Hi all,
Would someone help on the following grammar point with the clear clarification?
the answer ;(was going to stay), i think
the sentence : "i thought he was staying with me "
doesn’t make sense
it may be said if the speaker is blind for example and doesn’t know who was with him …
that’s what i think , but i’m waiting with you
Ahmeeeeeeeed is correct.
“I thought Max was going to stay with me last weekend, but he didn’t.” is the correct one.
Bees, if that’s the case, shouldn’t this be wrong?
I am staying with Alice next weekend.
This means the same as “I am going to stay with Alice next weekend.”
The disputed sentence, option 2, is as commonplace as what you recommend, although I prefer what you recommend because it reduces confusion.
If a contact arrives in town and stays elsewhere despite my expectations, I would think that I could say, “I thought he was staying with me, but he ended up staying with his aunt.”
It’s not the most logical thing in the world, but we use progressive tenses for things that aren’t necessarily ongoing (ie., in place of “going to”), as in the example I raised.
If that’s the more convoluted way of saying, ''option 2 can also be correct, then you are right. I didn’t look closely at the other options because Ahmed had picked up one correct one, and my post followed his.
Can we say (but he wasn’t ) instead ??
2-can we say ( I had thought he was going to stay with me but he didn’t >>)
3- can we say ( I thought he had been going to stay with me >>>)
i think number 3 may be true as i thought he had intended to stay with me …
number two I don’t know…
Ahmed, “had thought” works. Number three doesn’t make sense.
I thought he was going to stay with me, but he wasn’t.
This is acceptable, but the meaning has changed. In this sentence, he never had any such intent. With “didn’t,” it’s possible that he may have just changed his mind.
I thought he was staying with me, but he wasn’t.
In this sentence, you literally thought he was at your house, but he turned out to be somewhere else.
yes I see
Is number 2 good then ?
and why is three wrong ?
can’t i say : last night , I thought that he had intended to stay with me (in my house)
i mean before I thought
Ahmed, 2 is acceptable.
Number 3 doesn’t make sense because “had been going to” does not mean “had intended.” It would mean something entirely different from what you want.
I had been going to stay with you.
This makes sense only if it means you used to go to stay with the person.
Compare with this:
I had been going to see the doctor before he advised me to look into my throat problems.
That means that in the past, I was habitually seeing the doctor. It is not a statement of intent. None of these are really statements of intent. They are statements of what will happen or what was expected to happen.
I am visiting Rome next year. = I will visit Rome next year. It does not simply mean that I intend to visit Rome next year.
I am going to visit Rome next year. = I will visit Rome next year.
I thought he was staying with me, but he didn’t. = I expected that he would stay with me, but he didn’t.
I thought he was going to stay with me, but he didn’t. I expected that he would stay with me, but he didn’t.
In the perfect tenses, “going to” can mean only that you were physically going in order to commit some act.
Forgive me for quoting, but it’s easier this time.
It’s true that intent is part of it here, but this is beyond intent. You are stating that these events will certainly happen. That is why I did not consider your use of “intend” as a substitute to be precisely the same.
This only seems that way because you’ve clarified in the first sentence that you are still saving. Take them on their own, and you’ll see there’s no natural difference.
In either case, it is definitely going to happen. I don’t have to have made any arrangements. I may or may not have.
*The only difference is that the present progressive in the my first set of examples could mean you are actually in the process of buying one at the moment. You could say this at the dealership. It can be about the future or what is in process.
Compare again:
You can qualify either the same way and come up with the same meaning.
I am visiting Rome because I finished paying for my travel and lodging.
I am going to visit Rome because I finished paying for my travel and lodging.
I am visiting Rome.
I am going to visit Rome.
I’d feel the above key examples are subtly different little by little.
These two utterances suggest the speaker is/was expecting a future event at the time of making the utterances. However, the original:
concludes a past event. Thus I’d wonder if “was staying” is a little unnatural because a semantical collision could be brought on whereas “was going to stay” would bring down the collision.
Haihao, the second and third are equivalent. That the person stayed elsewhere is already decided; therefore, the expectation has concluded.
And the speaker would not be expecting a future event at the time of saying “I thought he was staying with me, but he ended up staying with his aunt.”
If it says I thought, it is clear that I now think differently. The second clause states that something different from what I expected already happened. The expectation has already died. I am merely reflecting on old, incorrect expectations when I say this. I cannot possibly expecting or thinking something as I am stating that I no longer think it and that something contrary has already taken place.
Here it is rephrased:
At one time, I was under the impression that he was going to stay with me, but he did not (or ended up staying elsewhere).
The original sentence boils down to this:
At one time, I was under the impression that he was going to stay with me last week, but he did not (or ended up staying elsewhere).
Both matters are settled. I just did not state exactly when I thought he would stay with me in my example. “Last week” doesn’t really change anything here as far as the expectation is concerned. That has to be over. The only difference in my example is that it’s possible that his trip itself is ongoing, but that’s not certain at all.
“I thought he was staying with me, but he ended up staying with his aunt” is no different from “I thought he was staying with me last weekend, but he didn’t” but for its specificity as to where he stayed and its vagueness as to exactly when his trip took place. In either case, the expectation is dead when I say it. Note that the tenses in either sentence’s clauses are precisely the same. Further, the clause expressing the expectation is the same word for word, so I’m surprised you interpret the time of the expectation differently.
The first example was there merely to clarify the use of the progressive for the poster who thought “I thought he was staying with me” could mean only that the speaker thought someone was already residing in his house. That, of course, isn’t the case. The progressive can also be equivalent to “going to.” In other words, I hoped the poster would be able to draw a parallel with this use in the present progressive.
Hi Mordant,
Thank you for your detailed paraphrase but I’d like to stay on with this topic for another little moment because I still feel:
-
I thought he was staying with me, but he ended up staying with his aunt. = I expected or regarded at that time that he was staying with me, but he ended up staying with his aunt: [+future][-last (weekend)]
-
I thought Max was going to stay with me last weekend, but he didn’t. = I had the idea that Max was going to stay with me last weekend, but he didn’t: [-future][+last (weekend)].
Thus, to replace “was going to stay” by “was staying” = “I thought Max was staying with me last weekend, but he didn’t.” could make it sound like "I thought last weekend that Max was staying with me, but he didn’t.
The two “thoughts” seem to me functioning differently.
Haihao, the progressive can mean either ongoing action or “going to,” as I have already said. Here we are using it to mean “going to.” For whatever reason, you insist on interpreting it only as ongoing action, which is not true.
See again:
I am visiting Rome (next weekend).
It should be clear to you that without next weekend, this can have two meanings:
I am in Rome visiting.
I am going to visit Rome.
With the qualifier, it has to mean the latter since I cannot already be doing what will begin in the future.
The same is true for the past progressive.
I thought he was visiting Rome (next year).
Two possible meanings without next year:
I thought that he was already in Rome as I was speaking.
I thought was going to visit Rome.
With the qualifier, it has to mean the latter since the action will begin in the future.
It’s the same structure, but it has a dual function.
That said, we mean “going to,” not ongoing action since this thread isn’t dealing with ongoing action.
I thought he was staying with me, but he ended up staying with his aunt.
Thought = expectation dead. I no longer think that. Why? He ALREADY ended up somewhere else. The trip has to have begun or totally concluded already.
If it’s about the future, it will say, “I thought he was staying with me, but he WILL end up staying with his aunt.”
Or
B) “I thought he was going to stay with me, but he WILL end up staying with his aunt.”
In both, expectation = dead + trip = future.
The trip is no longer in the future if I say “ended up.” If you don’t believe that, look at this:
I thought he was staying with me last weekend, but he ended up staying with his aunt.
I thought he was staying with me, but he ended up staying with his aunt last weekend.
If “ended up” is really about the future, “last weekend” should not even be able to modify it because it should be contradictory.
*I will (actual future) go to the store last weekend (past).
Compare:
I thought he was going to stay with me last weekend, but he ended up staying with his aunt.
I thought he was going to stay with me, but he ended up staying with his aunt last weekend.
Neither set is about the future.
In both, expectation = dead + trip = past *(or possibly ongoing in the first).
This is an example where the expectation is alive as the speaker makes the statement:
I THINK he is staying with me, but he may stay with his aunt.
I THINK he is going to stay with me, but he may stay with his aunt.
Think = present simple; therefore, the action is current. I still hold this to be true. If I thought it, by contrast, I no longer believe it to be true.
If I say “I thought you were singing “I Wanna Know,” but you didn’t” = When I say this, I now KNOW you did not sing that song. Thought = past. Change has occurred. It follows from that the singing in question, too, must be over or at least under way.
That misinterpretation is possible with either example. That is why you should place your modifiers carefully. If you want to modify when you had the expectation, place “last week” after thought or at the beginning.
I thought Max was going to stay with me last weekend, but now I think he will stay somewhere else.
The second clause makes it clear the speaker intends for “last weekend” to modify the thought, even though it’s placed after “to stay.”
You have stumbled upon idea of misplaced modifiers, my biggest pet peeve. If you place your modifiers as close as possible to what they modify, you reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation.
I want to ask about the best answer for those :-
1- I leave tomorrow (correct)
would it be " I am leaving" ?(I think yes)
2-He “studies” at the university next year
would it be (is studying" or (will study)
I think the second.
3- I don’t think I am going there soon . Is this right or i have to use (will) instead ?
4- I plan to work tomorrow
what is the best way to express that meaning from (will --going to —v+ing) ?
5-This is the best man that I have ever seen.
Must I omit “that” or it can be put ?
NOTE: i didn’t want to make a new topic for these questions as they are talking about (going to … v+ing) too
Thanks
- Either is acceptable.
2- (is studying) or (will study)
3- Either is acceptable.
4- All three of those are expressions of certainty. “I plan to work tomorrow” is not. There is a subtle difference.
5- “That” is incorrect because you are referring to people. You would need “whom.” It is optional, however. If you “omit” it, it is considered an elliptical clause, one with omitted words that is readily understood. This works in formal and informal writing. Anyone who tells you that it is wrong to include the pronoun is mistaken, but there are those who have that view. I usually omit “whom” myself.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with Mordant about the use of ‘that’ in number 5. It is perfectly acceptable and grammatical to use the relative pronoun ‘that’ to refer to a person or people in a defining relative clause. In the sentence below, the first ‘that’ is demonstrative, and the second is an optional relative pronoun. Both refer to ‘man’, and both are correctly used:
- That’s the man (that) I saw.
However, sometimes ‘who’ is preferred in a defining relative clause when the reference is very specifically to a particular person – in a sentence such as this one, for example:
- The man who lives next door has three cats.
Note also that the word ‘who’ is not optional in the sentence above because it is the subject of the clause.
[color=white].
(We do not use the word ‘that’ to introduce a non-defining relative clause. Perhaps that’s what Mordant had in mind.)
[color=darkblue]_________________________________________________
[size=75]“Without culture, and the relative freedom it implies, society, even when perfect, is but a jungle. This is why any authentic creation is a gift to the future.” ~ Albert Camus [/size]
Actually, ESL, that isn’t what I had in mind. I have always been taught that “that” for people was outdated. It has cost students points, but apparently it is one of those dangling-preposition-style “rules.” I am aware of its presence in older formal texts, though, and I often hear it in speech. I have always found it irksome.
Apparently, this is still an issue of style rather than grammar. I still prefer “who” and “whom.” Although you have indicated that we use “that” for demonstrative purposes, there is no demonstrative pronoun or adjective specific to people.
Some style sources now insist that animals with names take “who” and “whom.” That seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Grammar Girl explains it well. The second source is, like me, off here.
grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/wh … -that.aspx
grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp
Hello Mordant,
Purdue University certainly doesn’t see the use of the relative pronoun ‘that’ to refer to people as being outdated or wrong:
owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/645/01/
I do agree that there are many sentences in which ‘who’ or ‘whom’ will be the preferred relative pronoun, but it is simply not correct to suggest that a sentence will always be wrong if it uses the relative pronoun ‘that’ instead of ‘who’ or ‘whom’ to refer to people. It may be a handy (“quick and dirty”) rule of thumb to assign ‘that’ exclusively to things and ‘who’ exclusively to people, but in the end, learners are going to end up coming to you with thousands of questions as they run across the thousands of correctly written sentences in which this so-called ‘rule’ has not been applied.
In the first example (in my last post), I think one of the reasons that ‘that’ works quite comfortably is that the sentence is, in fact, a somewhat less specific or detailed sort of reference to a person than the second one is. The sentence is akin to saying “He’s the one (that) I saw.”
[color=darkblue]_________________________________________________________
[size=75]“I used to have a sign over my computer that read OLD DOGS CAN LEARN NEW TRICKS, but lately I sometimes ask myself how many more new tricks I want to learn. Wouldn’t it be easier just to be outdated?” ~ Ram Dass[/size]
What should I change then to make it right ??
(or it is acceptable now )?
may be ( I am planning >> )?
and the 5th one has no (wrong ) word but (whom) is better then.