question tags

[plin]

Please choose the most appropriate question tag and say if the others are fine as a second choice.


Different meanings for were, isn't it?/ don't they/aren't they?


Please OK the correct form, meaning the world of the crazy(ones):

The world of the nuts

The world of the Nuts

The world of nuts

The world of Nuts

the world of the nut(ones).



Many thanks--Plin

[danmahaffey]

Please choose the most appropriate question tag and say if the others are fine as a second choice.


Different meanings for were, isn't it?/ don't they/aren't they?There are different meanings for were, aren't there?

Please OK the correct form, meaning the world of the crazy(ones):

The world of the nuts

The world of the Nuts

The world of nuts

The world of Nuts

the world of the nut(ones).I think the world of nuts works best. You haven't provided new information for me to believe nuts is a proper name, so no capitalization is called for. You haven't specifically identified a particular group of nuts, so the is not called for. So just use the basic phrase. Now your next assignment is to look up the word disparage, and see why I suggest you use this phrase with extreme care.

[plin]

>There are different meanings for were, aren't there?

Ideally this should be the case but, as you can see below, "Different meanings for were," is clearly understood in the context of what is written before. So, the question becomes: Is it acceptable to have question tags at all after "Different meanings for were" in the context given?




"I know that the sentence is fine if we view it from the simple past tense perspective. However, my doubts are about a different sense, comparable to were in a simple sentence like, "They 'were' here yesterday" and were in, "I wish they 'were' with me." Different meanings for were, isn't it?"

[plin]

>Now your next assignment is to look up the word disparage, and see why I suggest you use this phrase with extreme care.

No worries. Since the intention was clearly humorous, I won't get too mad with me for "depreciating" myself once in a blue moon.

[danmahaffey]

>There are different meanings for were, aren't there?

Ideally this should be the case but, as you can see below, "Different meanings for were," is clearly understood in the context of what is written before. So, the question becomes: Is it acceptable to have question tags at all after "Different meanings for were" in the context given?




"I know that the sentence is fine if we view it from the simple past tense perspective. However, my doubts are about a different sense, comparable to were in a simple sentence like, "They 'were' here yesterday" and were in, "I wish they 'were' with me." Different meanings for were, isn't it?"Hi, plin. I think you might be over analyzing this. My recommendation for aren't there is based on plural meanings, not on plural were. Short version: ...different meanings, aren't there?

Does that make sense?

Regarding calling nut cases, nut cases :), I know we are adults here, and adults, in my book, accept the consequences of their behavior. So from time to time I will point out where there may be consequences, and you can decide for yourself if you want to go forward.

I remember in the sixties, an American television network executive said that they didn't allow the word "crazy" in scripts for TV shows because there were people watching who would think the shows were talking about them. (If you ask me, that is a perfect definition of crazy.) We have progressed a long way since then, aren't there?

[plin]

>Hi, plin. I think you might be over analyzing this. My recommendation for aren't there is based on plural meanings, not on plural were. Short version: ...different meanings, aren't there?


No, Dan, there is no over analizing in my question since I am not talking about the plural "were" here but about different meanings. And on a second look to you posting, in the context of what was written, your suggested sentence could have been (I think), They are different meanings for were, aren't they? as opposed to, >There are different meanings for were, aren't there? in order to better fit the question tag in the sentence. Not that there is anything wrong with your suggestion in itself.


As you may recall, I wrote, "Different meanings for were, isn't it?" and as I have said, "Different meanings for were" is clearly understood on the basis of what was said before it. But since there was no "they are," I didn't write "aren't they?" as a question tag, even if I could have done so because "they are" is implied: (They are) Different meanings for were, aren't they?


Since there is no "they are," I also thought of "Different meanings" as being a fact. This was my reasoning for writing, "Different meanings for were, isn't it?" ("It" being the fact).


We could also say, Different meanings(apply ) for(to) were, don't they?


Have another look at what I said:

"I know that the sentence is fine if we view it from the simple past tense perspective. However, my doubts are about a different sense, comparable to were in a simple sentence like, "They 'were' here yesterday" and were in, "I wish they 'were' with me." Different meanings for were, isn't it"

Different meanings for were, isn't it/aren't they/don't they?

So, the question still stands but I am rephrasing it: Is it acceptable to have a question tag at all after "were" in "Different meanings for were" in the context given in the example above? If the answer is yes, which is the correct one and on what basis?

[plin]

>>Regarding calling nut cases, nut cases :), I know we are adults here, and adults, in my book, accept the consequences of their behavior. So from time to time I will point out where there may be consequences, and you can decide for yourself if you want to go forward.

>I remember in the sixties, an American television network executive said that they didn't allow the word "crazy" in scripts for TV shows because there were people watching who would think the shows were talking about them. (If you ask me, that is a perfect definition of crazy.) We have progressed a long way since then, aren't there?


I hadn't considered the usage of "the world of nuts" from the angle of political correctness and your point is well taken, Dan. Thanks.

[danmahaffey]

>>Regarding calling nut cases, nut cases :), I know we are adults here, and adults, in my book, accept the consequences of their behavior. So from time to time I will point out where there may be consequences, and you can decide for yourself if you want to go forward.

>I remember in the sixties, an American television network executive said that they didn't allow the word "crazy" in scripts for TV shows because there were people watching who would think the shows were talking about them. (If you ask me, that is a perfect definition of crazy.) We have progressed a long way since then, aren't there?


I hadn't considered the usage of "the world of nuts" from the angle of political correctness and your point is well taken, Dan. Thanks.No comment about the absurd use of "aren't there" as a question marker? I'm hurt.

[danmahaffey]

>Hi, plin. I think you might be over analyzing this. My recommendation for aren't there is based on plural meanings, not on plural were. Short version: ...different meanings, aren't there?


No, Dan, there is no over analizing in my question since I am not talking about the plural "were" here but about different meanings. And on a second look to you posting, in the context of what was written, your suggested sentence could have been (I think), They are different meanings for were, aren't they? as opposed to, >There are different meanings for were, aren't there? in order to better fit the question tag in the sentence. Not that there is anything wrong with your suggestion in itself.


As you may recall, I wrote, "Different meanings for were, isn't it?" and as I have said, "Different meanings for were" is clearly understood on the basis of what was said before it. But since there was no "they are," I didn't write "aren't they?" as a question tag, even if I could have done so because "they are" is implied: (They are) Different meanings for were, aren't they?


Since there is no "they are," I also thought of "Different meanings" as being a fact. This was my reasoning for writing, "Different meanings for were, isn't it?" ("It" being the fact).


We could also say, Different meanings(apply ) for(to) were, don't they?


Have another look at what I said:

"I know that the sentence is fine if we view it from the simple past tense perspective. However, my doubts are about a different sense, comparable to were in a simple sentence like, "They 'were' here yesterday" and were in, "I wish they 'were' with me." Different meanings for were, isn't it"

Different meanings for were, isn't it/aren't they/don't they?

So, the question still stands but I am rephrasing it: Is it acceptable to have a question tag at all after "were" in "Different meanings for were" in the context given in the example above? If the answer is yes, which is the correct one and on what basis?Ahh. The light is coming on. Sorry about the overanalyzing comment. *

The plural of meanings (as antecedent) is causing the question marker to be forced to plural. If we change meanings to singluar, we have: A different meaning for were, isn't it? But this is not all you intend, I feel.

Maybe this expresses it better: It's about different meanings for were, isn't it?

Now we have a better antecedent in singular form to trigger a singular question marker. The antecedent, It, is a pronoun that refers to the double life of the word were.

Does this address your question better?

_________
* I know how frustrating it can be to try hard to find the correct answer when you believe one exists and it continues to elude every effort. My remark was not intended to disapprove, but to suggest taking a timeout. In my experience, when English becomes this hard, it's time to rephrase the sentence and move on. This is Natures way of saying, "Don't write that sentence."

[plin]

>Does this address your question better?

In think it does. The question is, "Is it acceptable to have a question tag at all after "were" in "Different meanings for were" in the context given in the example above?" And your posting seems to have NO as the answer to it. Your answer implies that "Different meanings for 'were'" should not have a question tag unless it changes into something like:

They are different meanings for "were," aren't they?

Different meanings apply to "were," don't they?

There are different meanings for "were," aren't there?





>>No comment about the absurd use of "aren't there" as a question marker? I'm hurt.


No need for that, Dan. Coming from you, we all know that it was an obvious oversight.

[Temico]

>Does this address your question better?

In think it does. The question is, "Is it acceptable to have a question tag at all after "were" in "Different meanings for were" in the context given in the example above?" And your posting seems to have NO as the answer to it. Your answer implies that "Different meanings for 'were'" should not have a question tag unless it changes into something like:

They are different meanings for "were," aren't they?

Different meanings apply to "were," don't they?

There are different meanings for "were," aren't there?





>>No comment about the absurd use of "aren't there" as a question marker? I'm hurt.


No need for that, Dan. Coming from you, we all know that it was an obvious oversight.

......we all know that it was an obvious oversight.

Who are "all", plin? Have you been appointed to speak for "all (=everybody)" in this forum, and if so, since when, may I ask? Please speak for yourself only! "Oversight", my foot!!

[daya]

Please excuse me Temico, but I cannot help not asking you this. Are you really day-dreaming? Are you trying to teach a native speaker his own language? How would you feel if a foreigner were to try and teach you your native language, no matter how good he or she may be? Native speakers of English can change the way they speak and still call it English. After all it is their language. Why don't you spare some of your precious time writing an article instead, stressing something important or useful so your countrymen and fellow humble learners can benefit? When you squabble with a native speaker about his own language you end up looking foolish. It is his language not yours. If you cannot accept this fact you should find a different place to improve your English. I have been reading your postings and you are making problems for no good reason.

[plin]

>Who are "all", plin? Have you been appointed to speak for "all (=everybody)" in this forum, and if so, since when, may I ask? Please speak for yourself only! "Oversight", my foot!!


Hello, hello, Temico. It's good to meet you again.

There should be some room for accommodation, shouldn't there? So, let me fix the sentence for you:

"No need for that, Dan. Coming from you, we all know, except Temico, that it was an obvious oversight."


Unless the opposite proves to be the case, I think I am on fairly safe ground here.

[danmahaffey]

>Who are "all", plin? Have you been appointed to speak for "all (=everybody)" in this forum, and if so, since when, may I ask? Please speak for yourself only! "Oversight", my foot!!


Hello, hello, Temico. It's good to meet you again.

There should be some room for accommodation, shouldn't there? So, let me fix the sentence for you:

"No need for that, Dan. Coming from you, we all know, except Temico, that it was an obvious oversight."


Unless the opposite proves to be the case, I think I am on fairly safe ground here.Give Temico his due. It is impossible for us to speak for him. Henceforth, we define all to mean all less one. As for plin's observation, yes, it was an obvious something, but not an oversight. I planted the false question tag. It was a lure, and I was disappointed no one challenged it. This thread has been fun, though. Well done.

[plin]

>Give Temico his due. It is impossible for us to speak for him. Henceforth, we define all to mean all less one. As for plin's observation, yes, it was an obvious something, but not an oversight. I planted the false question tag. It was a lure, and I was disappointed no one challenged it. This thread has been fun, though. Well done.



In fairness to all and myself, I think I should start to read postings twice. Not doing so, increases the possibility of misunderstanding. When Dan said, "No comment about the absurd use of "aren't there" as a question marker? I'm hurt." I completely missed the question mark and I thought it was a self-analysis on his part for a mistake he had made. If I had noticed my error, my reply to Dan would have been different. Copying and pasting don't help much in correcting a misreading. So, Temico, even if your approach when asking a question could improve, I acknowledge that it was my reply to Dan's posting what triggered your question.

[danmahaffey]

>Give Temico his due. It is impossible for us to speak for him. Henceforth, we define all to mean all less one. As for plin's observation, yes, it was an obvious something, but not an oversight. I planted the false question tag. It was a lure, and I was disappointed no one challenged it. This thread has been fun, though. Well done.



In fairness to all and myself, I think I should start to read postings twice. Not doing so, increases the possibility of misunderstanding. When Dan said, "No comment about the absurd use of "aren't there" as a question marker? I'm hurt." I completely missed the question mark and I thought it was a self-analysis on his part for a mistake he had made. If I had noticed my error, my reply to Dan would have been different. Copying and pasting don't help much in correcting a misreading. So, Temico, even if your approach when asking a question could improve, I acknowledge that it was my reply to Dan's posting what triggered your question....what triggered your question.;)

[Temico]

Please excuse me Temico, but I cannot help not asking you this. Are you really day-dreaming? Are you trying to teach a native speaker his own language? How would you feel if a foreigner were to try and teach you your native language, no matter how good he or she may be? Native speakers of English can change the way they speak and still call it English. After all it is their language. Why don't you spare some of your precious time writing an article instead, stressing something important or useful so your countrymen and fellow humble learners can benefit? When you squabble with a native speaker about his own language you end up looking foolish. It is his language not yours. If you cannot accept this fact you should find a different place to improve your English. I have been reading your postings and you are making problems for no good reason.

The only person who will "end up looking foolish" is the idiot who worships and believes that all "native speakers" can do no wrong and can be relied on to teach/correct their English. FYI, I know of countless native speakers including teachers who are teaching in China and are unfit to teach anything leave alone the English language. The only reason they have been employed as teachers is because there too many idiots in China who can't tell the difference---you being a perfect example. Now please keep your nonsensical advice to yourself!!

[Temico]

Give Temico his due. It is impossible for us to speak for him. Henceforth, we define all to mean all less one. As for plin's observation, yes, it was an obvious something, but not an oversight. I planted the false question tag. It was a lure, and I was disappointed no one challenged it. This thread has been fun, though. Well done.

It was a lure, ...
At least you now know that there is at least one person here who can see through your "lure". I was waiting to see how much more rope was needed for that self-admitted "nut" before he'd go and hang himself. I quote a saying:
"Give a rope to a fool and he'd go and hang himself!"

[daya]

The only person who will "end up looking foolish" is the idiot who worships and believes that all "native speakers" can do no wrong and can be relied on to teach/correct their English. FYI, I know of countless native speakers including teachers who are teaching in China and are unfit to teach anything leave alone the English language. The only reason they have been employed as teachers is because there too many idiots in China who can't tell the difference---you being a perfect example. Now please keep your nonsensical advice to yourself!!
Temico you prove my point that when a conversation does not go your way you attack others. You make assumptions which are simple minded and false. Native speaking teachers in China are not a concern of my company. It is my right to ask native speakers for advice and comments if this will provide the information my company requires. In another situation I may seek different advice. If I ask men to answer will you say I discriminate against women? If I ask people under a certain age for their comments will that be discrimination to you? You are so eager to criticize you do not think outside your narrow mind.

You live in the past Temico. This is the twenty-first century. At one time "lackey" was a favorite word for Communists to use for insulting people who worked hard to compete in the business world. You do not hear this word today. People would think it was a joke! You talk like an old man who cannot find a place in the modern world so he clings to the time when he was young. If you want a place for debating outdated political opinions you should go to the forum where old men do nothing but sit around and trade insults all day. This is not a sarcastic comment. It is honest advice. You would be welcome there.

The point is this Temico, students and business people do not have time to look for answers hidden between your arguments. You make confusion where there should be easy understanding. It is not for you to say what goes on in this forum. It is for the moderators to decide. When you break the rules you show disrespect for yourself and for the forum and your fellow members do not thank you for this. Why do you stay here if so many people upset you? Can you not see that you do not fit in?

[Temico]

Temico you prove my point that when a conversation does not go your way you attack others. You make assumptions which are simple minded and false. Native speaking teachers in China are not a concern of my company. It is my right to ask native speakers for advice and comments if this will provide the information my company requires. In another situation I may seek different advice. If I ask men to answer will you say I discriminate against women? If I ask people under a certain age for their comments will that be discrimination to you? You are so eager to criticize you do not think outside your narrow mind.

You live in the past Temico. This is the twenty-first century. At one time "lackey" was a favorite word for Communists to use for insulting people who worked hard to compete in the business world. You do not hear this word today. People would think it was a joke! You talk like an old man who cannot find a place in the modern world so he clings to the time when he was young. If you want a place for debating outdated political opinions you should go to the forum where old men do nothing but sit around and trade insults all day. This is not a sarcastic comment. It is honest advice. You would be welcome there.

The point is this Temico, students and business people do not have time to look for answers hidden between your arguments. You make confusion where there should be easy understanding. It is not for you to say what goes on in this forum. It is for the moderators to decide. When you break the rules you show disrespect for yourself and for the forum and your fellow members do not thank you for this. Why do you stay here if so many people upset you? Can you not see that you do not fit in?
Only a parrot would keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again. Are you a parrot or are you running out of nonsense? How about finding a "native speaker" to teach you some more nonsense which is about all lackeys are fit for??

[plin]

Here is one question for you, Temico; in this way, we would be getting back to learning about the proper use of question tags, which was the original purpose of this thread. What do you think is the question tag after the coma in the following sentences?



There exists one possibility to see her again,

There may be truth in what she says,

There should have been food on the table,

There should be food on the table,

There seems to be a spirit of cooperation between them,

[taniya]

hi how r u i new here

[plin]

>hi how r u i new here

You are certainly most welcome here but for more exposure to your post, remember that you can also click the New Thread button. Once again, taniya, welcome, keep posting and have a good day!


Plin

[plin]

>>How about finding a "native speaker" to teach you some more nonsense which is about all lackeys are fit for??

What's going on Temico?


This one time I decided not to be a "lackey" according to your definition and posted the question directly to you. But what happens? You came down to a screeching halt. At least, you should have referred the question to others if you couldn't or didn't want to answer it for whatever reason (exempted if sick). After all, I don't expect you to be Mr. know-it-all-English. Nobody is. Forget about answering my question now; I'll post it again to the forum.

Could it be possible that you have vanished into thin air?


Plin.

[Temico]

>>How about finding a "native speaker" to teach you some more nonsense which is about all lackeys are fit for??

What's going on Temico?


This one time I decided not to be a "lackey" according to your definition and posted the question directly to you. But what happens? You came down to a screeching halt. At least, you should have referred the question to others if you couldn't or didn't want to answer it for whatever reason (exempted if sick). After all, I don't expect you to be Mr. know-it-all-English. Nobody is. Forget about answering my question now; I'll post it again to the forum.
Could it be possible that you have vanished into thin air?

Plin.
It would have been more appropriate if you had asked yourself, "What's going on with me?" Remember, I have never offered to answer your questions and you can rest assured that I never will, especially to those who discriminate and are biased against non-native speakers!!

[Rusty]

Plin, I don't see an answer to your question, so I will fill in here.

There exists one possibility to see her again, doesn't there?

There may be truth in what she says, may there not be?

There should have been food on the table, shouldn't there have been?

There should be food on the table, shouldn't there be?

There seems to be a spirit of cooperation between them, doesn't there?

[plin]

>>It would have been more appropriate if you had asked yourself, "What's going on with me?" Remember, I have never offered to answer your questions and you can rest assured that I never will, especially to those who discriminate and are biased against non-native speakers!!


It's OK Temico; I was starting to think that you had been abducted by aliens. As for my question, it has been answered for you and me. Thanks anyways.

[plin]

>Plin, I don't see an answer to your question, so I will fill in here.


Your reply to my question here and the same question in another thread is very much appreciated, Rusty. I reposted it in a new thread to make sure that it would be answered. Thanks so much.


Plin.