Questions about English

[nutball]

The trouble, of course, is that it makes communication across time rather more difficult.

Well we've to give those students studying History of English something to do haven't we...

 

[L233]

Ok, I've got some more.

'Maybe' and 'perhaps'. What's the difference? Are they entirely interchangable synonyms? Or are there subtle differences which make one of the two preferable in certain situations?

Follow-up question: If you look at my usage of the relative pronoun 'which' in the previous sentence... is it correct or should I have used 'that' instead? Why?

Another one: Is my usage of the word "entirely" ok or should I have used "completely". What's the difference?

Next question... word order.
Is it "until another woman I can obsess about comes along" or "until another woman comes along whom I can obsess about".

Oh and what's the deal with "who" and "whom"?

 

[London Geezer]

Ok, I've got some more.

'Maybe' and 'perhaps'. What's the difference? Are they entirely interchangable synonyms? Or are there subtle differences which make one of the two preferable in certain situations?

Follow-up question: If you look at my usage of the relative pronoun 'which' in the previous sentence... is it correct or should I have used 'that' instead? Why?

Another one: Is my usage of the word "entirely" ok or should I have used "completely". What's the difference?

"Maybe" means, to my knowledge, that there is a sort of possibility in whatever you're saying. "Perhaps" gives a sense of a "wish" to whatever you're saying, as if you wish that what you're saying will happen eventually. They're very similar, and once again, people tend to use them as they wish.

The "which" question, looks fine to me, as you can use "Which" in place of "That", but you could also have used That. It's "That" that you can't use in place of Who/Which, if that makes sense. Basically, when you can use "that", you can also use "who/which", but when you have to use "who/which", you can only use "who/which".

Entirely and completely are the same to me...

 

[London Geezer]

Next question... word order.
Is it "until another woman I can obsess about comes along" or "until another woman comes along whom I can obsess about".

Oh and what's the deal with "who" and "whom"?

The first is nicer to my ears...

Who is subjective in the subordinate, Whom is objective.

"I saw a guy last night, who lives in Paris"

"I saw a guy last night, whom i met last year in Paris"

 

[L233]

It depends on the role of the subordinate.

If "live here" is necessary for the whole sentence to make sense, you'd use "that". In this case, it is more likely you'll have to use "that".

If the subordinate is not necessary for the whole sentence to make sense, you'd use "who/which/whom" but it's fine if you use "that" too.

That's the best way to describe it, and i don't think anyone has covered it yet. And many people still get it wrong. In the end, whoever you'd be talking to would understand you, whatever you use.

Interesting. I thought that it is always "who" when referring to persons.

 

[London Geezer]

Interesting. I thought that it is always "who" when referring to persons.

It is! and "which" for things. But the difference with "that" is not about the fact that the object is a person or a thing. it's the role of the subordinate in the sentence.

 

[Diplo]

Next question... word order.
Is it "until another woman I can obsess about comes along" or "until another woman comes along whom I can obsess about".

I believe the latter is gramatically correct but the former is more likely to be seen in common usage. If you were writing a formal letter or a book then you should use the second form, but in casual conversation use the first.

 

[Mariner]

Next question... word order.
Is it "until another woman I can obsess about comes along" or "until another woman comes along whom I can obsess about".

The second one reads better as "until another woman comes along about whom I can obsess."

Don't ask me why! At school we simply weren't taught anything about correct grammar or sentence construction - I know what is right and what is wrong but I don't know why this is the case!

Perhaps this is why I was never much good at learning foreign languages at school. If I didn't know how I was constructing a sentence in English how could I do so in another language?

I believe that my parents were taught sentence construction etc. at school but it obviously wasn't en vogue when I was there!

 

[L233]

So this skipping of relative pronouns is gramatically incorrect, right?

"The things I've said" and "The things that I've said".

I'm assuming the former one is colloquial, right? It's not "correct" grammar.

Btw... is it "I'm assuming" or "I assume"?

 

[kars]

"So this skipping of relative pronouns is gramatically incorrect, right?"

No, not necessarily. 'That' can often be skipped. When it is, grammarians often speak of an invisible "zero" pronoun.

Regarding "I assume - I'm assuming": the first one is simple form and the another one is progressive form. Both can be used, as long as you understand the differences between simple/progressive (basically, progressive means that an action has not yet been completed and simple means it has).

 

[L233]

Regarding "I assume - I'm assuming": the first one is simple form and the another one is progressive form. Both can be used, as long as you understand the differences between simple/progressive (basically, progressive means that an action has not yet been completed and simple means it has).

Yes, I know the difference between simple and progressive and from that point of view I'd actually consider the progressive form to be correct - but the simple form is used almost exclusively in those (these??) cases, e.g. to think, to asume, to guess etc.

 

[Baraclese]

Okay, when do I use 'have' and when do I use 'have got'? I remember vaguely that 'have got' is used to indicate possession, is that right?

 

[London Geezer]

Okay, when do I use 'have' and when do I use 'have got'? I remember vaguely that 'have got' is used to indicate possession, is that right?

Basically yes. "have" and "have got" can also be used in a similar (not the same) way as "must", with "have got" being a stronger expression than "have".

"I have to buy a new car"

"I've got to buy a new car!!"

Not sure if Americans use them the same way, i'm pretty sure it's not grammatically correct, but it's used a lot in good ol'Britain.