Some Grammar nut help me plz!

MajorMaccas · 21 May 2007 at 22:56

What the hell is be in the past tense? Been bugging me for days

Also, in the following sentence, what is "bes" supposed to be? I'm actually very good with english and my grammar, and take pride in speaking properly, but this just has me stumped!

He never has anything nice happen to him, so when something does, he does only what he knows how; he *bes* grumpy.

Stumped :confused:

Whitestar · 21 May 2007 at 22:57

becomes

or gets

Kristoph · 21 May 2007 at 22:57

He 'is' grumpy?

'Becomes' sounds better ^^

Tru · 21 May 2007 at 22:59

The past tense is referring to something in the past.

You posted a grammar thread - past
You are posting a grammar thread - present
You will not post any more grammar threads - future

MajorMaccas · 21 May 2007 at 23:00

Tru, re-read the question, carefully

Thanks guys, becomes sounds right, but not quite spot on

hmmm

Whitestar · 21 May 2007 at 23:02

Thing is, that is a present tense sentence.

If it was a past tense sentence it would be 'became'

MajorMaccas · 21 May 2007 at 23:06

ok, what if you change the "bes" to "do/does"?

It'll click when someone says it lol.

Tru · 21 May 2007 at 23:09

Cyberstrike2027 said:
Tru, re-read the question, carefully

Thanks guys, becomes sounds right, but not quite spot on

hmmm

Heh oops, I done read it wrong

Mr.Clark · 21 May 2007 at 23:09

I'd say it's "is" (if he is grumpy all the time) or "becomes" (if he isn't always grumpy)

Whitestar · 21 May 2007 at 23:11

That sentence says he gets grumpy when something good happens to him. So it would imply that he isn't always grumpy.

caeteez · 21 May 2007 at 23:13

Cyberstrike2027 said:
Tru, re-read the question, carefully

Thanks guys, becomes sounds right, but not quite spot on

hmmm

Words often sound wrong if you over-think them. Its strange but they are normally right.

MajorMaccas · 21 May 2007 at 23:14

IS!!

Of course! It's so bloody simple now! rofl.

My God! Can't believe this has been bugging me since Saturday!

Irish_Tom · 21 May 2007 at 23:15

*Ninja Edit*

Is works perfectly

Panzer

semi-pro waster · 21 May 2007 at 23:25

Whitestar said:
That sentence says he gets grumpy when something good happens to him. So it would imply that he isn't always grumpy.

Not on my reading of it, it isn't written particularly well but it seems to say that he is grumpy when something good happens because it is the only thing he knows how to be.

I'd personally have rewritten "he does only what he knows how" to "he does the only thing he knows how to" because then it flows much more smoothly or at least that improves it for me.

Whitestar · 21 May 2007 at 23:29

Yeah. That would make more sense.

Oh well. As long as the OP got his answer, it doesn't matter really.

MajorMaccas · 21 May 2007 at 23:42

OK, all you grammar-philes answer me this:

why does a word like Tautology have 3 adjective forms which could all be used in the same places?

Tautological, Tautologic, or Tautologous could all be used in sentences saying, "That's tautologous".

Rebelius · 22 May 2007 at 00:07

Indeed. And why does inflammable mean the same as flammable?

MajorMaccas · 22 May 2007 at 00:17

Inflammable means flammable!?

What a country!

identify the source of that quote! (not really as quick off the tongue as "name that tune", but similar principle)

semi-pro waster · 22 May 2007 at 00:17

Rebelius said:
Indeed. And why does inflammable mean the same as flammable?

If memory serves it stems from misuse and now it would confuse people more to correctly render the terms so they are to all intents and purposes interchangeable.

I'm not sure about tautology, I'd like to believe it is an irony that a word that means some or all of the sentence is redundant has its own forms of redundancy in the variety of words used for it but I really couldn't say.

MajorMaccas · 22 May 2007 at 00:38

Come to think of it, that is very ironic lol. Didn't see/think of it before.