"to have made him homesick"

nekocat

先輩

3 Apr 2007

265

11

• 20 May 2007

• #1

1 There was no music in the roar and the grind of trolley cars to have made him homesick.


2 There was no music in the roar and the grind of trolley cars to make him homesick.​

Hi. Which sentence do you think is better? Are these sentences different in meaning?

 

Mike Cash

骨も命も皆此の土地に埋めよう

Twenty-year veteran

15 Mar 2002

16,758

2,298

• 20 May 2007

• #2

They are different in meaning.

In #1, he is homesick, but the cause of the homesickness was not the sound of the trolley cars.

In #2, he is not homesick, and there is nothing in the sound of the trolley cars that would cause him to be homesick.

Some people may tell you that there is no difference in the two. That is because most people are no longer precise in their language use.

 

nekocat

先輩

3 Apr 2007

265

11

• 20 May 2007

• Thread starter
• #3

Thank you Mike, your explanation cleared all my ambiguity!
これからもよろしくお願いします。

 

Elizabeth

先輩

22 Apr 2003

9,839

135

• 20 May 2007

• #4

Some people may tell you that there is no difference in the two. That is because most people are no longer precise in their language use.

Click to expand...

Because even by writers today, they would most likely both have been lumped together in the same ambiguous, formless pile.

1 There was no music in the roar and the grind of trolley cars that would (could) have made him/would have caused him to become homesick.

 

xLainyLoo

後輩

21 May 2007

5

0

• 2 Jun 2007

• #5

They have different meanings. The first would be you talking about him past-tense and the second could be considered to be in the present or past tense.

 

nekocat

先輩

3 Apr 2007

265

11

• 14 Jun 2007

• Thread starter
• #6

(3)There was no one to have consoled me in that group.
(4)There was no one in that group to have consoled me.

Hi, do you think the word order like above makes any difference in meaning?

 

nice gaijin

Resident Realist

Moderator

Donor

Twenty-year veteran

8 Aug 2005

7,316

3,727

• 14 Jun 2007

• #7

I think the verb tense here is too complicated, since the apparent meaning is "There was no one in that group to console me." The use of the past tense in the beginning of the sentence eliminates the need to over-conjugate the following verbs. If you are trying to convey a separate meaning please let us know.

To answer your question, I don't feel a difference when you move "in that group."

 

EmperorHirohito

Who is Number One?

30 Apr 2007

1,548

40

• 14 Jun 2007

• #8

Right I hope you can understand what I am about to say Nekocat.

Looking at that first sentence there is no special emphasis on any of the words in the sentence and it seems perfectly normal and would be quite acceptable within the English language.

However the second sentence does have a slightly different meaning in my eyes, mind you I may be wrong. To me the emphasis is now on 'in that group' and I do find that the meaning of the sentence has altered compared to the first one.

I find the first sentence is more of a personnal statement of an individual about something, and I find the second sentence less a personnal statement and more like a public statement about the group.

I hope you can understand what I am trying to say.

 

nice gaijin

Resident Realist

Moderator

Donor

Twenty-year veteran

8 Aug 2005

7,316

3,727

• 14 Jun 2007

• #9

I see what you mean. It's a very minor nuance, but depending on how you stress the words, I can see how one could intend it that way.

 

EmperorHirohito

Who is Number One?

30 Apr 2007

1,548

40

• 14 Jun 2007

• #10

Thanks, at least someone agrees with me lol. I do find that if words in a sentence have their order changed, it does alter the meaning of the sentence to a certain amount.
Sometimes placing words in a different order can actually insult someone without meaning to do so.
But there again learning English is not one of the easiest things in the world, is it?

 

Elizabeth

先輩

22 Apr 2003

9,839

135

• 15 Jun 2007

• #11

nice gaijin said:

I think the verb tense here is too complicated, since the apparent meaning is "There was no one in that group to console me."

Click to expand...

The meaning differs significantly between the past and past perfect constructions.

1. There was no one in that group to console me.

There are possibly other readings embedded within the past tense alone but it implies to me most strongly : "I am not consoled and although I expected them to be, no one in that group was comforting towards me."


(3)There was no one to have consoled me in that group.
(4)There was no one in that group to have consoled me.

"I am consoled but the cause of my consolation was not due to anyone in the group."

 

Last edited: 15 Jun 2007

nekocat

先輩

3 Apr 2007

265

11

• 15 Jun 2007

• Thread starter
• #12

Thanks, everyone!

Elizabeth said:

(3)There was no one to have consoled me in that group.
(4)There was no one in that group to have consoled me.

"I am consoled but the cause of my consolation was not due to anyone in the group."

Click to expand...

Just like the difference between 1 and 2!