Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Test  your conditionals!

http://www.learnenglishfeelgood.com/lefg1_conditionals2.html

 
http://www.learnenglishfeelgood.com/lefg1_conditionals2.html
"Advanced"? Sono tutti normali, senza casi strani o cose che ti fanno
urlare al "questo test è ambiguo!". Insomma, mi pare facile. ;-)
--
Laz

 urlare al "questo test � ambiguo!". Insomma, mi pare facile. ;-)
You don't even have to understand what the sentences mean. A syntactic 
"parsing" is more than enough :-)
Kiuhnm

 urlare al "questo test � ambiguo!". Insomma, mi pare facile. ;-)
http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/conditional12.htm


so what?
HERE ARE YOUR RESULTS:
You scored 10 out of 10
1: That's right! Well done!
2: That's right! Well done!
3: That's right! Well done!
4: That's right! Well done!
5: That's right! Well done!
6: That's right! Well done!
7: That's right! Well done!
8: That's right! Well done!
9: That's right! Well done!
10: That's right! Well done!

rlare al "questo test � ambiguo!". Insomma, mi pare facile. ;-)
�llo
(it is. ndt)

 You scored 10 out of 10
Provato anche l'altro test? ;-)


Now, that's more like it.
But are we sure the test is correct?
In particular:
9) Nobody here speaks English. Too bad Gloria isn't here. If she (be) 
... with us, she (can) ... act as our interpreter.
I wrote
"Nobody here speaks English. Too bad Gloria isn't here. If she had been 
with us, she would have been able to act as our interpreter."
Why not?
18) If I (be) ... rich, I (buy) ... that new Mercedes we saw yesterday. 
Unfortunately, I can't even afford a used car.
I wrote
"If I were rich, I would buy that new Mercedes we saw yesterday. 
Unfortunately, I can't even afford a used car."
Again, why not? Yesterday is referred to "saw" not to the "possibility 
of buying that car". I might still buy that car (were I to win the 
national lottery).
19) We (go) ... skiing this weekend, but there's no snow. Oh, well! We 
will just have to find something else to do instead.
Here I was quite unsure so I decided on
"We would have gone skiing this weekend, but there's no snow. Oh, well! 
We will just have to find something else to do instead."
"We would go skiing" doesn't sound right to me...
It's true that there is "We will just have to find something else to do 
instead.", but if there is no snow and I decide on doing something else, 
that option is ruled out definitely.
Any tips?
Kiuhnm

 that option is ruled out definitely.
Forse perch� andare a sciare, nella frase, � un'azione futura.

 Forse perch� andare a sciare, nella frase, � un'azione futura.
I suspect it depends on the verb "to be":
"We would have gone skiing, but there WAS no snow."
"We would go skiing, but there IS no snow."
Kiuhnm

 that option is ruled out definitely.
The "wrong" answer I made that really pissed me off was the snorkelling
one where I was "busted" for writing snorkelling (GB) rather than
snorkeling (US). Snarl.
[1] Years ago, when I was foolish enough to teach English for a living,
I used to explain to my pupils: "Good English usage is established by
the majority of educated speakers. In this classroom, the majority of
educated speakers is me."  Pure grammar would be better served by "I am
the majority of..." but it kills the punchline, and it was my
classroom.
buona notte
-- 
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
 If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.


Buongiorno!

 classroom.
That makes sense. I like grammars where there is a panel of grammarians 
who vote the correctness of a "form". The most interesting thing is 
seeing the votes change over the editions :-)
Kiuhnm