Zaproszone osoby: 16 Pomógł: 29 razy Posty: 751 Skąd: Kraków
Wysłany: Czw 28 Wrz, 2006 10:12 am Present Simple i Continuous o przyszłości
Przy pomocy obu czasów teraźniejszych - Present Simple i Present Continuous - można opisywać czynności, które będą miały miejsce w przyszłości.
Present Continuous służy do mówienia o planach i zamiarach na przyszłość. O tym, co będzie miało miejsce w przyszłości, ponieważ zostało tak zaplanowane, uzgodnione, zaaranżowane przez osobę będącą podmiotem zdania:
I am going to the disco tomorrow.
We are having a party next Saturday.
She is going on holiday in August.
W czasie Present Simple mówimy o wydarzeniach, które będą miały miejsce w przyszłości nie z woli własnej osób, ale wynika z kalendarza, rozkładów jazdy, przydziału obowiązków itp.:
The train leaves London at 3.45 p.m..
Tomorrow is Friday.
We have maths tomorrow.
The school year begins on September 1st.
_________________
foofoo [Usunięty]
Wysłany: Czw 28 Wrz, 2006 7:30 pm My flight is leaving ?
Nauczam sobie pierwszy rok z podręcznika Enterprse 2 i pewnego pięknego dnia spotykam na stronie 9 w liście zdanie "My flight is leaving from Oslo next Friday."
Co Wy na to? Wmawiamy dzieciakom, że "my flight leaves" a co najwyżej "I'm leaving" a tu masz, babo, placek. Jeszcze niech który dzieciak, co bardziej dociekliwy, zauważy...
Czy spotkaliście się z podobnymi formami? Bo tu nie chodzi o tekst piosenki czy coś w tym stylu, ale modelowy tekst z podręcznika. A może diaboliczna Virginia Evans zrobiła nauczycielom psikusa?
Quite honestly, foofoo, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this one.
The choice between "My flight is leaving.." and "My flight leaves.." is yours. The latter isn't necessarily more correct!
The Present Progressive simply means it's an arrangement you've made (here: you're going to take the plane) as opposed to something that happens regularly (a plane that goes on Fridays).
Btw, don't fear those little Curious Georges! What could be cooler than a student who actually reads the book and comes across stuff they want to find out more about!
_________________
foofoo [Usunięty]
Wysłany: Czw 28 Wrz, 2006 11:13 pm
Zawsze uczyłam tej różnicy z przekonaniem, że Present Simple wyraża przyszłośc niezależną od mówiącego, a Present Continuous plany osobiste. Stąd moja wątpliwość, bo flight jest jednak niezależny, tak jak repertuary, harmonogramy, rozkłady odjazdów itp. Ale poszperam jeszcze w gramatykach, dziękuję.
And I'm not afraid of Curious Georges , no, I've been teaching for quite a while and it's not new to me. I just don't feel comfortable when I'm faced the fact that the coursebook (that I've chosen) contains mistakes and they spot it.
Zaproszone osoby: 1 Pomógł: 65 razy Posty: 861 Skąd: the boonies
Wysłany: Czw 28 Wrz, 2006 11:36 pm
I bet grammars will tell you that you should use Present Simple in such situations. However, it doesn't reflect the situation in real life. Sometimes native speakers who write text books are pedantic people who like rules just for the sake of them. If you asked a group of native speakers, I bet they'd recognise both versions as perfectly correct.
_________________ Every man dies, but not every man really lives.
Present Simple wyraża przyszłośc niezależną od mówiącego, a Present Continuous plany osobiste
The simple present is common when we are talking about timetabled events, yes. And the present progressive when 'something is planned or decided, or it is starting to happen, or we can see it coming now' (Swan) - so not necessarily only to talk about personal arrangements, though mostly so.
In the Olso case it's clear to me that some (personal) arrangements (purchasing the ticket, arranging to get to Olso) have been made. Hence the tense seems perfectly fine.
On the Curious George note, I still think those kids should receive nothing but praise for pointing out stuff like that. Even if, like here, there really isn't an error there; or a mistake for I like to think that Ms. Evans errs not . And what a terrific opportunity for them to learn something from discovering that! Won't you agree, foofoo?
majlo napisał/a:
Sometimes native speakers who write text books are pedantic people who like rules just for the sake of them
You seem quite opinionated here, majlo. I'm gonna play devil's advocate and challenge you on this one:
How else would you have it??
Too bad. Opinionated is good!
The challenge is to tell me how else would you have those (native speakers or not) who write textbooks if not abiding by the rules?
kindest regards,
l.
_________________
foofoo [Usunięty]
Wysłany: Pią 29 Wrz, 2006 7:13 am
man, it seems like English teachers never sleep...
I'm enjoying this conversation immensely, I must admit. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that grammar has little to do with life and real communication. My only worry is that the people who prepare matura tests and keys (I call them affectionately 'sweterki') are usually one-track minds and won't include this option (My flight is leaving...)
Anyway, what I usually do is to tell my students to use the 'safer' option so that the 'sweterki' won't triumph
Hope no sweterek is around.
Oh, and yes lucertola, I often reward my students for being observant, for example when they spot a spelling mistake on the board, which I sometimes make on purpose. Please don't think of me as a prescriptive grammar freak
Zaproszone osoby: 1 Pomógł: 65 razy Posty: 861 Skąd: the boonies
Wysłany: Pią 29 Wrz, 2006 8:31 am
lucertola napisał/a:
Too bad. Opinionated is good!
Sorry, lucertola, but not to my thinking
lucertola napisał/a:
The challenge is to tell me how else would you have those (native speakers or not) who write textbooks if not abiding by the rules?
I see.
Hmm, I really don't know. Maybe it'd be useful to pay attention not only to stiff grammar rules, but also to how the language - and, still, its grammar - is used by the native speakers. For example, if I, as a high school student, learn that you use Present Simple to describe actions which take place according to different timetables and schedules and I go abroad and hear My flight is leaving from Oxford next Fridat, I'm confused. That's why, I think, people like V. Evans would do a big favour to those learning English, if they included all aspects of the given usage.
You cited my favourite text book author somewhere here. Check out what he writes on No doubt (in the newest edition of his book).
With kind regards,
majlo
_________________ Every man dies, but not every man really lives.
I guess the thing is that you have to draw the line somewhere. You cannot reveal all aspects of, say, any given tense right in Enterprise 2 or English File 1, sometimes not until Inside Out Advanced.
You know what I'm saying here? That often there is a certain logic to the order we're being presented the language with. I actually am glad that V. Evans (poor woman oblivious to all the abuse she's getting here) does not spill it all out at once - who could possibly take that!!
majlo napisał/a:
pay attention not only to stiff grammar rules
The reason for this often being books'/writers' focus is simple. The better you learn, the more chances that as time goes by your language (L2 or L1 for that matter) will deteriorate at a slower pace. It's good to know not only the how to's but also the why's.
On the now infamous Olso case, from what I've understood, the book does have all the usages (arrangements and timetables) and it's up to the teacher to shift their students' focus and properly explain the difference btw the two sentences under fire here.
As for Swan, I only got the second ed. at hand. Do they differ much?
Zaproszone osoby: 1 Pomógł: 65 razy Posty: 861 Skąd: the boonies
Wysłany: Sob 30 Wrz, 2006 6:30 pm
lucertola napisał/a:
I guess the thing is that you have to draw the line somewhere. You cannot reveal all aspects of, say, any given tense right in Enterprise 2 or English File 1
Yes, lucertola. I couldn't agree more. But to my thinking the line should go a little further than it does now. Really, I think it's important enough to mention about it in a text book.
lucertola napisał/a:
I actually am glad that V. Evans (poor woman oblivious to all the abuse she's getting here) does not spill it all out at once - who could possibly take that!!
So am I. Nobody could take that. I just mean this particular situation with Present Simple and Present Continuous.
lucertola napisał/a:
Do they differ much?
I can't say as I only got the 3rd Edition. Anyway, have a look:
No doubt means 'probably' or 'I suppose', not 'certainly'.
No doubt it'll rain soon.
You're tired, no doubt. I'll make you a cup of tea.
To say that something is certain, we can use there is no doubt that (formal), without any doubt (formal), certainly, definitely.
There is no doubt that the world is getting warmer. (NOT No doubt the world is getting warmer.)
Cycling is certainly healthier than driving. (NOT No doubt cycling is healthier than driving.)
Doubtless is similar to no doubt (but more formal); undoubtedly is similar to there is no doubt.
I always thought 'no doubt' meant 'bez wątpliwości' while from the excerpt above it appears it means 'prawdopodobnie', 'chyba'.
_________________ Every man dies, but not every man really lives.
Nie możesz pisać nowych tematów Nie możesz odpowiadać w tematach Nie możesz zmieniać swoich postów Nie możesz usuwać swoich postów Możesz głosować w ankietach Nie możesz załączać plików na tym forum Możesz ściągać załączniki na tym forum
, no, I've been teaching for quite a while and it's not new to me. I just don't feel comfortable when I'm faced the fact that the coursebook (that I've chosen) contains mistakes and they spot it.
on this one:
![[Szukaj w słowniku]](http://www.ling.pl/szukaj-new.gif)