[Sealobo]

Which is correct?

(1) "I am having a difficult time concentrating at work."

(2) "I am having a difficult time to concentrate at work."

(3) "I have a difficult time concentrating at work."

(4) "I have a difficult time to concentrate at work."

[ghporter]

Both one and three are correct, but they say different things. Number one says "at the present time I am having a difficult time," while number three says "I generally have a difficult time." Numbers two and four are both incorrect because of the word "to," which does not belong at all.

[storer]

1 and 3 look good to me.

[xargos]

Agreed. Numbers one and three are gramatically correct.

[TETENAL]

I would say that two and four are correct too.

[kmkkid]

'to' would only work if the sentence was "It's difficult to concentrate at work" or "I find it difficult to concentrate at work"

Oh, and the the thread title is wrong. It should be "Calling all grammar Police" Police is plural and singular. Polices would be used only if you said someone 'polices' something.

[storer]

I don't think so - 2 and 4 seem to mix tenses by using to.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I would say that two and four are correct too.

I've noticed that this is a common mistake with nonnative English speakers (which I believe you are IIRC). I'm not sure why that is, if it's a hold over from the primary language, or if it's taught that way, but I'm not surprised when I hear a European speak English in this manner.

And no, I'm not speaking ill of anyone, I'm sure I would massacre tenses also (and probably far worse) if I could remember anything from language classes. Luckily, I can't.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

'to' would only work if the sentence were "It's difficult to concentrate at work" or "I find it difficult to concentrate at work"

Fixed™

Yes, the first and third sentences are correct.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Fixed™

Yes, the first and third sentences are correct.

Was, were, same diff. I looked that over myself, but figured meh.

[demograph68]

This is the correct way. "I got difficult time at concentrate to work."

[jonasmac]

Numbers 1 and 3.

And yes, I too find it difficult to concentrate at work sometimes.

[Albert Pujols]

too and for are correct.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Was, were, same diff. I looked that over myself, but figured meh.

It's simple. If you're speaking hypothetically, the subjunctive mood is correct (i.e., "were"). Besides, things like "if it was" or "I wish I was" don't even sound right.

[Macfreak7]

Originally Posted by Sealobo

Which is correct?

(1) "I am having a difficult time concentrating at work."

(2) "I am having a difficult time to concentrate at work."

(3) "I have a difficult time concentrating at work."

(4) "I have a difficult time to concentrate at work."

Why don't you just get new job.

[Railroader]

I could care less.

[brachiator]

Well, I would expect that you could care less, Railroader, since you made the effort to post...

Or did you mean you couldn't care less, and were deriding the thread with a colloquialism?

[/grammar policing]

[Railroader]

Ummm... I forgot the /SARCASM] tag.

[ShotgunEd]

Yeah, one and three are correct.

One has the present continuous (or present progressive) tense of the first verb in the sentence whereas three has the simple present tense.

Two and four have the same structures for the first verb as one and three but use the infinitive for the second verb. This is not grammatically correct.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Sealobo

Which is correct?

(1) "I am having a difficult time concentrating at work."

(2) "I am having a difficult time to concentrate at work."

(3) "I have a difficult time concentrating at work."

(4) "I have a difficult time to concentrate at work."

In my case, every day at work is all four of those combined into an incomprehensible sentence that causes me to stare blankly into space while trying not to embarrass myself using horrible Japanese.

[Macfreak7]

Just btw, the plural form of police is police, not polices.

[turtle777]

Darn, this reminds me of the TOEFL test. It sucked.

-t

[mdc]

while we're being grammar police. kmkkid, your signature isn't grammatically correct, unless you are saying "jesus love is gay"

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mdc

while we're being grammar police. kmkkid, your signature isn't grammatically correct, unless you are saying "jesus love is gay"

I never noticed. So true.

-t

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by mdc

while we're being grammar police. kmkkid, your signature isn't grammatically correct, unless you are saying "jesus love is gay"

It's a symbol; therefore, it gets an apostrophe.

And while we're being grammatically correct; sentences start with a capital letter, and end with a period.

[mdc]

Touche' kmkkid, Touche'.

[Sealobo]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

It's a symbol; therefore, it gets an apostrophe.

You mean it gets a pair of apostrophes. GRRRRR!

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Sealobo

You mean it gets a pair of apostrophes. GRRRRR!

Huh?

If I were saying "Jesus' love is gay"; I guess it would require two apostrophes. However, I'm just stating that "Jesus loves gays".

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Sealobo

Which is correct?

(1) "I am having a difficult time concentrating at work."

(2) "I am having a difficult time to concentrate at work."

(3) "I have a difficult time concentrating at work."

(4) "I have a difficult time to concentrate at work."

I would say all are correct, but not all mean the same.

no 1 & 3: mean that this person has trouble concentrating at his work. As in, trouble concentrating at the work he does. If he's a surgeon then he has trouble concentrating at the surgery when performing it.

no 2 & 4: mean that at this person's workplace he has trouble concentrating on something. As in the surgeon has trouble concentrating at anything when he is at work. I'd put a comma there, though:

"I have a difficult time to concentrate, at work."

Ugly but not plain wrong, I think. I am pretty sure the infinitive of the verb works there, but is unusual.

As in:

"I have a difficult time to concentrate"

is ok but unusual. Perhaps the 1 & 3 methods are more prevalent in the US than in other English speaking countries.. I just wouldn't bet my life on that 2 & 4 are absolutely incorrect. So the moral of the story is: don't bet your life on grammar

DISCLAIMER:

*** If I'm wrong then you get all your money back ***

cheers

W-Y

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I would say all are correct, but not all mean the same.

no 1 & 3: mean that this person has trouble concentrating at his work. As in, trouble concentrating at the work he does. If he's a surgeon then he has trouble concentrating at the surgery when performing it.

no 2 & 4: mean that at this person's workplace he has trouble concentrating on something. As in the surgeon has trouble concentrating at anything when he is at work. I'd put a comma there, though:

"I have a difficult time to concentrate, at work."

Ugly but not plain wrong, I think. I am pretty sure the infinitive of the verb works there, but is unusual.

As in:

"I have a difficult time to concentrate"

is ok but unusual. Perhaps the 1 & 3 methods are more prevalent in the US than in other English speaking countries.. I just wouldn't bet my life on that 2 & 4 are absolutely incorrect. So the moral of the story is: don't bet your life on grammar

DISCLAIMER:

*** If I'm wrong then you get all your money back ***

cheers

W-Y

You're just wrong. He could say "It's difficult to concentrate at work", or "I find it difficult to concentrate at work", or even "I have found it difficult to concentrate at work"; but not as you've stated it.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

You're just wrong. He could say "It's difficult to concentrate at work", or "I find it difficult to concentrate at work", or even "I have found it difficult to concentrate at work"; but not as you've stated it.

Here's your money back sir

cheers

W-Y

[The Windozer]

Now that the original topic seems to be expended, I wish to make a statement:

"Er det det det er?" <--- Coolest sentence I know of*. (Translation: "Is that what it is?")

Anyone got any better?

*Especially in northern Norway, where the pronounciation - and therefore the unofficial spelling - is "e d d d e?"

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

I've noticed that this is a common mistake with nonnative English speakers (which I believe you are IIRC). I'm not sure why that is, if it's a hold over from the primary language, or if it's taught that way, but I'm not surprised when I hear a European speak English in this manner.

Actually, I can explain this one. It has to do with infinitives.

English is unlike many other languages in the way it forms its infinitives. Most languages which use infinitives modify the verb itself. English, however, modifies the verb with another word: to. For example, the Spanish infinitive verb hablar translates in English as "to talk".

Now, there's another way to work with verbs: the gerund, which is where you take a verb and use it as a noun. "Swimming is fun" is an example of such use, but notice that I modified the word itself here: you do that with gerunds in English. Concentrating is another gerund, of the verb to concentrate.

So, what's the point of all this? Most European languages use the infinitive to form gerunds. English doesn't. This tends to mix up non-native speakers, who use the infinitive to form the gerund because that's how they're used to doing it in their native tongues. This is where the error comes from: "I have trouble to concentrate" instead of "I have trouble concentrating". 2 and 4 are a misuse of the infinitive.

Now, for a side note. If you've ever wondered why split infinitives (as with the famous phrase "to boldly go where no man has gone before" from Star Trek) weren't accepted as proper English grammar for a long time, the reason for the rule was related to all of this. English is, for the most part, a syntactic language: the order of words in a sentence is important, and changing the word order can change the sentence's meaning. In English, we typically split infinitives in order to put the emphasis not on what's being done, but on how it's being done: the more important word comes first. Going back to my example, Gene Roddenberry was trying to convey that it was more important that the Enterprise crew was being bold, not necessarily that they were going to new places.

However, you can't split infinitives in most languages; the concept makes no sense, because you'd be splitting up a single word. Most languages don't have other mechanisms to do something like the English split infinitive; it just never developed for some reason or other. Because of that, there isn't really a good way to translate this and get the connotations across without piling up a load of translation notes. The grammarians of the time wanted to make English as easy to translate as they could, and so they banned the split infinitive. Recent grammarians have reinstated it as a unique feature of the English language, but after some 200 years of stigma it's still somewhat frowned upon.

[Oisín]

The split infinitive is not a unique feature of the English language: it exists in all Scandinavian languages (and, most likely, although I am certain) also in the other Germanic languages.

As for your explanation regarding why non-native speakers of English often use infinitives incorrectly, where gerunds would be the correct forms to use, two small points:

1) Infinitives can be used as gerunds in English too, though only (as far as I can think of) together with a copula. In the same way, the present particle can often be used in sentences with a meaning (almost) identical to that which an infinitive would have, although in many cases, such a use of a gerund would lead to a slight ambiguity, while the infinitive would not.

Example: “Swimming is fun” vs. “To swim is fun”. The basic meaning here is the same; the only difference is that the second sentence sounds stilted and unnatural.

Using a different verb, however, (and therefore causing the infinitive to become an object, rather than a complement), we can say both “I like swimming”, and “I like to swim”. This is where the ambiguity appears, due to the lack of difference in form between the gerund (present participle) and the verbal noun. “I like to swim” leads to no problems; “I like swimming”, however, can be taken to understand both that 'I' likes to swim, or that 'I' likes the sport known as 'swimming'.

This, conversely, is a non-issue in most other European languages, since most of them have specific verbal noun forms (though very few of these are regularised).

2) Interesting as all this is (no, I'm not being sarcastic here, merely a major geek), it has little or no bearing on Sealobo's case, I would guess. Sealobo's native language, apart from English, is Cantonese, which apart from not having any particular particles or forms used to denote infinitives, gerunds, and verbal nouns, also does not have neither infinitives, gerunds, verbal nouns, tenses, numbers, cases, or pretty much anything else.

Unless it's an example 'given' to him by a speaker of a, most likely, Romance language, I would imagine the difference lies in the mere concept of an infinitive/gerund/verbal noun, rather than the particular shape and form they may choose to take.

Originally Posted by lavar78

Fixed™

Yes, the first and third sentences are correct.

While I agree completely that the subjunctive mood is the only proper one to use here, is it not considered acceptable, albeit slightly colloquial, to use the indicative in all cases in American English? How are the rules concerning Canadian English (since kmkkid, author of the offending clause, is Canadian)?

Originally Posted by RailRoader

I could care less.

Excellent reference.

Originally Posted by The Windozer

Now that the original topic seems to be expended, I wish to make a statement:

"Er det det det er?" <--- Coolest sentence I know of*. (Translation: "Is that what it is?")

Anyone got any better?

A e å u å æ ø u i æ å?

(For those to whom this is utter gibberish, it is a phonetic transcription of the way many people speaking the Northern Jutland dialect would realise the Danish sentence “Jeg er også på øen ude i åen”, meaning “I am also [standing] on the island out in the stream/brook”)

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Oisín

While I agree completely that the subjunctive mood is the only proper one to use here, is it not considered acceptable, albeit slightly colloquial, to use the indicative in all cases in American English? How are the rules concerning Canadian English (since kmkkid, author of the offending clause, is Canadian)?

Well the use of the word 'were' could be stated as being more correct, because it flows better. I still believe both 'were' and 'was' are correct though, they're both relating to the past tense.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Oisín

While I agree completely that the subjunctive mood is the only proper one to use here, is it not considered acceptable, albeit slightly colloquial, to use the indicative in all cases in American English?

AFAIC, no. That would be directly contrary to the point of the indicative mood. I cringe every time I hear it.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Well the use of the word 'were' could be stated as being more correct, because it flows better. I still believe both 'were' and 'was' are correct though, they're both relating to the past tense.

You weren't talking about something that happened in the past. You were describing a hypothetical situation that never actually happened, which is why you needed to use the subjunctive mood.

[khufuu]

Originally Posted by Albert Pujols

too and for are correct.

You're evil.

[MacMan4000]

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Darn, this reminds me of the TOEFL test. It sucked.

-t

Yes, you pay $110 just for a dumb certificate that says you're able to speak English.

[brachiator]

Originally Posted by The Windozer

Now that the original topic seems to be expended, I wish to make a statement:

"Er det det det er?" <--- Coolest sentence I know of*. (Translation: "Is that what it is?")

Anyone got any better?

"Police police police, police police." Meaning that the officers who are monitored by other cops also themselves regulate still other gendarmes. I recall my roommate in college, who was, like me, an anthro major, reciting it ad nauseum after his linguistics class.

Which leads me to exclaim "Ai-ya!" One of the best and most expressive Cantonese expressions I've ever heard -- better even than the "Oy vey!" of my people -- especially when ringing loud and exasperated out of a friend of mine's mother's regularly exasperated yap!

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Actually, I can explain this one. It has to do with infinitives.

English is unlike many other languages in the way it forms its infinitives. Most languages which use infinitives modify the verb itself. English, however, modifies the verb with another word: to. For example, the Spanish infinitive verb hablar translates in English as "to talk".

Strictly speaking, 'to' doesn't form the infinitive. The infinitive in the sentence 'I have to destroy you' is not 'to destroy' but merely 'destroy'. It is just that in modern English the preposition 'to' has been associated with the formation of infinitives. We can form cohesive infinitives without the preposition, for example: 'I must destroy you'. The absence of the 'to' does not make 'destroy' a finite verb, it is in all senses an infinitive. To be an infinitive the verb merely has to lack a subject. This is why the notion of 'split infinitives' is very silly. English can easily insert a word, most likely an adverb between the 'to' and the verb itself because the 'to' merely forms a quasi-phrase within the sentence and not a distinct part of speech.

So, what's the point of all this? Most European languages use the infinitive to form gerunds. English doesn't. This tends to mix up non-native speakers, who use the infinitive to form the gerund because that's how they're used to doing it in their native tongues. This is where the error comes from: "I have trouble to concentrate" instead of "I have trouble concentrating". 2 and 4 are a misuse of the infinitive.

The use of the infinitive as a noun is not foreign to English. The infinitive can function as a gerund in English as well. e.g.

'To err is human, to forgive divine'.

Edit: I should read the thread before I open my traphole. Much of what I have said has been kindly provided by Oisin.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Well the use of the word 'were' could be stated as being more correct, because it flows better. I still believe both 'were' and 'was' are correct though, they're both relating to the past tense.

The indicative mood is acceptable in conditional clauses. For example, 'If he loves her, he shall marry her.' When expressing the past tense of the verb to be, it is more common to use the subjunctive form of the verb to be 'were' than the indicative 'was'. In the present tense, the subjunctive 'be' is considered archaic and stilted. e.g. 'If be he wicked, destruction is to be wrought.' The indicative in this circumstance is more acceptable 'If he is wicked, destruction is to be wrought.'

[Peder Rice]

Well, we can't have any discussion whatsoever about moods, tenses, and word order without a riveting discussion of the Germanic roots of the English; of which, there are far too many and exceedingly complex when dealing with prepositions et al. For this reason, I suggest we all just chill for a moment and pick up a good book on German grammar and then thank the Normans for solidifying unified plurals and finally thank grammarians that we need not invert our subject and verb or build complex sausage sentences when we a sentence form.

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Strictly speaking, 'to' doesn't form the infinitive. The infinitive in the sentence 'I have to destroy you' is not 'to destroy' but merely 'destroy'. It is just that in modern English the preposition 'to' has been associated with the formation of infinitives. We can form cohesive infinitives without the preposition, for example: 'I must destroy you'. The absence of the 'to' does not make 'destroy' a finite verb, it is in all senses an infinitive. To be an infinitive the verb merely has to lack a subject. This is why the notion of 'split infinitives' is very silly. English can easily insert a word, most likely an adverb between the 'to' and the verb itself because the 'to' merely forms a quasi-phrase within the sentence and not a distinct part of speech.

I must disagree. In English, infinitives require "to" plus the verb. Infinitives are nouns and are named as such because they are "infinite": they have no time (or tense); they are the idea. In your example, ("I must destroy you.") "must" is an auxiliary (or helping) verb. "(M)ust destroy" does have a tense (the present). The "destroy"ing must occur in time. It is not the same as "To destroy is wasteful."

The infinitive in "to boldly go where no man has gone before" (no matter how split) is correct in its use because "to go" is still the idea (or concept) of "going"; it is not the same as "must destroy" where the speaker's intent is destruction (in the way it's constructed), not the idea of it. To use the infinitive: To destroy you is my goal.

Splitting infinitives is frowned upon (as I write with a hanging preposition) because the two words are considered one--perhaps trying to maintain the same concept as Romance languages where the infinitive, as Millenium pointed out, is one word.

Studying grammar, no matter how non-uniform or archaic the rules, truly is studying our existence. Our actions, how we act, why we act, to what extent we act and with whom are reflected in how we construct our sentences--the bedrock of communication. It is amazing, regardless of the language, to imagine how grammar is formed. Imagine, at the beginning of written language, coming up with terms for colors, comparisons, intentions, actions and things (just to name a few parts of the human condition),

I taught grammar and basic composition at an urban community college for many years. Most of my students were GED or did not have elementary grammar experience. I would ask the question: Why are there eight parts of speech (in English)? A: Because we don't need nine.

[Cody Dawg]

How about, I done had a hard time at the work.

That is standard grammatical procedure here in Florida.

[mdc]

What about, "you(I/we/they/etc) did good."

I don't know if I'm incorrect in thinking that that is very wrong, but even if it is correct, I can't stand it. I hear it so often, and it bothers me so much.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I done had a hard time at the work.

Is that what the judge said after using his pump?

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by mdc

What about, "you(I/we/they/etc) did good."

I don't know if I'm incorrect in thinking that that is very wrong, but even if it is correct, I can't stand it. I hear it so often, and it bothers me so much.

It's incorrect. "You did well" or "you did good work" would be correct.

[Cody Dawg]

TETENAL