.
Sometimes two grammar structures are hard to distinguish because of similar forms and/or meanings
TRICKY CONTRASTS IN ENGLISH
As in most languages, it is quite common in English to find two items, whether of vocabulary or of grammar, whose meanings are not easy to differentiate. Although a few pairs of this kind are covered by most English coursebooks, and are as a result well-known, many are overlooked.
In this blog, posts with the above title consider rarely-explained meaning differences between grammatical structures that seem to say the same. For a list of all the posts, see 217. Tricky Grammar Contrasts 1. These structures are to be distinguished from similar-seeming ones that often cause grammar errors – separately considered under the heading Confusions of Similar Structures. For differences between confusingly similar vocabulary items, there are numerous posts entitled “Tricky Word Contrasts” (for a full list, plus an alphabetical list of all of the words in them, click here).
.
EXPLANATIONS OF SIMILAR STRUCTURES
1. “look forward to” versus “am looking forward to”
The difference between the present simple and present continuous tenses of LOOK FORWARD TO is rather unusual. The basic meaning of both is a state of eagerness about a future event mentioned after them. Any verb in this mention needs -ing (see 35. Words Followed by “to -ing” and 140. Words with Unexpected Grammar 2, #c).
The extra meaning conveyed by the present simple I (or We) look forward to… resembles “await”. It does not suggest much emotion, and it implies that the future event depends on the addressee’s cooperation – is not inevitable – and it is hence very polite in tone. It is common at the end of formal letters, e.g.:
(a) We look forward to receiving the documents in due course.
Using the more emotional are looking in such situations is a common error among writers with limited experience of English. That has a meaning more like “are longing for”. It suggests that the desired event is also exciting and will certainly occur. Its correct use might be:
(b) We are looking forward to our summer holiday.
.
2. “both” versus “the two”
Both may precede two words combined together by and, or it may precede a plural noun in an adjective-like way, or it may act alone as a representative of two obvious noun ideas. In the first case it is a conjunction, in the second a “determiner”, and in the third a pronoun. This variability can give rise to double meanings (see 257. Structures with a Double Meaning 4, #4).
The conjunction use of both is not shared by the two, and is considered separately in these pages in 64. Double Conjunctions. In the other two uses, both and the two have similarities and differences of grammar and meaning.
In the determiner use, there is not much grammatical difference, with the two also needing a plural following noun, e.g. both words/ the two words.
In the pronoun use, the grammatical similarity is ability to be used alone or in combination with a following of + plural pronoun, e.g. both (of them), the two (of them). One difference is that only both can precede (of) the (or other definite word, e.g. these) + plural noun, e.g. both (of) the words. Another is that only both can go after the + subject noun, e.g. the words both seem….
The main meaning similarity between both and the two is that they refer to two noun ideas that are already obvious from either the surrounding words or the situation where the communication occurs. In the following, reference is to a mention in earlier surrounding words:
(c) The two (or Both of the) triangles (mentioned previously) contain a right angle.
An example of a situation rather than preceding words indicating what both or the two refers to is shown in the cartoon above.
Each (+ singular following noun) or each of the (+ plural) can also refer to two nouns in these ways, but it emphasises their separateness (see 169. “All”, “Each” and “Every”). All is definitely not an alternative – it always refers to three or more.
The main meaning difference between both and the two is that with both the idea of “not just one” is given more emphasis. This causes both to be preferred for expressing similarities (see 149. Saying How Things are Similar). In sentence (c), the two simply makes an observation about the triangles, whereas both emphasises their similarity.
.
3. “make someone (ADJ)” versus “make someone be (ADJ)”
The verb MAKE is commonly used between a cause and its result:
(d) Plentiful warmth and water make plants grow vigorously.
In such sentences, the result statement comprises a noun or equivalent in the object position (plants above), followed by wording (grow vigorously) that names the change brought about by the cause (see 141. Ways of Using MAKE, #3). This wording commonly, but not always, starts with an infinitive verb (grow) from which to, the usual marker of such verbs, has been dropped (see 148. Infinitive Verbs without “to”, #2).
The main exception to this rule occurs when the meaning of BE needs to follow the object of MAKE. Usually in this situation no verb at all can be present (see 192. When BE can be Omitted under “Omission before Complements”). As a result, the object of MAKE will go directly before the adjective or noun that would have been linked to it by be:
(e) Currency trading can make banks rich.
There is, however, a fairly unusual meaning of BE that does necessitate the inclusion of be: expressing a chosen behaviour:
(f) Well-delivered stories can make children be quiet.
Here, be quiet indicates a choice to become and remain quiet. This meaning of BE is the same one that many English coursebooks attribute to BE in the present continuous tense, as in The children are being quiet, and is also possible after SEE meaning “observe” (see 217. Tricky Grammar Contrasts 1, #6). Thus, dropping BE completely between an object of MAKE and an adjective describing it indicates an automatic rather than chosen outcome.
.
4. Two Uses of “when”
When links two verbs in a sentence, indicating the relative timing of what they represent. In the most familiar use, the verb after when represents something happening either earlier than the time shown by the other verb, or throughout it, or at some point within it:
(g) When the ship departed, a storm was breaking.
Here, the when action happens within the other one. The clue is the types of action expressed by the verbs (see 225. Simultaneous Occurrence, #2).
In this use, the when event is not the focus of the sentence, but is instead “subordinated”. Reflecting this, the two sentence halves can be reversed, usually with no comma between them (see 37. Subordination).
In the less familiar use, when means “and then”. It must go in the middle of its sentence, often after a comma. The preceding verb is usually either BE + complement or BE + -ing. Its action does not have the greater focus, and is very often terminated by the when one:
(h) The ship was running out of supplies, when land was spotted.
The idea of termination is particularly strong if the BE before when has the complement about to + verb (see 269. Exotic Grammar Structures 7, #6), a combination that is especially common in past-time descriptions (see 282. Features of History Writing, #2).
If when meaning “and then” introduces a future event, the subsequent verb needs will, not the present simple tense required by the more common when use.
For further discussion of (h), see 288. Grammatical Subtleties, #5.
.
5. “Note how…” versus “Note that…”
Both of these expressions draw attention to an aspect of something that is being presented. The difference is that after note how… the aspect is usually visible, while after note that… it is not. Thus, a lecturer displaying a graph might use note how… to refer to the shape of a particular part of the graph, but note that… to communicate a point not obvious from the graph.
The reason for having a special way of stating the obvious is probably to prevent the listeners being offended. Using how instead of that says “of course you can see this”. English is full of expressions that can be used to similar effect (see 156. Mentioning what the Reader Knows Already, especially #4 of course).
The same contrast is possible with various other verbs, especially NOTICE, OBSERVE and SEE, though the imperative form of SEE expresses a different that meaning (see 315. Ways of Using SEE, #12). For the difference between NOTE and NOTICE, see 132. Tricky Word Contrasts 4, #4.
.
6. “most of the time” versus “most times”
Most of the time has two possible meanings: either “on most occasions” or “during the majority of the time taken”. Both are possible in the following:
(i) Most of the time, the journey is hot.
This could be about numerous times when the journey occurs, or just one. In the first case, is hot would probably mean “throughout the journey”, in the second “for most of the journey”.
Most times, by contrast, always means “on most occasions”: the plural use of time marks it as a countable noun, a form possessing only the “occasion” meaning (see 236. Tricky Word Contrasts 9, #3). Clearly, in sentences like (i) it is better to express the meaning of “on most occasions” with most times than with the ambiguous most of the time.
A further possibility is most of the times. This resembles most times, but is less general, referring to specific, already-mentioned journeys.
.
7. “had” versus “could” after “before”
After before, a verb with “past perfect” had often indicates a non-occurring event:
(j) The Titanic sank before it had completed its maiden voyage.
Although the past simple tense (completed) is also possible here, the past perfect more emphatically conveys the idea of non-occurrence (see the end of 171. Aspects of the Past Perfect Tense).
In (j), the event after before is logically prevented from happening by the other event in the sentence. However, there are cases where this is not the case:
(k) Some believed in a fixed sun before telescopes had been invented.
Here, had been invented expresses an event that everyone knows certainly occurred. Although the past simple were invented is probably more likely, the past perfect is not impossible. It perhaps indicates a state rather than action, implying before the time when….
The possibility of both tenses above causes a problem when neither logic nor general knowledge can indicate whether the before event occurred:
(l) Alexander fell ill before he (had) reached his destination.
Here, we cannot tell whether Alexander ever reached his destination. However, there is a way to say more clearly that he did not: with could after before (could reach). This is also a possibility in (j).
guinlist 