🧑‍🎓 ENGLISH IN CONTEXT: "I'll do what she tells me" vs. "I'll tell you what she'll do" 👀

[@iloveengland5]

Thanks for your insight! Good morning, Sir. I have a question about "since" to refer to a point of time in the past with past simple. I was reading an english website about a story and found this sentence : "Arisu was close to death since the beginning of Alice in Borderland, yet only one minute had passed in the real world this entire time." It suprises me because past simple is used with "since" to refer to a point of time here and not to mean "because". Would you kindly explain to me how that works ? In what kind of situation is it possible to use "since" to refer to a point of time with past simple ? Thank you in advance!

[@anosensei]

It sounds a bit odd to me too. I am British, and if I'd written that sentence, I would have said, "Arisu _had been_ close to death". I think in American English the use of the perfect tenses is more flexible than in British English, so perhaps this was written by an American. I found a very similar sentence that _does_ use the past perfect: "Finding out what that place really was had been Arisu’s main goal since the beginning of Alice in Borderland." (screenrant.com/alice-borderland-queen-hearts-game-fan-theories/)

[@iloveengland5]

@@anosensei Wow really ? That even confuses me more! As I have been taught that past perfect talks about something that had happened before something else, so, here 2 things are being talked about. The sentence you gave : "Finding out what that place really was had been Arisu's main goal since the beginning of Alice in Borderland." Here, the fact that it uses "had been", I think, means that there is something else that happened after that. But what I am really asking is that I am only focusing on one thing that is that Arisu was close to death and there is no sequence of events that includes more than one thing like past perfect does the job. Could you tell me why you would have said "had been" ? If you would use it, wouldn't it mean there is a sequence of events, which means you are talking about more things than arisu being close to death ? This is what past perfect means right ? But I am trying to ask about focusing on one thing rather than a sequence of events that includes more than one thing.

[@anosensei]

@iloveengland5 The situation is already in the past, as we can see from the other use of the past perfect ("only one minute had passed" ). The past perfect is for something that goes further back than that past situation.

[@shalmar14]

That's good! But I think the that-clause case is more interesting to talk about. For example : It's possible to use the present simple in "You will see that you have her" to refer to the future = "You will see" is about the future and "You have her" is also about the future but the present simple is used here and it's possible. The reason why I think it's interesting is because in this sentence : "She will be happy that he comes to the party for her tomorrow", it doesn't work with the present simple here. I just don't get it why the first sentence works and the second one doesn't when both are that-clauses and refer to the same time in the future and not "future in the future". Thank you!

[@anosensei]

I discuss "that" clauses in another video, but it is for channel members only: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYqnZ4hjeJalfZIfeature=shared

[@shalmar14]

​@@anosenseiBTW, the video can't be watched because it says "it has been removed by the uploader". And I think, if you already talk about this topic in this video, my suggestion is that you should make the that-clause public, too because they are about the same topic.

[@anosensei]

@@shalmar14 > the video can't be watched because it says "it has been removed by the uploader". Yes, I decided to add something to the members' only video, so I deleted the original and uploaded the new version. If you refresh this page, you should get the correct link to the new video. If you are still having trouble, here is the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHmydo2upZeUZ9Efeature=shared > I think, if you already talk about this topic in this video, my suggestion is that you should make the that-clause public, too because they are about the same topic. Thank you for your suggestion, but I have made my decision.

[@anosensei]

@@shalmar14 I am curious, though. Where do you get your really weird model sentences from? Do you just make them up? They aren't sentences a native speaker would normally use. ▼

[@shalmar14]

​​​@@anosenseiI made them up but what matters here is actually the structure and the fact that whether or not the present simple could be used in place of "will" twice in that clauses. The sentences might not be usual but I'd like to get information whether or not in adjective clauses, or "that" clauses, we still don't need "will" again if it's already been used in the main clause. Other people have asked you a similar question with a sentence such as "I'll know whether Kim is serious 'in first minute", and you said "will" isn't needed twice there for both clauses to refer to the same time in the future. And you also said that in "If you pause the clock, you'll see you have a timetable and a map to help you get where you need to be", we don't need "will" twice in "you have a timetable". Here's my big question : How in the sentence : "She will be happy that he comes to her party for her tomorrow", doesn't the present simple work twice whereas in the sentence : "You'll see you have a timetable and a map to help you get where you need to be", you suggest using the present simple in "you have a timetable" instead of repeating "will" when both sentences are about "that clauses " and both are the same in structure (You will see + that, She will be happy + that = that clauses) ?

[@Mollen66]

Hi! I have confusion with the difference between and when to use eiher : 1. There is a difference in a story. 2. There is a difference in story. 3. There is a difference in the story. I can't see the difference clearly. I would be happy if you helped me make these clear for me! Thank you!

[@anosensei]

We wouldn't say 2. It is incorrect. 1 is grammatically possible, but it's very unusual; it would mean that there is an unspecified story that contains a difference. 3 is the normal expression. We know which story we are talking about and we are saying that there is a difference in that story. But you would need to be comparing the story with something else. Maybe your brother told you a story about something that happened, and your sister told you a very similar story, but her story is a bit different. Then you would say, "There is a difference in the story my sister told me", or, "There is a difference between the two stories." Please study the following web page: www.wallstreetenglish.com/exercises/the-complete-guide-to-definite-and-indefinite-articles

[@Mollen66]

@@anosensei I haven't still understood about two things after reading it : Would you tell me in what possible contexts we could use sentence 1 naturally and grammatically ? Because if you said it's possible, there should be contexts for it naturally and grammatically. And also why is sentence 3 the normal expression ?

[@anosensei]

@@Mollen66 Hi. Basically, I'm just here to make educational videos. It looks as if you need a language teacher. Good luck!