Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: similar sentences

Exercise:
--->
Write a new sentence as similar as possible in meaning to the original 
sentence but using the word given.
I wouldn't have thought there's much chance of the package being here 
before Friday.
(doubt)
<---
The answer is:
I (very much) doubt if / whether the package will be here before Friday.
I find these exercises impossible. Anyway why "wouldn't have thought" 
instead of a simple "don't think"?
Kiuhnm


I'd say "I shouldn't think" or "I wouldn't think"


Are these forms used in American English too?
I'm not familiar with them.
Anyway the exercise above was taken from a CAE/CPE preparation book.
Kiuhnm

 I find these exercises impossible.
Next exercise: guess what number I'm thinking of. ;)

 Anyway the exercise above was taken from a CAE/CPE preparation book.
CPE _really_ likes checking if you know rather stilted constructions.

 CPE _really_ likes checking if you know rather stilted constructions.
I've noticed that!
Kiuhnm


That was the previous one: I got lucky :-)
Kiuhnm

 instead of a simple "don't think"?
A simple "I don't think" is fine, but you will hear "I wouldn't have 
thought". Even in the soaps :-)
It's just a commonly used construction.
Antonio


Understood. Thanks.
Kiuhnm

 Kiuhnm
Joe from Massachusetts

 Was this written by a native speaker?
I hope so. I took it from the book "Grammar and Vocabulary for Cambridge 
Advanced and Proficiency"!
Kiuhnm

 Advanced and Proficiency"!
In CPE past paper books I've seen from CUP, it's not unusual for there
to be multiple
acceptable answers.
If you read and listen to enough stuff, you should find that you just
know the answers
to these questions by magic. Admittedly, some of the odder
constructions they like
to use are things you'd find in "The Times" or in certain kinds of
Radio 4 programmes.

 wrote in message
news:48d0e88b$0$41664$4faf...@reader4.news.tin.it...

As far as I'm concerned, tenses not in agreement constitutes an error.
If you google «"wouldn't have thought there's" nytimes» and «"wouldn't have
thought there was" nytimes», you get one hit for the former, and 993 for the
latter.
Joe from Massachusetts

 Radio 4 programmes.
After all, all the sentences in that book should be from some real 
sources. I don't think they made them up (even if a native speaker could 
without any problems).
Kiuhnm

 equally tough.
Where have you looked? I admit I don't know of anything like this.I'll
see what my US sources can come up with.
Have you tried Graver? That's good for people who really enjoy pain.

 latter.
The situation is less clear if you restrict your search to uk sites:
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there%27s%22+site%3Auk&btnG=Cerca&meta=
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+was%22+site%3Auk&btnG=Cerca&meta=
's = 168 instances
was = 795 instances
Kiuhnm

 Have you tried Graver? That's good for people who really enjoy pain.
I must have skimmed through it long time ago, but... are there any 
exercises or is it just a bunch of rules?
Kiuhnm

 exercises or is it just a bunch of rules?
It's just exercises, isn't it?


I remember it was all theory...
Kiuhnm

 I remember it was all theory...
Graver? Hell, no. Maybe you're thinking of Swan.


Good. Are you sure it doesn't deal only with British English?
Kiuhnm

 Good. Are you sure it doesn't deal only with British English?
Is British vs US _really_ your biggest remaining problem?


No, but why should I make it bigger by mixing British with English usage?
Should I first get rid of my grammar mistakes and then focus on usage?
It's kind of hard to learn usage and grammar separately (I'm not even 
sure they're two separate things).
Kiuhnm

 sure they're two separate things).
It would seem pretty eccentric for you to deliberately avoid
even passive knowledge of British usages. Swan, at least, marks
US-specific and Brit-specific stuff. I don't have my copy of Graver
to hand, but would be surprised if it didn't also do this. In any
event,
it's cheap, and probably the hardest EFL thing I've ever seen.

 No, but why should I make it bigger by mixing British with English usage?
with American usage
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:48d111af$0$1094$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

Unfiltered google searches include blogs, wiki, non-English sites, and other
sources of unreliable authority.
If you restrict the search to the Times (UK) site:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there%27s%22+site%3Awww.timesonline.co.uk&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+was%22+site%3Awww.timesonline.co.uk&btnG=Search
's = 0
there was = 3
Substiuting the Guardian site for the Times site,
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there%27s%22+site%3Awww.guardian.co.uk%2F&btnG=Cerca&meta=
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+was%22+site%3Awww.guardian.co.uk%2F&btnG=Cerca&meta=
's = 0
there was =6
Substituting the BBC site,
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there%27s%22+site%3Awww.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Cerca&meta=
http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+was%22+site%3Awww.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Cerca&meta=
's = 0
there was = 10
Substituting the NY Times site
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there%27s%22+site%3A+www.nytimes.com&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+was%22+site%3A+www.nytimes.com&btnG=Search
's = 0
there was = 3
Joe from Massachusetts

 sources of unreliable authority.
[...]
Ok.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message 
news:48d111af$0$1094$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

Shouldn't you include "I wouldn't have thought there is"  (another 753) ?
Mike 

 Shouldn't you include "I wouldn't have thought there is"  (another 753) ?
Yes, I should have :-)
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:6jo27jF...@mid.individual.net...

??
"wouldn't have thought there is"  Unfiltered:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+is%22&btnG=Search
1320 hits
If you restrict the search to the Times (UK) site:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+is%22+site%3Awww.timesonline.co.uk&btnG=Search
there is = 0 hits
Substituting the Guardian site for the Times site,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+is%22+site%3Awww.guardian.co.uk&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
there is = 0 hits
Substituting the BBC site,
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+is%22+site%3Awww.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Search
there is = 0 hits
Substituting the NY Times site
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22wouldn%27t+have+thought+there+is%22+site%3A+www.nytimes.com&btnG=Search
there is = 0
Joe from  Massachusetts