Pomoc w czasach

Witam :) Mam problem z kilkoma zdaniami, nie wiem jakiego w nich użyć czasu. Pomożecie?

I was learning English for the last two years, and now I'a studing Russian too.
He was studing chemistry for three years and then given it up.
Cyril has never washed behind his ears, he has said the soap has got into his eyes.
At present he is reading novel, it is the third novel he read this year.

1)I learned byloby lepsze. Past cont tutaj tez jest ok, ale jest tendencja by uzywac past continuous (czynnosc dluzsza - niedokonana) wraz z czynnoscia w p. simple (czynnosc krotka-dokonana). Sam past cont. wystepuje, ale nie czesto.Moj prof. mowil, ze Polacy naduzywaja past cont.

I'm , studying


2) Popraw. Dwa razy past simple. Given to III forma.
3) Nawyki a wiec present simple
4) A novel, druga czesc zdania do poprawy. Zastanow sie to 3 nowela w ciagu roku, ktora czyta, rok nadal trwa, wiec... present perfect.

Aaa.. Odnosnie 2). Tam w pierwszej czesci moze byc past perfect cont, potem s. Past.
choc uzycie then daje nam kontekst stad potocznie mogloby byc 2x past simple. Zobaczymy;)

Napisz poprawione, to ktos rzuci okiem.

Złe poprawki
w 1 pierwsza czynnosc trwa do dzisiaj. present perfect continuous
w 2 chodzi o czynnosci z przeszlosci 2x simple past.

nie pomagaj, jak nie wiesz.

@grudziu >>I learned byloby lepsze.

No. Past is ugly either. A verb ‘learn’ is tricky. You aks your professor if there’s some clash in the phrase ‘I learnt English for two years’. But don’t bias him by coming up with stuff like ‘imperfective paradox’, ok.
If he’s a native speaker, I’m sure he’ll ‘move it to strike’ right away (like those shysters in a courtroom). If he’s not, he’ll probably need some time to mull it over before he gets back with a definitive answer.

Another 'caveat' here with accomplishments such as ‘pain or eat’. Normally,they say these verbs might be ok with for-adverbials on a habitual reading, right, but the problem has not been widely addressed, not that much I guess.
And the problem is – the property of the direct object. The noun ‘English’ is certainly definite. That’s why it’s bad with for-phrase here even in the past. PPC cancels it out, that we know.

Should I say now, 'Prosecution rests, Your Honor?

Od.1. Kontekst niejasny. Nie wiadomo bowiem czy chodzi tu o czynnosc ktora sie skonczyla, czy o czynnosc ktora trwa nadal.

Savage dla Cb moze byc ugly.

No,you don’t understand it. It’s wrong much the same way as you can’t really say ‘ He painted the Mona Lisa for two years’ or’ he learnt the lesson for two hours’. But you would probably say ‘He painted five copies of Mona Lisa in two years or ‘ he learnt English in two years’, with the latter being questionable anyway but possible (given that someone is a three-major operator)

>>Savage dla Cb moze byc ugly.

Got riled up again? Why? Did I say something offensive?

Wiem, o co Ci chodzi. Tamto zdanie zintepretowalem jako uczylem sie ... przez.., a to jest poprawne. Askerowi chodzilo chyba o to, ze sie uczy nadal.
p.s wszystko ok, co napisales, I nie jestem rilled up:)

Look, for future reference and just for the sake of sharing knowledge, some formal stuff here. It could be interesting. Also read page 58. ( direct objects) This is only a small fraction of what we can call ‘determinants of telicity’.

ILSIENNA - Our Language- Vol. 1, 2009 (p.57,58)

“Accomplishments are said to have a natural endpoint or cumulation which activities lack. Temporal adverbials are frequently used to mark this distinction in several languages. Hence,[-telic] verbs, such as study in (6), can be combined with for-adverbials, but are unacceptable with in-adverbials. The reverse holds for [+telic]verbs, such as learn in (7), which can be modified by in-adverbials but not by for-adverbials, except for some instances where they receive an iterative reading ( e.g. he read a poem for two hours)

(6) I studied history for two hours/?? in two hours.
(7) I learnt the lesson # for two hours / in two hours.

kontekst jest podany. Teraz uczy sie jeszcze jednego jezyka.

Thanks. I really appreciate your help. I don't yet have access to such good materials at this stage, I'II have in-not-to-distance future unless anything untoward happens. I can get a word in edgeways talking to you, not with a mg, whom I don't have nothing against. To my untrained eye, I sometimes interpret a sentence wrongly, instead pausing and gathering my wits; therefore mistakes happen in thinking.

Backing to what you came up with above...this fragment protects me from a grammar deadlock.

Good night

'Don't have anything against' it's a sign
to hit the sack.

Telicity is a very tough aspect of grammar...simply because it's basically the native judgement that can tell us if something is really wrong about a phrase. Linguists sometimes call it 'a grammaticality judgement task', when they will grab ten natives ( not from Tijuana) and ask them to check on a sentence. The dipper you immerse yourself into a langauge, the more linguistically competent you become without all that formal BS.
Sometimes it helps though.

p.s. >>from Tijuana) and ask them to check on a sentence.

Most of them get 'life' anyway. You know, 'waive reading , personal recognizance is denied, second degree murder', 'good' for them, thast's what they deserve.

>The deeper you immerse yourself into a language, the more linguistically competent you become.

That's right, mate. As yet I'm in the shallows as to English.
> Telicity is a very tough aspect of grammar. I will learn it hard way in the future, as it were.

"not with a mg"

Now, my dear, that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I am not INDEFINITE!
One more blunder of this kind from under your fingers and I will reduce you publicly to a preposition or an obsolete diminutive suffix!

BTW you might not know that since em-gee begins with an audible vowel, the correct indefinite article to use, should a sick thought like this one ever take roots in, quoting Sav, one cell of (someone's) brain, unquote, is then 'an'
"a BBC series
an ABC movie
and
an FGH product"

Made my day :-)

sav, czy ty te ksiazki tylko przegladasz, czy je naprawde czytasz :?
pamietaj - zdanie, I learnt/learned English for two years, jest tak samo poprawne jak I learnt/learned English in two years, z tym, ze drugie jest malo prawdopodobne, jezeli chodzi o wykonalnosc takiego zadania, no i oczywiscie znaczenie tych zdan jest odmienne

Dear mg, the indefinite article was used there on purpose;)
,and, as a matter of fact, the article 'a' suited there like a glove, oh;). Don't scare me your 'what-for way' if you really know what I got on mind. Whenever you have a chance to pit your wits, you take it. Good. You got me wrong from the word-go, as if you don't want to get the idea.
Strip and clean your ' rifle' against me. Just a joke.
I'm nor repelling' an attack'.
Pakk @ you're bleeding lovely, you know that? .

Honestly, I bitterly regretted ever having a word with both of you, cos you are too stiff, none the less, I am saying hello to you.

Engee@ Just out of curiosity, I want to get to know it too. Let Savage ask your question. Savage's knowledge of English is impressive indeed. Just in the margin.

Let savage answers the question:)

Mg you have another chance to correct me. Go ahead;).

Let savage answer the question. (czasownik answer bez s)

I don't strip.

What's that supposed to mean?

bleeding as an adverb
think of another gerund that might appear here. f

Engee@ you didn't catch it. Never mind.

Pakk @' bleeding' is a common equivalent meaning 'bloody'. American speakers rarely say it, because it sounds silly in their mouth.

>>pamietaj - zdanie, I learnt/learned English for two years, jest tak samo poprawne jak I >>learnt/learned English in two years, z tym, ze drugie jest malo prawdopodobne, jezeli chodzi o <<wykonalnosc takiego zadania, no i oczywiscie znaczenie tych zdan jest odmienne

I thought ( maybe in my naivety) that logic would eventually seep into even the most dumb-headed of craniums.I was wrong.