Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Rhinorhino on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Free at Last
- Thread starter Thadeus
- Start date
AnotherHiggins
Technical User
Why would the second sentence have an apostrophe in "free's"?
Is it possessive? Is it an contraction?
[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.
Is it possessive? Is it an contraction?
[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Frees" would never have an apostrophe unless possession or contraction is involved.
It's very normal for present tense verbs used in third person to have an added 's'. There is nothing wrong with
He frees the captive bunny.
The second case is not present tense, but past tense, so I would write it as follows (note the added comma):
Classes just ended, which freed up Jen's time.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
It's very normal for present tense verbs used in third person to have an added 's'. There is nothing wrong with
He frees the captive bunny.
The second case is not present tense, but past tense, so I would write it as follows (note the added comma):
Classes just ended, which freed up Jen's time.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
SantaMufasa
Technical User
He frees the captive bunny. <-- Correct.
Classes just ended which free's up Jen's time. <-- Incorrect. Requires re-write.
The apostrophe represents either possession or contraction of "free is", neither of which is correct.
![[santa]](/data/assets/smilies/santa.gif "[santa] [santa]")
Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
Classes just ended which free's up Jen's time. <-- Incorrect. Requires re-write.
The apostrophe represents either possession or contraction of "free is", neither of which is correct.
Mufasa(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]
- Thread starter
- #5
I agreed on the apostrophe not being correct, but wanted to provide an example in opposition to the correct method... or as evidenced by my asking, what I perceived to be the correct method.
Thank you for the quick responses.
And as to mixing the tenses, I was drawing the words from a conversation that I heard. The actual sentence structure is unknown. But why would it need to be rew-written?
Me: "How did you get the appointment with Jen? She's always so busy."
Them: "Classes just ended which frees up Jen's schedule."*
Conversationally, I don't see anything wrong with it, but I realize there is a difference between conversation and written language.
~Thadeus
*Yes, I realize I switched it from 'time' to 'schedule'. It fit my example better.
Thank you for the quick responses.
And as to mixing the tenses, I was drawing the words from a conversation that I heard. The actual sentence structure is unknown. But why would it need to be rew-written?
Me: "How did you get the appointment with Jen? She's always so busy."
Them: "Classes just ended which frees up Jen's schedule."*
Conversationally, I don't see anything wrong with it, but I realize there is a difference between conversation and written language.
~Thadeus
*Yes, I realize I switched it from 'time' to 'schedule'. It fit my example better.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
"Classes just ended which frees up Jen's schedule."
The sentence should be re-written because of the inconsistency in verb tense. Verbs in dependent clauses should be in the same tense as the verb in the associated independent clause. In this sentence, the independent clause verb 'ended' is in the past tense; therefore, the verb 'free' in the dependent clause 'which freed up Jen's schedule' should also be in past tense.
Another option is to remove the dependent clause by making it two separate sentences.
Classes just ended. That frees up Jen's schedule.
In this case, there is no difference between conversational language and written language. Either way, you should maintain verb tense consistency.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
The sentence should be re-written because of the inconsistency in verb tense. Verbs in dependent clauses should be in the same tense as the verb in the associated independent clause. In this sentence, the independent clause verb 'ended' is in the past tense; therefore, the verb 'free' in the dependent clause 'which freed up Jen's schedule' should also be in past tense.
Another option is to remove the dependent clause by making it two separate sentences.
Classes just ended. That frees up Jen's schedule.
In this case, there is no difference between conversational language and written language. Either way, you should maintain verb tense consistency.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
- Thread starter
- #7
student: "Is the Dean available on Tuesday?"
receptionist: "Let me see. She was really busy with finals this week. Classes just ended and that usually frees up her time."
Does that work? Or am I just proving my ignorance. We don't have such sentences in France![[conehead]](/data/assets/smilies/conehead.gif "[conehead] [conehead]")
~Thadeus
receptionist: "Let me see. She was really busy with finals this week. Classes just ended and that usually frees up her time."
Does that work? Or am I just proving my ignorance. We don't have such sentences in France
~Thadeus
CajunCenturion
Programmer
===> Classes just ended and that usually frees up her time
Yes that works because there is no dependent clause. The above sentence contains two independent clauses.
The original sentence, "Classes just ended which frees up Jen's time. contains one independent clause and one dependent clause. The verb in the dependent clause is wrong because it is not in the same tense and the verb in the independent clause.
In my post of 1 May 08 12:05, I suggested that you could solve the problem by eliminating the dependent clause and making it two separate sentences. The example that you just provided is the same two independent clauses joined by a conjunction. That too is perfectly valid and it solves the problem because it removes the dependent clause.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Yes that works because there is no dependent clause. The above sentence contains two independent clauses.
The original sentence, "Classes just ended which frees up Jen's time. contains one independent clause and one dependent clause. The verb in the dependent clause is wrong because it is not in the same tense and the verb in the independent clause.
In my post of 1 May 08 12:05, I suggested that you could solve the problem by eliminating the dependent clause and making it two separate sentences. The example that you just provided is the same two independent clauses joined by a conjunction. That too is perfectly valid and it solves the problem because it removes the dependent clause.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
AnotherHiggins
Technical User
@ strongm
->Classes just ended which frees up Jen's schedule
It's all about keeping things parallel.
[tab]Classes ended <-past tense
[tab]Frees up time <-present tense
Those are not parallel.
Perhaps it will be easier to see in a different sentence. Consider this example which is analogous to the one about Jen's schedule:
[tab]Lothar was [shot] in the head which [ends] his life.
No, it ended his life, back when he was shot. On the other hand, it would be correct to say:
[tab]Lothar was shot in the head. That usually ends a person's life.
[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.
->Classes just ended which frees up Jen's schedule
It's all about keeping things parallel.
[tab]Classes ended <-past tense
[tab]Frees up time <-present tense
Those are not parallel.
Perhaps it will be easier to see in a different sentence. Consider this example which is analogous to the one about Jen's schedule:
[tab]Lothar was [shot] in the head which [ends] his life.
No, it ended his life, back when he was shot. On the other hand, it would be correct to say:
[tab]Lothar was shot in the head. That usually ends a person's life.
[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.
>Lothar was [shot] in the head which [ends] his life
Sorry, but I'd argue that a variant on that:
Lothar was shot in the head which makes me mad
is perfectly legitimate. It makes me mad right now, not in the past, that Lothar was shot in the head.
One does not have to keep things in parallel or keep verbs in dependent clauses in the same tense as the verb in the associated independent clause. Sure, there are some grammatical rules about this, but they are not this limiting.
For example, the four present tenses are the simple present, the present progressive, the present perfect, and the present perfect progressive. When these tenses are used in an independent clause, the verb in the dependent clause can be a present tense verb, a past tense verb or a future tense verb. That's one of the grammar rules related to tenses and dependent clauses and, as you can see, it disagrees with the assertions made so far on this subject that tenses match or are in parallel. Idiom and colloquialism also play a part
I'd argue that:
Classes just ended
is really
Classes [have] just ended
which is present perfect in the independent clause, thus quite legitimately allowing the simple present in the dependent
Sorry, but I'd argue that a variant on that:
Lothar was shot in the head which makes me mad
is perfectly legitimate. It makes me mad right now, not in the past, that Lothar was shot in the head.
One does not have to keep things in parallel or keep verbs in dependent clauses in the same tense as the verb in the associated independent clause. Sure, there are some grammatical rules about this, but they are not this limiting.
For example, the four present tenses are the simple present, the present progressive, the present perfect, and the present perfect progressive. When these tenses are used in an independent clause, the verb in the dependent clause can be a present tense verb, a past tense verb or a future tense verb. That's one of the grammar rules related to tenses and dependent clauses and, as you can see, it disagrees with the assertions made so far on this subject that tenses match or are in parallel. Idiom and colloquialism also play a part
I'd argue that:
Classes just ended
is really
Classes [have] just ended
which is present perfect in the independent clause, thus quite legitimately allowing the simple present in the dependent
CajunCenturion
Programmer
==> Lothar was shot in the head which makes me mad
For the same reasons, I do not believe that sentence to be grammatically correct.
That too could be written as
Lothar has been shot in the head which makes me mad.
I agree that if the independent clause uses the present perfect tense, then the use of present tense in the dependent clause is fine. However, neither the sentence about Lothar, nor the sentence about classes, are in the present perfect tense. They are both in past tense which dictates a past tense verb in their respective dependent clauses.
That being said, we can add changing the verb from past tense to present perfect tense in the independent clause as another way to fix the problem.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
For the same reasons, I do not believe that sentence to be grammatically correct.
That too could be written as
Lothar has been shot in the head which makes me mad.
I agree that if the independent clause uses the present perfect tense, then the use of present tense in the dependent clause is fine. However, neither the sentence about Lothar, nor the sentence about classes, are in the present perfect tense. They are both in past tense which dictates a past tense verb in their respective dependent clauses.
That being said, we can add changing the verb from past tense to present perfect tense in the independent clause as another way to fix the problem.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
CC in that case though couldn't Lothar have been previously shot in the head but you are still being made mad by the act?
"Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." ~ Nietzsche"
"Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." ~ Nietzsche"
CajunCenturion
Programmer
LizSara - Lothar was previously shot in the head, and you are mad about it in the present. The question is how to grammatically relate an action in the past to a reaction in the present. That's an excellent application of the present perfect tense.
I'm glad that strongm brought up the present perfect tense because it is a good fit for exactly this type of situation.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
I'm glad that strongm brought up the present perfect tense because it is a good fit for exactly this type of situation.
--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
PhunWithPhilip
Technical User
I'll start by commenting that the comments about the need for a comma before "which" and the elimination of the apostrophe were accurate.
As for the verb tense...I completely understand the argument that "classes just ended" and "frees up Jen's time" do not agree in tense. I think that the key here, though, is the information that is implied in the sentence...and implied portions of sentences do affect their structure. An example would be "Bob can't run as fast as I." "I" is used, rather than "me" because of the implied word: "as fast as I (do)."
"Classes just ended" is being referenced in our controversial sentence as a fact that currently exists (present tense), allowing Jen's time to be free (also present tense).
Applying the same argument to a variant on the earlier comment about Lothar: "Mozart died far too young, which makes me mad." Certainly, you can not argue that Mozart's act of dying made me mad at the time; I wasn't around to react directly to the event. Rather, it is the currently-existing fact of his early demise that gets my goat in the here-and-now.
The original sentence, then, with implied information interjected, would be
"(It is a fact that) classes just ended. (This is a fact that) frees up Jen's time."
-PG
>>Lothar was shot in the head which makes me mad
>>is perfectly legitimate. It makes me mad right now, not in the past, that Lothar was shot in the head.
But getting mad is something you do over and over again. The freeing of Jen's time occurs once. I'll emphasize the time aspect:
[ul]Lothar was shot which yesterday made me mad, and now makes me mad and in the future will make me mad again.
Class just ended which yesterday freed up all of Jen's time, and now freed up all of Jen's time, and in the future will free up all of Jen's time again.[/ul]
English pays careful attention to whether actions are single-event/completed or whether they are progressive/ongoing/repeated so as to be considered unceasing, and how the observer relates to the action in time (it's going on now, or it ceased, or hasn't begun).
"Did you get the mail today?" implies that today is over or nearly so, or that the opportunity to get the mail is gone or restricted or was expected at a certain time that has passed.
"Have you gotten the mail today?" implies a "yet" on the end and allows for the period "today" to be ongoing and suggests that the opportunity to get the mail is still present.
When we're examining the phrase in question, how each person perceives the act of time-freeing to operate will change how he subtly uses the language. To me, her time/schedule is freed once by classes ending, and is not an ongoing/progressive action. So I lean toward saying that the given sentence is incorrect.
Consider another case where the effect is ongoing:
"Nancy stopped smoking which saves us a lot of money."
The event occurred once, but the effect is operating now progressivel/repeatedly. One can say it saved us a lot of money, but then time constraints are needed: over what period? Why is the statement retrospective? Did the continued savings stop at some point? If Nancy is dead now, that would make the past tense "saved" sensible. Her having quit smoking no longer saves money because the condition of "not spending" has stopped. Unless in some way it continues to save money, perhaps through some other set of conditions where her non-smoker status does in fact have a continued effect.
However, there still may be a defect in that sentence which does mix past with present. May I suggest some alternatives (not sure about the grammar on some):
"[The fact] that Nancy stopped smoking saves us a lot of money."
"[The fact] that Nancy isn't smoking any more saves us a lot of money."
"Nancy's having stopped smoking saves us a lot of money."
... just my thoughts which may not be worth anything to anyone!
>>is perfectly legitimate. It makes me mad right now, not in the past, that Lothar was shot in the head.
But getting mad is something you do over and over again. The freeing of Jen's time occurs once. I'll emphasize the time aspect:
[ul]Lothar was shot which yesterday made me mad, and now makes me mad and in the future will make me mad again.
Class just ended which yesterday freed up all of Jen's time, and now freed up all of Jen's time, and in the future will free up all of Jen's time again.[/ul]
English pays careful attention to whether actions are single-event/completed or whether they are progressive/ongoing/repeated so as to be considered unceasing, and how the observer relates to the action in time (it's going on now, or it ceased, or hasn't begun).
"Did you get the mail today?" implies that today is over or nearly so, or that the opportunity to get the mail is gone or restricted or was expected at a certain time that has passed.
"Have you gotten the mail today?" implies a "yet" on the end and allows for the period "today" to be ongoing and suggests that the opportunity to get the mail is still present.
When we're examining the phrase in question, how each person perceives the act of time-freeing to operate will change how he subtly uses the language. To me, her time/schedule is freed once by classes ending, and is not an ongoing/progressive action. So I lean toward saying that the given sentence is incorrect.
Consider another case where the effect is ongoing:
"Nancy stopped smoking which saves us a lot of money."
The event occurred once, but the effect is operating now progressivel/repeatedly. One can say it saved us a lot of money, but then time constraints are needed: over what period? Why is the statement retrospective? Did the continued savings stop at some point? If Nancy is dead now, that would make the past tense "saved" sensible. Her having quit smoking no longer saves money because the condition of "not spending" has stopped. Unless in some way it continues to save money, perhaps through some other set of conditions where her non-smoker status does in fact have a continued effect.
However, there still may be a defect in that sentence which does mix past with present. May I suggest some alternatives (not sure about the grammar on some):
"[The fact] that Nancy stopped smoking saves us a lot of money."
"[The fact] that Nancy isn't smoking any more saves us a lot of money."
"Nancy's having stopped smoking saves us a lot of money."
... just my thoughts which may not be worth anything to anyone!
AnotherHiggins
Technical User
-> idiom plays a part
Well obviously. In some circles no one would look at you funny if you said, "I ain't gots to do what you tells me". But now we're treading back into the prescriptive grammar discussion....
Have a good weekend, all.
[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.
Well obviously. In some circles no one would look at you funny if you said, "I ain't gots to do what you tells me". But now we're treading back into the prescriptive grammar discussion....
Have a good weekend, all.
[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]
Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.
EdwardMartinIII
Technical User
...and now Jen has plenty of time for no extra cost to her schedule. And free's a very good price!
![[monkey]](/data/assets/smilies/monkey.gif "[monkey] [monkey]")
Edward
"Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!" -- inventor of the cat door
Edward "Cut a hole in the door. Hang a flap. Criminy, why didn't I think of this earlier?!" -- inventor of the cat door
- Status
Similar threads