# Forum Other Languages English for Russians - Изучаем английский язык Learn English - Грамматика, переводы, словарный запас  My questions about English

## oldboy

_“This work has to be made at once.”_ 
Why was "_to be_" used instead of "_been_"?
It is possible that "_to be_" is used in the capacity of "*must*" here... Am I right?    
P.S.: not making new topic I shall write all my questions here.

----------


## Lynn

> _“This work has to be made at once.”_ 
> Why was "_to be_" used instead of "_been_"?
> It is possible that "_to be_" is used in the capacity of "*must*" here... Am I right?

 Yes, _has to_ means _must_. The sentence means: the work must be finished immediately.  (_Has been_ means:  the work is already finished.) 
You can use other verbs (infinitives) with "has to" also:  
He _has to read_ the book = He must read the book.
She_ has to go_ shopping = She must (needs to) go shopping.  
*****
Кстати, ваша "подпись" неправельно:
"I thank you for to correct me" should be: "I thank you for correcting me." 
Or more simply: "Please correct me."

----------


## oldboy

> Yes, _has to_ means _must_. The sentence means: the work must be finished immediately.  (_Has been_ means:  the work is already finished.) 
> You can use other verbs (infinitives) with "has to" also:  
> He _has to read_ the book = He must read the book.
> She_ has to go_ shopping = She must (needs to) go shopping.

 Many thanks, *Lynn*!
To tell the truth, I thought that "to be" = "must".  What I am a dunce!   

> Кстати, ваша "подпись" неправельно:

 "ваша" is no correct.
It is correct is "*В*аша". *Lynn*, if you address to somebody It need to write the pronoun "вы" with capital letter, that is "Вы" or use pronoun "ты". 
Look, if you address to a man who you don't know or who is older you then "Вы" is used (with capital letter). This is the respectful address.
If you address to the people (that is to more than one a man) then "вы" is used (with lowercase letter).
If you address to the friend or me, for example, then "ты" is used. 
"неправельно" is no correct.
It is correct is "неправ*и*льн*а*". It may that is "Кстати, *у* Вас "подпись" неправильн*ая*" yet.
Because the adjective "неправильная" concern with the noun "подпись". The noun "подпись" is the word of the feminine gender therefore it must has ending of feminine gender too.   

> Кстати, ваша "подпись" неправельно:

 Thanks, I have corrected it. :)

----------


## Lynn

> "неправельно" is no correct.
> It is correct is "неправ*и*льн*а*". It may that is "Кстати, *у* Вас "подпись" неправильн*ая*" yet.
> Because the adjective "неправильная" concern with the noun "подпись". The noun "подпись" is the word of the feminine gender therefore it must has ending of feminine gender too.

 Whoops! I feel especially silly because I debated whether I should end неправильна with а or о (and obviously chose wrong).   :fool" Thanks for your help!

----------


## oldboy

Please tell me  are phrases _"They are after leaving"_ and _"They have just left"_ equal each other by implication?

----------


## quartz

> Please tell me, are the phrases _"They are after leaving"_ and _"They have just left"_ [s:22m9hprq]equal each other by implication[/s:22m9hprq] (identical in their meaning; synonymous) ?

 "They are after leaving" = так на английском сказать нельзя. Что вы хотите этим предложением сказать? (this is not a correct English sentence. What are you trying to say?)

----------


## oldboy

> "They are after leaving" = так на английском сказать нельзя. Что вы хотите этим предложением сказать? (this is not a correct English sentence. What are you trying to say?)

 To tel the truth, on the Russian forum devoted to English a man said that those phrases are synonymous. And I made up my mind to know that is truth or not.
Thanks you, *quartz*.   

> "They are after leaving" = так на английском сказать нельзя. Что [s:1au3u2yi]вы[/s:1au3u2yi] Вы хотите этим предложением сказать? (this is not a correct English sentence. What are you trying to say?)

 Addressing to a man one need use either "Вы" or "ты". If you address to it is the men that ought to use "вы".
To write "вы" in a Russian sentence, when one address to it is a man that, is roughly the same as to write pronoun "i" in a English sentence. That is grammar mistake. ) 
It is correct to use ether "Что *Вы хотите* этим предложением сказать?" or "Что *ты хочешь* этим предложением сказать?".

----------


## oldboy

_Jill will be in Ottawa when Barbara is in Moscow._
Is it possible to say: '_When Barbara is in Moscow, Jill will be in Ottawa_'?

----------


## alexB

Why not?

----------


## rockzmom

> _Jill will be in Ottawa when Barbara is in Moscow._
> Is it possible to say: '_When Barbara is in Moscow, Jill will be in Ottawa_'?

  

> Why not?

 oldboy, when I first read the sentence I thought to myself, "not when, but WHILE." Now, I don't think there is a problem with when at all; however, as an AMERICAN, I just _might_ be tempted to say "while" instead (possibly incorrectly so if anyone disagrees here please feel free to chime in!), "WHILE Barbara is in Moscow, Jill will be in Ottawa."  
I tried to search for the correct usage of _when vs. while_ to see "why" I would say that and if it is correct or not and found several sites explaining the differences between when and while: http://www.britishcouncil.org/learne...-and-while.htm British usage and it seems it might be okay to  use either in this situation:   

> it is often possible to leave out subject + be after when and while:
> While/When in Germany, he got to know a family of musicians. (=While/When he was in Germany …)

 Also, this might fit the reason I might tend to use it in the sentence you gave us...  http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/le...rnitv257.shtml  

> while to contrast ideas
> While is not used only used to introduce adverbial clauses of time. In more formal usage, it is used to link or balance ideas that contrast each other: 
> While I am happy for us all to eat at home, I don't want to spend hours in the kitchen preparing the food.
> While the news from the front has so far been good, there will almost certainly be days when we must expect heavy casualties.
> Note in this usage the while-clause is normally placed as the first of the contrasting points.

 Honestly, I think it would depend upon the situation and the person I was speaking with!   ::

----------


## quartz

> _Jill will be in Ottawa when Barbara is in Moscow._
> Is it possible to say: '_When Barbara is in Moscow, Jill will be in Ottawa_'?

 It's perfectly okay, except the _stress_ of the sentence changes. 
In the 1st case you are stressing that _Jill will be in Ottawa_
In the 2nd case you are stressing that something will happen/be the case _When Barbara is in Moscow_

----------


## oldboy

O'k, thanks.

----------


## oldboy

Are whether these sentences correct? _Don't forget to send me a post card, will you?_ (I think it is correctly is _do you?_) _Is it much further to the airport? 'No, about two miles.'_ (I would write *far*)

----------


## quartz

> Are [s:1cze2egq]whether[/s:1cze2egq] these sentences correct?  _Don't forget to send me a post card, will you?_ (I think it [s:1cze2egq]is correctly is[/s:1cze2egq] should be _do you?_) _Is it much further to the airport? 'No, about two miles.'_ (I would write *far*)

 further is _comparative_
far - farther - farthest (physical distance)
far - further - furthest (nonphysical/metaphorical) 
You would say "Is it _far_ to the airport?" 
BUT "Is it _much farther_ to the airport?" (about physical distance; much indicating that a comparative form is required) 
OR "Is it _much further_ to the airport?" (about time)  
** 
"Don't forget to send me a post card, will you"  
"Do you" would be a question about condition or attribute not about an action. Ex. "You _don't_ like squirrels, _do_ you?" or "You _like_ squirrels, _don't_ you?" or "You _like_ squirrels, _do_ you?" (the last example would be said _ironically_ or _jokingly_) 
Think of it as "what kind of an answer is expected". "Don't forget to send me a postcard, _will you_?" "Yes, _I will_ (remember)". 
It can also be "_Don't_ forget to send me a postcard, _won't_ you?" "No, I won't (forget)".  
Compare with: "You _have_ this book, _don't_ you?"

----------


## oldboy

I see. Tnx, *quartz*.

----------


## oldboy

*good looking out* = thank you for worrying about me.
Am I right?

----------


## Lynn

> *good looking out* = thank you for worrying about me.
> Am I right?

 This needs more context. "Looking out for someone" means worrying about them, or making sure they are okay. "Good looking out" does not mean anything on its own.  
If I wanted to thank someone for worrying about me, I would say "Thanks for looking out for me."

----------


## oldboy

> This needs more context.

 Oops, unfortunately, I have remember where I found this phrase (( 
But I come to above conclusion proceeding from this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ooking+out  

> The act of watching out for someone in their best interest.  _Dude 1: Hey man, I saw you weren't in class today. I took notes for you.
> Dude 2: Thanks man. Good looking out!_

 What _'good locking out_' means in this context?

----------


## Lynn

> _Dude 1: Hey man, I saw you weren't in class today. I took notes for you.
> Dude 2: Thanks man. Good looking out!_

 What _'good locking out_' means in this context?[/quote] 
Okay, yes, you're right, that's what it means here: thanks for looking out for me (worrying about me). But it's a very slangy way of saying it (that I've never heard). It's probably something teenagers say.

----------


## oldboy

> Okay, yes, you're right, that's what it means here: thanks for looking out for me (worrying about me). But it's a very slangy way of saying it (that I've never heard). It's probably something teenagers say.

 OK. Thanks, *Lynn*.

----------


## oldboy

_Which is what my friends said when I told them I'm going to become a rock star._
I don't translate 'Which is what'. What does it means?
I took it off here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/worldservice ... 070719.pdf (1st idiom)

----------


## Hanna

> _“This work has to be made at once.”_

 _People, am I blind, or did nobody correct a CLASSIC and glaring English mistake??_  Made -- Done  
The correct sentence is: 
This [work] has to be DONE at once.  
It is wrong to use MADE in this sentence! 
This sentence should ideally be:  
This work has to be finished at once!
This work has to be completed at once!
This has to be done at once!
This task has to be done at once! *
@Oldboy: Check the grammar rules for Make / Done.* 
It's a classic learners' mistake. I know...   ::  Explained here.  http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/doormake.htm

----------


## oldboy

> @Oldboy: Check the grammar rules for Make / Done. [/b]
> It's a classic learners' mistake. I know...   Explained here.  http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/doormake.htm

 Thanks, *Hanna*.
Telling the truth, I have  already known the difference between '_make_' and '_do_', but, nevertheless thank you.
Incidentally, I took this example off this website. I have just changed '_asap_' to '_at once_'.   ::

----------


## bitpicker

> _Which is what my friends said when I told them I'm going to become a rock star._
> I don't translate 'Which is what'. What does it means?* -> mean*
> I took it off here: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/worldservice ... 070719.pdf (1st idiom)

 You can phrase it like this: which is (the same thing as that which) my friends said when... The part in brackets can simply be replaced with "what".

----------


## oldboy

> You can phrase it like this: which is (the same thing as that which) my friends said when... The part in brackets can simply be replaced with "what".

 Ah! I see now. Thanks, *bitpicker*!

----------


## quartz

> _People, am I blind, or did nobody correct a CLASSIC and glaring English mistake??_  Made -- Done

 
calm down

----------


## oldboy

From the below sentences are all they correct and have the same meaning? _It needn't to do it.
It don't need to do it.
It's necessary to do it._

----------


## Seraph

Hi, oldboy.  

> From the below sentences are all they correct and have the same meaning? _It needn't to do it.
> It don't need to do it.
> It's necessary to do it._

 These sentences do not mean the same thing.  The last one looks correct.  The first two are not standard usages.  The first two are indicating that something does not need to be done while the last indicates that something needs to be done. 
The first two could be written like this:
It needn't be done.
It doesn't need to be done. 
To make the last sentence have a similar meaning to the first two, a negation needs to be added, something like this: 'It's not necessary to do it.' 
Is this useful to you?

----------


## oldboy

> Hi, oldboy.
> These sentences do not mean the same thing.  The last one looks correct.  The first two are not standard usages.  The first two are indicating that something does not need to be done while the last indicates that something needs to be done. 
> The first two could be written like this:
> It needn't be done.
> It doesn't need to be done. 
> To make the last sentence have a similar meaning to the first two, a negation needs to be added, something like this: 'It's not necessary to do it.' 
> Is this useful to you?

 Hi, *Seraph*. 
Damn! I'm sorry!!! I've made a mistake. :fool" 
In the last way, I meant _'It's not necessary to do it_.' and not '_It's necessary to do it_.'
For example, I want to say: '_Здесь не нужно ничего делать_'. = '_Here, It's not necessary to do anything._'
In the way are the first two variants (with the verb '_need_') impossible?
Or, instead of '_Here, It's not necessary to do anything._', can I say '_Here, one needn't do it_. / _Here, one don't need to do it_.'? 
P.S.: 'to do anything' is, for example: _to park a car_ or _to push bottoms_...

----------


## Seraph

> Damn! I'm sorry!!! I've made a mistake. :fool" 
> In the last way, I meant _'It's not necessary to do it_.' and not '_It's necessary to do it_.'
> For example, I want to say: '_Здесь не нужно ничего делать_'. = '_Here, It's not necessary to do anything._'
> In the way are the first two variants (with the verb '_need_') impossible?
> Or, instead of '_Here, It's not necessary to do anything._', can I say '_Here, one needn't do it_. / _Here, one don't need to do it_.'? 
> P.S.: 'to do anything' is, for example: _to park a car_ or _to push bottoms_...

 Hi Oldboy,  From the way you had constructed the sentences, I thought you probably meant 'not' for the last example. 
The first two examples actually mean something, but perhaps not exactly what you intended.  Some little tweaks would make the examples fine.  _Here, one needn't do it_ => Here, one needn't do a thing.   ('a thing' or 'anything' )   (Unless you mean a specific thing as 'it' .)    _Here, one don't need to do it_  => Here, one doesn't need to do a thing. (Or 'anything'.)  [Don't is for several grammatical persons, 'I don't, you don't, we don't, they don't, but not for he, she, it, or one.  He doesn't, she doesn't, it doesn't, one doesn't...] 
In some circumstances, 'One doesn't need to do it' would be perfectly fine.  Grammar ok.   _Here, one needn't do it._ actually is a correct sentence, but it refers to a specific 'it'.

----------


## bitpicker

> From the below sentences are all they correct and have the same meaning? _It needn't to do it.
> It don't need to do it.
> It's necessary to do it._

 The first two are grammatically incorrect. They are attempts at a direct translation of "надо", correct?  
To express "It is not necessary to do it" with "need" you have the following options:  
You (he, we etc.) need not do it.
You (...) don't need to do it.
There is no need to do it. 
Unlike (мне) не надо in English you see no outside obligation, no "it" which makes you obliged. Therefore you simply use a pronoun as subject like you would with должен. If you want to use an impersonal expression, the second one can be used, but "need" is a noun here, not a verb. 
Also notice that while you say "I need to do it" you do not use "to" in the negative sentence: I need not do it. Either like that or using "don't". I would say that there is a slight difference in meaning: you don't need to do it (but you may if you want), but you need not do it (so don't). 
Robin

----------


## oldboy

> Damn! I'm sorry!!! I've made a mistake. :fool" 
> In the last way, I meant _'It's not necessary to do it_.' and not '_It's necessary to do it_.'
> For example, I want to say: '_Здесь не нужно ничего делать_'. = '_Here, It's not necessary to do anything._'
> In the way are the first two variants (with the verb '_need_') impossible?
> Or, instead of '_Here, It's not necessary to do anything._', can I say '_Here, one needn't do it_. / _Here, one don't need to do it_.'? 
> P.S.: 'to do anything' is, for example: _to park a car_ or _to push bottoms_...
> 			
> 		  Hi Oldboy,  From the way you had constructed the sentences, I thought you probably meant 'not' for the last example. 
> The first two examples actually mean something, but perhaps not exactly what you intended.  Some little tweaks would make the examples fine.  _Here, one needn't do it_ => Here, one needn't do a thing.   ('a thing' or 'anything' )   (Unless you mean a specific thing as 'it' .)    _Here, one don't need to do it_  => Here, one doesn't need to do a thing. (Or 'anything'.)  [Don't is for several grammatical persons, 'I don't, you don't, we don't, they don't, but not for he, she, it, or one.  He doesn't, she doesn't, it doesn't, one doesn't...] 
> In some circumstances, 'One doesn't need to do it' would be perfectly fine.  Grammar ok.   _Here, one needn't do it._ actually is a correct sentence, but it refers to a specific 'it'.

 Thanks, *Seraph*.

----------


## oldboy

> Originally Posted by oldboy  From the below sentences are all they correct and have the same meaning? _It needn't to do it.
> It don't need to do it.
> It's necessary to do it._   The first two are grammatically incorrect. They are attempts at a direct translation of "надо", correct?  
> To express "It is not necessary to do it" with "need" you have the following options:  
> You (he, we etc.) need not do it.
> You (...) don't need to do it.
> There is no need to do it. 
> Unlike (мне) не надо in English you see no outside obligation, no "it" which makes you obliged. Therefore you simply use a pronoun as subject like you would with должен. If you want to use an impersonal expression, the second one can be used, but "need" is a noun here, not a verb. 
> Also notice that while you say "I need to do it" you do not use "to" in the negative sentence: I need not do it. Either like that or using "don't". I would say that there is a slight difference in meaning: you don't need to do it (but you may if you want), but you need not do it (so don't). 
> Robin

 Now, I see (_There is no need to do it_). Thank you, *Robin*. 
Cannot one use pronoun '*one*' to make an impersonal sentence in this way? For example, '*One* don't need to do it.' instead of 'There is no need to do it.'

----------


## Seraph

> ...Cannot one use pronoun '*one*' to make an impersonal sentence in this way? For example, '*One* don't need to do it.' instead of 'There is no need to do it.'

 One may indeed make an impersonal sentence this way.  But use "one doesn't", not "one don't".   As in "One doesn't need to do it".
One as a grammatical person takes the same verb forms as 'he, she, it' that is third person singular.

----------


## oldboy

> Originally Posted by oldboy  ...Cannot one use pronoun '*one*' to make an impersonal sentence in this way? For example, '*One* don't need to do it.' instead of 'There is no need to do it.'   One may indeed make an impersonal sentence this way.  But use "one doesn't", not "one don't".   As in "One doesn't need to do it".
> One as a grammatical person takes the same verb forms as 'he, she, it' that is third person singular.

 Why of course, '_one doesn't_.' )

----------


## Cute Shark

> Whoops! I feel especially silly because I debated whether I should end неправильна with а or о (and obviously chose wrong).   :fool" Thanks for your help!

 I am sorry, I know this was posted long time ago, but I just can't read it calmly. "Неправильно" пишется с буквой "о" на конце, а не с "а".

----------


## deker

> I am sorry, I know this was posted long time ago, but I just can't read it calmly. "Неправильно" пишется с буквой "о" на конце, а не с "а".

 No, in that phrase it should be неправильна.
Also ваша without capitalisation was correct.

----------


## Lynn

> Originally Posted by Cute Shark  I am sorry, I know this was posted long time ago, but I just can't read it calmly. "Неправильно" пишется с буквой "о" на конце, а не с "а".   No, in that phrase it should be неправильна.
> Also ваша without capitalisation was correct.

 Not to hijack the thread too much, but I'm still interested in understanding this. The original statement was: Кстати, ваша "подпись" неправельно. 
Aside from the unfortunate misspelling неправ*и*льно, I used "o" because I decided in that sentence the word was like an adverb. "By the way, your signature [is] not correct." Since the word was on the other side of an imaginary "is" I decided it was modifying the implied verb. Would I use "o" if подпись and неправильно were more obviously separated? Кстати, ваша "подпись" --  это неправельно. (versus "эта подоись -- неправильна.")  
I don't know if this logic makes any sense to native speakers, but I would like to know which really is grammatically correct, and if possible, *why*.  
As for ваша, I thought that it was Ваша/Вы in a formal letter to someone, and ваша/вы in an informal situation... like on the internet. (I didn't think ты was appropriate for my first reply to someone I'd never met.) 
Please help me sort this out?

----------


## Russian

> Originally Posted by deker        Originally Posted by Cute Shark  Please help me sort this out?

 Lynn, it's easier than you might think. "Неправильно" - is an adverb, which answers the question как?   = Do I do it correctly (Я делаю это правильно?). Нет, я делаю это (как?) неправильно. 
(Ваша подпись) неправильна - is a short adjective of неправильная. (answers the question какая? - неправильная), just drop out -я. "Your signature is incorrect." ="Ваша подпись неправильна(-я)".

----------


## Cute Shark

> No, in that phrase it should be неправильна.

 Oh, I'm sorry, right. I should be more attentive next time.

----------


## Lynn

> Lynn, it's easier than you might think. "Неправильно" - is an adverb, which answers the question как?   = Do I do it correctly (Я делаю это правильно?). Нет, я делаю это (как?) неправильно. 
> (Ваша подпись) неправильна - is a short adjective of неправильная. (answers the question какая? - неправильная), just drop out -я. "Your signature is incorrect." ="Ваша подпись неправильна(-я)".

 This does help. I think I need to be more sparing with my use of adverbs in general. Thank you!   ::

----------


## deker

> I used "o" because I decided in that sentence the word was like an adverb. "By the way, your signature [is] not correct." Since the word was on the other side of an imaginary "is" I decided it was modifying the implied verb. Would I use "o" if подпись and неправильно were more obviously separated? Кстати, ваша "подпись" -- это неправельно. (versus "эта подоись -- неправильна.")

 Even if you will use the analog linking verb "is" - "являться" it still will be correspond with the feminane noun "подпись": "Ваша подпись является неправильной." 
For that out there to be adverb "неправильно" it should correspond with an action verb:
"Ваша подпись написана неправильно."
It similar to English rules:
 The dog smells bad. - От собаки нехорошо пахнет - "smells" is a linking verb.
The dog smells badly. - Собака плохо чует носом. - "smells" is an action verb.
---------
The rule Вы/вы don't works for possesive ваше, вашу etc.
I always write вы - it not considered as a mistake when I studied in my shcool.

----------


## Lynn

> It similar to English rules:
> The dog smells bad. - От собаки нехорошо пахнет - "smells" is a linking verb.
> The dog smells badly. - Собака плохо чует носом. - "smells" is an action verb.

 Perfect. Thinking about it this way helps a lot. So what I wrote originally was "Your signature is incorrectly." (Almost sounds metaphysical.) Whoops. 
Thanks!

----------


## alexB

Another one, just in case. 
Неправильна is a short form of the adjective неправильная.
Ваша подпись неправильна (неправильная).
Ваш ответ неправилен. 
Ваше объяснение неправильно.
It might be easier if you switched to the past tense where the imaginary “есть” would turn into a quite real and gender dependable была, был, было, which would have to agree, as well as the following adjective in its short form with the subject of the sentence. 
Ваша подпись была неправильна. 
Ваш ответ был неправилен. 
Ваше объяснение было неправильно.
So, what we have here is an adjective which modifies a noun.
 Adverb modifies action, so to use our adverb we could have used   ::  some action first.    _Подписываться  так, как делаете это вы_ (action) -  неправильно, глупо, нелепо, смешно и безумно.  ::   
As for the Вы versus вы, me thinks it's polite enough already to abstain from using ты in favor of вы.

----------


## Lynn

> It might be easier if you switched to the past tense where the imaginary “есть” would turn into a quite real and gender dependable была, был, было, which would have to agree, as well as the following adjective in its short form with the subject of the sentence.

 This is a great idea. I think that's what I'll be doing (imagining it in the past tense before writing in the present) from now on, until I finally internalize it. You folks are all so helpful, I appreciate it!   ::

----------


## oldboy

Please tell me if does _1st sentence_ equal to _2nd one_ in a meaning? _I know him to be a good man._ and _I know he is a good man.
I want you to be happy._ and _I want you would be happy.
I saw him to write 'I was here' with felt pen on a wall._ and _I saw he had written (or was writting) 'I was here'  with felt pen on a wall._

----------


## Lynn

> Please tell me if does _1st sentence_ equal to _2nd one_ in a meaning? _I know him to be a good man._ and [i]I know he is a good man.

 These two mean the same thing.   

> _I want you to be happy._ and _I want you would be happy._

 The first is grammatically correct. The second is not. You could say "I would like you to be happy." Then the two sentences mean the same thing. (Я хочу... Я хотел бы...)   

> _I saw him to write 'I was here' with felt pen on a wall._ and _I saw  he had written (or was writting) 'I was here'  with felt pen on a wall._

 Let's first correct the grammar for these sentences: 
"I saw him _ write 'I was here' with (a) felt tip pen on a wall." 
"I saw (that) he had written 'I was here' with a felt tip pen on a wall." 
"I saw (that) he was writing 'I was here' with a felt tip pen on a wall." 
I'm not good at explaining tense differences, but I will try (and hopefully someone else can make it more clear). The first two are only slightly different, and the third is very different.  
The first one (I saw him write): The action was completed, and you saw him do it. You saw him write on the wall and finish writing on the wall. 
The second one (I saw that he had written): The action was finished when you saw the wall, but you might not have seen him do the action. You saw the message on the wall, but it is possible you only saw it after he had finished and gone away. 
The third one (I saw that he was writing): you saw him in the process of doing it. The action was not finished when you saw him. 
I hope that helps!

----------


## Seraph

> ... _I want you would be happy._

 It is possible to say 'I hoped you would be happy'. (or 'I hoped that you would be happy.' ) There is something about the 'want' and 'would' that doesn't fit.

----------


## oldboy

> ...
> I hope that helps!

 *Lynn*, many thanks. You explained that really understandable!
Then can I say _'I saw him to write 'I was here' with a felt pen on a wall'_ like this: '_I saw (that) he wrote 'I was here' with a felt pen on a wall_'?
In this case, these two sentences will have the same meaning. Yes? 
P.S.: *Seraph*, OK, thanks, I'll take into account!

----------


## Lynn

> '_I saw (that) he wrote 'I was here' with a felt pen on a wall_'?

 Perfect.   ::   
"_I saw that he wrote_..." and "_I saw that he had written_..." are very similar in meaning. If I'm not mistaken: 
"I saw that he wrote" = Simple Past
"I saw that he had written" = Past Perfect  
Maybe this will help: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/verbtenseintro.html, or someone else can explain the difference better than I can?

----------


## bitpicker

Past perfect is used when you are talking about a certain time in the past and you mention something which took place even further past in relation to that point in time. Here's a graphic: 
X --------o--------N 
Time flows from left to right. "N" is now, the moment you are telling a story to someone. The events of your story take place at "o". "X" is any time before o. 
If you say "I saw him write the words on the wall" or "I saw him writing the words on the wall" then the act of writing takes place at the time of "o". The former expression regards the activity as a complete whole, the latter as a process which may or may not have been observed in its entirety. But in both cases "he" performed the act of writing at "o". 
If you say "I saw that he had written the words on the wall" the the act of writing took place at "X", while the act of noticing the writing took place at "o". The speaker came into the room, noticed the words on the wall and concluded that the other person must have written them prior to that moment. In this case the activity of writing is fully finished. 
It is possible to say "I saw that he had been writing the words on the wall when I came in". In this case the speaker interrupts the act of writing by coming in, the writer stops the activity, which puts the actual writing at "X" further in the past, but the activity is not completed, the words not finished. The writer had been writing prior to the speaker coming in. This is in contrast to "was writing" which would mean that the writer continued his writing when the speaker came in. So in this case the grammatical form of the verb alone may transport the information whether the writer stopped writing or continued.

----------


## oldboy

*bitpicker*, and in '_I saw him write the words on the wall_'  did I see the act of writing completely (from start to finish)?

----------


## rockzmom

Oldboy... just one thing that I saw no one had picked up on... the wording of your question...  

> Please tell me if does _1st sentence_ equal to _2nd one_ in a meaning?

 This should be either.. 
Please tell me if [s:1wd916wn]does[/s:1wd916wn] the _1st sentence_ is equal to the _2nd one_ in [s:1wd916wn]a[/s:1wd916wn] meaning. 
or 
Please tell me [s:1wd916wn]if[/s:1wd916wn] does the _1st sentence_ equal the _2nd one_ in [s:1wd916wn]a[/s:1wd916wn] meaning?

----------


## bitpicker

> *bitpicker*, and in '_I saw him write the words on the wall_'  did I see the act of writing completely (from start to finish)?

 Indeed.

----------


## oldboy

> Originally Posted by oldboy  *bitpicker*, and in '_I saw him write the words on the wall_'  did I see the act of writing completely (from start to finish)?   Indeed.

 OK, then I've understood, how I seem )
Thanks!

----------


## oldboy

> Please tell me if [s:1h7muxyk]does[/s:1h7muxyk] the _1st sentence_ is equal to the _2nd one_ in [s:1h7muxyk]a[/s:1h7muxyk] meaning. 
> or 
> Please tell me [s:1h7muxyk]if[/s:1h7muxyk] does the _1st sentence_ equal the _2nd one_ in [s:1h7muxyk]a[/s:1h7muxyk] meaning?

 *rockzmom*, 
and mustn't the 2nd way look like this: _Please tell me "Does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in meaning?"_ (I mean with direct speech)?

----------


## rockzmom

> Originally Posted by rockzmom  Please tell me if [s:2qthou9y]does[/s:2qthou9y] the _1st sentence_ is equal to the _2nd one_ in [s:2qthou9y]a[/s:2qthou9y] meaning. 
> or 
> Please tell me [s:2qthou9y]if[/s:2qthou9y] does the _1st sentence_ equal the _2nd one_ in [s:2qthou9y]a[/s:2qthou9y] meaning?   *rockzmom*, 
> and mustn't the 2nd way look like this: _Please tell me "Does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in meaning?"_ (I mean with direct speech)?

 oldboy... I am not understanding your thought process behind having the main part of your sentence or your request in quotes "*Does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in meaning?*" 
You are not quoting someone who actually said this and then referencing their quote. i.e. Please tell me "Does the 1st sentence equal the 2nd one in meaning?," Jane inquired. 
It would still just be one sentence... maybe add a comma after Please tell me,  http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp

----------


## oldboy

*rockzmom*,
sorry!  I've been foolish :fool"
It's obviously that it's not necessary to use quotes here.
Why didn't I understand it immediately?   :: 
Thanks, *rockzmom*, for your explanations and corrections.

----------


## chaika

I was a little confused by
>In the way 
а потом понял, что это из-за проблемы различиния «путь» и «post»! =:^)

----------


## oldboy

This is out of BBC new *Bangladesh water may still be unsafe*:  

> Ministers say that *more research is needed on this* and that people should not be alarmed.

 Does '_more research is needed on this_' mean '_it's necessary to research this (=the problem above)_' or anything else?   

> The water that these wells tapped was contaminated with arsenic, and *millions were affected in what* the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history'.

 _affected_ = influence, touch _in_ = by
That is '..._millions were affected in what_...' = '_millions were influenced/touched by what_'?
I can't understand sense of that part of the sentences.

----------


## Lynn

> This is out of BBC new *Bangladesh water may still be unsafe*:    
> 			
> 				Ministers say that *more research is needed on this* and that people should not be alarmed.
> 			
> 		  Does '_more research is needed on this_' mean '_it's necessary to research this (=the problem above)_' or anything else?

 Yes. It means _it's necessary to research this (more)._   

> The water that these wells tapped was contaminated with arsenic, and *millions were affected in what* the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history'.
> 			
> 		  _affected_ = influence, touch _in_ = by
> That is '..._millions were affected in what_...' = '_millions were influenced/touched by what_'?
> I can't understand sense of that part of the sentences.

 The "what" (noun) you are looking for is "poisoning." The basic idea is:   _...millions were affected by the poisoning._  
(You are correct about the meaning. It means _millions were influenced/touched by the poisoning_. Even simpler: _millions were poisoned_.) 
The rest of the sentence describes the poisoning. You can think about it like a который clause:  _...millions were affected in the poisoning, which the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history'._ 
(This means: The poisoning was so bad that the World Health Organization termed it (called it) "the greatest mass poisoning in history.") 
So the original part _...in what the World Health Organisation termed..._ is just a way to tell us more about the "what" (noun = poisoning). 
Does that help?

----------


## oldboy

> Does that help?

 And how! Thank you, *Lynn*. 
And is "_in what_" used only in passive constructions or it's possible to use it in active too?
For example, _In letter I often use in what everybody calls 'smilies'._

----------


## Lynn

> Originally Posted by Lynn  Does that help?   And how! Thank you, *Lynn*. 
> And is "_in what_" used only in passive constructions or it's possible to use it in active too?
> For example, _In letter I often use in what everybody calls 'smilies'._

 Both passive and active are okay, but it's good that you asked. It made me realize that there's something I should have explained better. The construction is not "in what," it's just "what." The "in" was used because it is connected to the passive construction using "poisoning." ("in the poisoning")  
So your active example should be:  _In letters I often use what everybody calls 'smilies.'_ 
So sometimes you don't need a preposition: _She wrote what eventually became a famous novel._ (She wrote a novel = no preposition.) 
And sometimes you do need a preposition. _I was bitten by what turned out to be a poisonous spider._ (I was bitten *by* a spider = preposition.) 
Again this reminds me of который. Sometimes you don't need a preposition and sometimes you do, depending on the sentence: _Мы говорили о студентах, которым мы помогали прошлым летом._ _Мы говорили о его сестре, с которой мы познакомились в среду._

----------


## oldboy

I'll start one after another...  *Lynn*,
As far as I understood in the sentence '_...and millions were affected in what the World...'_ the preposition *in* connects with *millions*. Am I right?

----------


## Lynn

> I'll start one after another...  *Lynn*,
> As far as I understood in the sentence '_...and millions were affected in what the World...'_ the preposition *in* connects with *millions*. Am I right?

 Hm, I might not entirely understand your question, but in my mind there is no connection between "millions" and "in." (Remember, "in" = "by" here.) The "in" ("by") is attached to the explanation of what affected the millions (of people). To demonstrate this, imagine the sentence were shorter:  _...and millions were affected._ (But we don't know what affected the million.) 
You would NOT say _...and millions were affected in._ You would be left wondering "in *what*?"  
There is no need for "in" until you introduce *what* was affecting the millions: 
...and millions were affected* in the poisoning.* 
I hope this makes sense. I wish I could think of a better explanation. Maybe someone else can add to this.  ::

----------


## oldboy

*Lynn*,  ))) OK, then  _...and millions were affected in the poisoning_ = _...and millions were affected by the poisoning_?

----------


## Lynn

> _...and millions were affected in the poisoning_ = _...and millions were affected by the poisoning_?

 Yup! Personally I would say "by," but the meaning of the sentence is the same.

----------


## oldboy

> Yup! Personally I would say "by," but the meaning of the sentence is the same.

 And then it's possible to say '_and millions were affected by what the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history_'. Yes?

----------


## Lynn

> And then it's possible to say '_and millions were affected by what the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history_'. Yes?

 Correct!

----------


## oldboy

> Originally Posted by oldboy  And then it's possible to say '_and millions were affected by what the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history_'. Yes?   Correct!

 hurray!!!   ::   ::   ::  I see, at last!
Many thanks, *Lynn*.

----------


## oldboy

The preposition *in* was confused me, because in our textbooks _passive structure_ is only considered together the preposition *by* or *with*' that is come by _agent_.
For instance,  _I wrote the letter_ - active structure _The letter was written by me_ - passive one
And there _agent_ (_what the World Health Organisation termed 'the greatest mass poisoning in history_) was introduced by the preposition *in*. It turn out that _agent_ can be introduced by the preposition *in*.

----------


## Lynn

> The preposition *in* was confused me, because in our textbooks _passive structure_ is only considered together the preposition *by* or *with*' that is come by _agent_.

 I completely understand your confusion. It is strange now that I think about it. You can only substitute "in" for "by" in certain situations like this one (particularly events: _Ten were killed in the terrorist attack_). But for now, I think it's just important that you can recognize and understand this use of "in," but not necessary for you to use it.  
And now for one last correction.   ::     

> The preposition *in* was confusing me, because in our textbooks _passive structure_ is only considered together with the preposition *by* or *with*' that is come by _agent_.

 I'm not sure what you meant by "that is come by agent," but I think you might mean "that is decided by the agent." Or "that is connected with the agent." Maybe?

----------


## oldboy

> I'm not sure what you meant by "that is come by agent," but I think you might mean "that is decided by the agent." Or "that is connected with the agent." Maybe?

 _The letter was written by me.
The letter was written with a pen._ _The letter_ - is a patient; _me_ and _a pen_ - are agents
Under '_...together with the preposition by or with that is come by the agent_.' I meant that _the agent_ (_me_ or _a pen_) *follows* the preposition '_by_' or '_with_'.
i.e. '..._together with the preposition by or with that is come by the agent._' had to look like '_...together with the preposition by or with that is followed by the agent (me or a pen)._'
It's probably I used the incorrect verb _come_... it was necessary _follow_.

----------


## Lynn

> '_...together with the preposition by or with that is followed by the agent (me or a pen)._'
> It's probably I used the incorrect verb _come_... it was necessary _follow_.

 Makes sense now!

----------


## oldboy

*Lynn*, 
and can the only the preposition *in* be used in the meaning (instead of) the one *by*?
(is it possible only the preposition *in* to use instead of the one *by*?)

----------


## Lynn

> *Lynn*, 
> and can the only the preposition *in* be used in the meaning (instead of) the one *by*?
> (is it possible only the preposition *in* to use instead of the one *by*?)

 I think you are asking: are there any other prepositions that can be used to mean "by" in this situation? Right? 
The simple answer: no.  
The more complicated answer: I can think of one preposition that is similar to "by" but not 100% the same in meaning: *during*. Millions were affected *during* the storm. However, there is a small difference in meaning. _By the storm_ implies that the people might still be affected after the storm (for example, their houses fell down). _During the storm_ only means that they were affected while the storm was happening (for example, the electricity temporarily stopped working).  
But from the more common prepositions, no, I can't think of any other that could replace "by" in that situation.

----------


## oldboy

...It was so far that I thought that the preposition '_by_' in '_...and millions were affected in what the World..._' designated the agent!   ::  
So is the preposition '_in_' in '_...and millions were affected in what the World..._' the preposition of the time? That is '_in_' = _во время_/_в течении_?!

----------


## Lynn

> ...It was so far that I thought that the preposition '_by_' in '_...and millions were affected in what the World..._' designated the agent!   
> So is the preposition '_in_' in '_...and millions were affected in what the World..._' the preposition of the time? That is '_in_' = _во время_/_в течении_?!

 Have no fear! Your understanding was correct. By = In = designating the agent. During = во время.  
Sorry, I shouldn't have made it more complicated. I only meant that "during" is the only other preposition that can be used there and still mean approximately the same thing.  
Unless someone else wants to offer an opinion or better explanation? Explaining repositions is hard!   ::

----------


## oldboy

> Have no fear! Your understanding was correct. By = In = designating the agent. During = во время.

 Well, thanks God! because I was going round the twist...   

> Explaining repositions is hard!

 But you are good at this!

----------


## oldboy

> _Jack paid Mary a million dollars to appear in the film._

 Will who be appeared in the film: _Jack or Mary_?

----------


## delog

> Will who be appeared in the film: Jack or Mary?

 Я думаю, что правильный вопрос должен звучать так: *Who will appear in the film?* - Кто появится в фильме?
Это future simple, используется вспомогательный глагол will + первая форма глагола. А твой вариант, по-моему неправильный. Я не могу объяснить почему, просто в книжках так не пишут, видимо твое предложение в принципе построено неверно. Ну и по существу вопроса: Джек заплатил Мэри миллион долларов, чтобы появиться в фильме. Т.е. в фильме появится Джек.

----------


## rockzmom

> _Jack paid Mary a million dollars to appear in the film._
> Will who be appeared in the film: _Jack or Mary_?

 I believe it would be Mary who is going to be in the film. Jack is paying her to appear. Typically, you are not paying someone so that *you* can work, you are paying them *to do* work or in this case, appear in the film. 
Another example of that type of sentence would be the following one that is much clearer as it includes the name of the film:  

> 20th Century Fox paid $550,000 to the Smithsonian Institution for the right to use its name in "Night at the Museum 2: Escape From the Smithsonian," the Washington Post reported.

 So, the Smithsonian is getting paid by 20th Century $550,000 so that 20th Century can use the name Smithsonian.

----------


## delog

> I believe it would be Mary who is going to be in the film. Jack is paying her to appear. Typically, you are not paying someone so that you can work, you are paying them to do work or in this case, appear in the film.

 Ouch, I think that I understand written English quite well. Is there a way to Jack's appearance in the film? Maybe he failed casting and paid for his role? 
Well, let's simplify example:  

> Uwe Boll paid dev to appear in Postal 3

 Who will appear in Postal 3? Uwe Boll or developers? I guess it will be Uwe Boll. Am I right?

----------


## bitpicker

Logically the question cannot be answered. The sentence is grammatically ambiguous, either one could appear in the film. Without context you cannot tell.

----------


## rockzmom

> Logically the question cannot be answered. The sentence is grammatically ambiguous, either one could appear in the film. Without context you cannot tell.

 hehehe... I was using logic to answer the question. But you are correct, if the sentence was not about appearing in a film, it would be more difficult to answer the question.    

> Ouch, I think that I understand written English quite well. Is there a way to have the answer be Jack's appearance in the film? Maybe he failed casting and paid for his role? 
> Well, let's simplify example:    
> 			
> 				Uwe Boll paid dev to appear in Postal 3
> 			
> 		  Who will appear in Postal 3? Uwe Boll or developers? I guess it will be Uwe Boll. Am I right?

 The sentence should be  

> Uwe Boll paid the producers to appear in Postal 3

 In that sentence it would be harder to determine who was going to be in the film, Uwe or "the producers" but I would go with Uwe due to the "logic" of the sentence because now you have the entity that is making the film being paid. 
But this whole thing goes back to understanding the business to make the best choice for the answer and in the past OldBoy has asked us questions from a book or somewhere else.  
If I were to pick from the two choices, FOR that sentence, I would pick the person who is getting paid as actors get paid to appear...even if it is just $1  

> George Clooney was paid $1 each for writing, directing, and acting in Good Night, and Good Luck, which cost $7.5 million to make.

----------


## oldboy

*bitpicker*, *rockzmom,* *delog* thanksa lot*. * Like *bitpicker* I also incline to that it's impossible to say 100% who is appearing in the film.

----------

