be changed.

Distorted? No. I meant that I would remember your correction, that I would keep the correct version in my mind.

Ah, I missed that last part of your sentence. Yes, I would use the word "set". It "sets in in your memory". :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kgcole

Question 2. If your final version is “I was sitting at my desk. I was playing a game” how would you describe “I sat at my desk. I played a game.” Can the misuse of the tense be called a rude mistake or is it the way people often say that? Can this with the Past Simple be said by your neighbor, a bank clerk, your president or a teenager chatting in a bus? I would like to feel the degree of mistake.

I wouldn’t describe the misuse as rude, but simply unsophisticated. I would describe both ways that you wrote that as not being fluent or comfortable with English. You could say it to anyone under any circumstance and not be considered rude, and be understood, but you would be identified as a foreigner and someone not fluent in English. It’s a matter of fluency only.

---

You could also state that beginning the sentence with 'I' again so soon is unnecessary. The pronoun 'I' was already introduced. Explaining it in terms of flow is okay, though.

Simply changing the sentence into one by adding or introducing a grammatical conjunction, and, delivers a more concise sentence that achieves this flow. :) Efficiency!

"I sat at my desk and played a game."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 14Russian

You could also state that beginning the sentence with 'I' again so soon is unnecessary. The pronoun 'I' was already introduced. Explaining it in terms of flow is okay, though.

Simply changing the sentence into one by adding or introducing a grammatical conjunction, and, delivers a more concise sentence that achieves this flow. :) Efficiency!

"I sat at my desk and played a game."

---

Just in the use of this one passage it becomes apparent how many correct versions there may be for composition. But then there is the introduction of style, which I think coincides with fluency. That efficiency you describe is a hallmark, I think.