''Many people think 1989 was in interesting year, because it saw the fall of the Berlin Wall'' for me this sentence is written in the active then passive voice. two in one which is incorrect in English Grammar. you either one or the other, not at the same time. if you think of German their syntax is the total opposite of the English. in English you start with the SUBJECT and in German you end with a SUBJECT. she said she was going out: active she was going out said she. passive and German is syntax is similar to the passive voice. you would, as a linguist, think that English which is germanic or vise versa, would at least have some similarities because we are told they are related. the first thing two languages do when they are related is agree either syntax/grammar or words. take Spanish and French say, they are both latin derivative. They both share the same syntax and even their words are very similar. when we look at English and German they have neither words nor syntax , they are not similar, which leads to question the legitimacy of German being the source of English. That is my view and of course you do not have to accept. back to the sentence Many people think 1989 was an interesting year/ (the first clause) because it saw the fall of the Berlin Wall./ (the second clause) the second clause does not seem to be correct because the first clause has ''many people'' as the subject and therefore the next clause should be because they saw the Berlin Wall come down. In English you either have either active or passive but not the two at the same time.
Then you have an understanding of passive voice that is not the same as that of native English speakers. In the usual grammatical sense neither clause of that sentence is passive voice. It's the many people who are doing the thinking, and it's 1989 (referenced by the pronoun "it") that figuratively did the seeing. You have a similar problem when you say "she was going out said she. passive" -- no it's not, it's active voice. Active/passive is not about word order, it's about whether the subject is the agent. And there's no problem with "it" referring back to 1989 even though it's not the subject -- there's no rule in English that says that pronouns can only be used for the subjects of preceding clauses. "It" cannot refer to "many people" (that would be "they"). "At the same time" would be a linguistic feat. There's nothing that says that they can't come close together. A politician might well say, "I agree; mistakes were made". There's nothing wrong with the grammar, whatever you might think about the evasiveness.
Well, certainly no harm done in the sense that use of language that has virtually no meaning to anyone is bound to be ineffectual.
I see exactly what you mean. Science does not believe in religion hence its creation. I do not have to believe everything that is written by other academics so I guess I am doing what Science does which is seeing is believing. Hence the study of Languages which is my domain if you like.
Well, if you are claiming that your examination of language is scientific, your choice of ignorance in your approach to it is certainly novel.
Digit this sentence starts with many people think...meaning the people thought it was interesting. the next question should be why did they? the answer: because they saw the fall. the stress should be on the THEY and not IT. you would not do it in speaking so the same should apply to writing.
I beg to differ. I am not claiming it is scientifc. I was comparing the idea to the way science does not rely on the bible fro various reasons. the ignorance here lies in the fact that you do not not question what your are told taught and given. I am only doing what I think best. I am not imposing on you ,I am only doing what other did and are doing is that of questioninig things theoratically speaking. the idea is there for you to read it or not, but at least I have tried something different and that is checking wether is really what it is.
Ignorance in that context means ignoring the facts, which is precisely what you are choosing to do. To compare your approach to scientific method even in the perverse way you have chosen to is just absurd.
Hm.. I tried to look up the word tonal but after reading what you said to cacian I still don't understand your question... would you like to explain?
No, there's nothing incorrect about that sentence. For one thing, there is no passive voice in the sentence, but even if there were, you can have both active and passive voice in the same sentence. For example, there's nothing grammatically incorrect about the sentence: The dog ate in the morning, and was bathed in the afternoon. even though the first clause is active and the second is passive.
actually that sentence is incorrect in that 'in' should be 'an' and there is no closing punctuation! however, as you noted, cf, it's not incorrect in the way cacian said it was...
Hi ChickenFreak this sentence for me does not make sense The dog ate in the moring then bathed in the afternoon is Okeish but not for me, because really we don't talk of dogs having their breakfast then being bathed in general the words you used are to refer to people. I personally would express it differently. the dog ate then had Tom gave him a wash. This is all in the active voice. so If I had to use your sentence again,I would replace DOG with Susie for example, a person, like this: Susie had her breakfast then bathed in the afternoon. if I was to use was bathed then this is how I would write it Susie was given her breakfast then was bathed in the afternoon.(here implying that either Susie is a baby or somoeone with a 'disabilty') because if we said Susie had her breakfast then was bathed (then one might think why was she bathed when she had her breakfast all by herself) I learned English, and still am, at school then University and in English Grammar you are to use either passive or active at any given time, but not in two clauses. That is what I know.
here is another example of something I am writing: Passive voice Versus Active voice I am writing this passage and I am wondering which way to put it best. ''They sat down to talk about their current affairs. The press firm, The News of The Day, where they worked, was on standby, and awaiting their go ahead as everything depended on their final decisions. Few minutes lapsed, and after a heated debate, Orin and Genive left the room and Vadel was left alone.'' which is better ''Orin and Genive stood up and left Vadel alone.'' and here we know that they have left the room. Or ''Orin and Genive stood up to leave the room and Vadel was left alone''
Cacian, please listen to what native English speakers are telling you, and don't keep trying to tell us that we don't know our own language. I studied English language at university too, and you need to realise that: You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the passive voice is in English: you are repeatedly misidentifying active voice as passive; and There is absolutely no "rule" in English that says "you are to use either passive or active at any given time, but not in two clauses". Either you have been misinformed or you misunderstood what you were told.
The passage has much more serious issues than this one, but for what it's worth I think the second is better. To leave someone alone has connotations of ceasing to bother them. "Vadel was left alone" doesn't suggest that so strongly, and so is safer. Safer still would be "Vadel was left on his own". Of course, if Orin and Geneve really were bothering Vadel with talk of "their current affairs" (which doesn't mean what I suspect you think it means) then the first version is fine.
That doesn't work. Many people think 1066 was an interesting year because it saw the last successful invasion of England. If you try it your way "Many people think 1066 was an interesting year because they saw the last successful invasion of England" then it's a nonsense: no they didn't, because they weren't alive (and the second part fails to relate the invasion to 1066 in the first part). Whatever you think English should be, you would be well advised to consider what it is first.
Ok. I am not trying to insult, I am only trying to understand what is given to me: 1) "Many people think 1066 was an interesting year because they saw the last successful invasion of England This sentence does not make sense. 2) Many people think 1989 was an interesting yearbecause it saw the fall of the Berlin It does not make sense either in the sense that the wall cannot physically see something. This: Many people think 1989 was an interesting year because they saw the fall of the Berlin, makes sense because it is closer to our time and because of the Media, and they, everyone would have seen the fall of the Berlin Wall. the first sentence is way in the past and there is no media references to check against( to visually view it) it unlike the Berlin Wall which is available to be watched whenever one wants to. I would say: Many people think 1660 was an interesting year because they have read about it. the verb ''to see'' does not apply because of lack of media references. ie not recorded on tape.
I am in no way trying to offend anyone at all. I am sorry if I come across as this and apologies to those who think I am. I am only trying to understand and be understood. This is how I see how I learn by questioning everything.
Thank you for the clarification. This makes sense now. I never saw it that way because I thought by saying' heated debate' 'standby' and 'current affairs' as in News that had set the tone that the conversationw were purely professional and not personal.
It makes sense because the only possible referent for "it" in "Many people think 1989 was an interesting year" is "1989" (or "year", which refers to the same thing) and because inanimate objects (or even abstract entities such as a year) can be spoken of as figuratively seeing things.
Questioning everything is one thing, but please don't assume that those who disagree with you are not doing the same thing. If you want to examine how English came to be the way it is, it's of limited use just considering its relation to other languages now. To see how it got here you have to look at where it has been, which means comparing texts back through Shakespeare and Chaucer to Beowulf and Caedmon's Hymn, seeing how it has changed and looking for likely causes of those changes. You say you are studying English, but have you done any academic study of the history of the English language? What text books have you used?
Even if you have set a tone, the connotations of a phrase can undermine it. And yes, "current affairs" means news, but their current affairs would be their current romantic entanglements.
I am not studying English anymore but I did a Degree in English. I meant I am still learning through writing, reading and researching through linguistics. I studied various authors and I also studied Grammar at school and University.
