mały problem

które sformuawanie jest poprawne

I was the last time on a birthday party
I was on a birthday party the last time

dziękuje za pomoc

żadne :)

I was at the birthday party last time.

zaleznie od kontekstu poprawnym przedimkiem moze byc takze 'a'.

'last time' ma znaczyć 'ostatnio'?
recently

Hi Kinussia. Sorry, my Polish is not great, that's why I am writing in English. I agree with MG - it should be 'recently' and not 'last time'.
:)

Richie
www.newspeak.pl

Chyba, że chodziło ci o to, że to był ostatni raz kiedy poszedłem na urodziny (w sensie, że drugi raz nie pójdę na przyjęcie urodzinowe). W takim przypadku powinno być:
1. It was the last time I went on a birthday party.
2. I was at the birthday party for the last time.

merix-
kochanie- co to jest?
>>>I was at the birthday party last time. ...??

Kakadum- that's a good point. However, it is difficult to imagine a context in which a person would express the idea that they know it was the last time that they would attend a party. Possible, but unlikely if you ask me.

Richie
www.newspeak.pl

Jeśli już to tak:

>1. It was the last time I went TO a birthday party.

ahhh yeah - overlooked the 'on'. Time to get new contact lenses. :)

Richie
www.newspeak.pl

>>1. It was the last time I went TO a birthday party.

It was the last time (that) I had been to a birthday party.

The past-perfect is not necessary in this sentence.

In that case you're not as good a teacher as you think.

Are you speaking to me?

OK - I am open for an education, please explain why you would need the past-perfect in this sentence, provided it is not an example of reported speech....

Richie :)
www.newspeak.pl

You can't have been told that this is a simple rule to follow, can you?

It/This is the first/second/last time (that) I have/she has eaten octopus.
It/This/That was the first/second/last time (that) I had/she had eaten octopus.

A simple rule which is not correct :
It/This is the first/second/last time (that) I have/she has eaten octopus.
It/This/That was the first/second/last time (that) I had/she had eaten octopus.

We use the past-perfect when we want to emphasis the idea of an action or state occuring before another past action or state.
Your idea does not apply to the example used in the above post:

It was the last time I went to a party.

These ideas coincide within the same time reference. The 'last time' was a state which took place over the course of the 'party'.

Richie
www.newspeak.pl

Let's wait and see who's gonna take your side, and who's gonna take mine, okay?

Well, engee, google undoubtedly appears to take yours.

"was the first time I had been to" - 373,000 hits
"was the first time I'd been to" - 19,500 hits

vs

"was the first time I was to" - 294 hits (many of which include a verb after the phrase e.g. 'this was the first time I was to meet his master')

>"was the first time I was to" - 294 hits (many of which include a verb
>after the phrase e.g. 'this was the first time I was to meet his
>master')

This was the first time I was to meet my master. - is not the same as:
This was the first time (that) I had seen my master, pakk.

That's what I'm trying to emphasize. It means that many of those 294 hits are irrelevant.

So, pakk, why ever did you do that search then?

"when in doubt, google it"

>"when in doubt, google it"

I'd rather you changed this motto into:

"when in doubt, engee it" :P

Trust me, you have hit a glitch in the language:

Consider the following examples:

1) It was the third time I had eaten flaki.
Fine
2) It was the last time that I had flaki.
Also, fine.

3) That was the last time that I had been stupid.
Hmmm - sounds a little unnatural.

4) That was the last time I had been to my uncle's home.
As above - but slightly less so.

The problem with the 'ordinal time clause + past perfect rule' is that is breaks down when we are talking about states and actions which are expressed with the P.P form of the verb 'to be'. There are numerous contradictions in English grammar which are very difficult to account for.
Again, this is not to say that your sentence is incorrect, rather I would say that it includes the use of a structure which is not necessary for the message being expressed. In my opinion, it is similar in idea to using 'out-of-date' reported speech in contexts where it is not really necessary or desired.

Please don't take this as a criticism in any way. I didn't want to cause any problems, your 'good teacher' remark was a little uncalled for.

Also, Pakk - if you google something in order to check its accuracy, please ensure that you use the accurate phrase, check my post against yours.

Richie :)
www.newspeak.pl

This is the one million dollar question to you, Rich, what would you recommend to your students taking an exam at an FCE level - to use a simple tense, or a perfect tense, when it comes to using such a structure as the one above?

I suppose you mean in a general sense?
When given situation 'A' you should use 'B', even if it does not hit the nail on the head - it will surely let scrape by, considering that FCE examiners often overlook small mistakes, or fail to spot them.

If that is your assumption, then I totally agree with you. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice natural structures in order to simplify a task or challenge.

Think about reported speech, present perfect and the use of articles. Lower-level / mid-level course books very often over-simplify the guidelines of usage for these concepts. The aim is obvious.

However, I thought that with this being an internet forum, and not a classroom -we could afford to go into ideas with a little more depth. But, it seems as though I have come across as a pedant :(

What's your opinion?

Richie
www.newspeak.pl

All I can say is that, looking at the way you speak, you must be a descriptivist trying to simplify all the rules that some prescriptivists, one of whom I am trying hard to be, introduced ages ago.

As for which tense to use in the structure in question, I absolutely share your opinon.

Thanks for the insight. Now I know exactly how to categorise myself.
It's interesting how you misread so much about me from a few posts. My point before was that - given the limitations of most classrooms, i.e: numbers of students, duration of lessons, competence of teachers and students - there is a practical function in giving rules which apply 'most' of the time. This is by no means perfect, but it is just a simple fact that many compromises have to be made in education.

Of course, it is fine if you wish to confine yourself to a particular theoretical stand-point (prescriptivism). However, I believe that such an approach to language is inherently flawed. Surely, prescriptivism and descriptivism should be regarded as complementary concepts, despite their obvious contradictions. By dividing them into 2 separate and opposing camps, you are failing to see the fundamental faults in either one of the approaches. This is a shortcoming that most serious linguists try to avoid.

Rather, it seems to me that you just wanted to say something rude, but in such a way as to not make it too obvious and bemean yourself.

Now, it is my turn to read into your posts. I would say judging from the way that you write, you are slightly defensive and anger quickly at anyone who broaches a subject in which you are not entirely confident.

Before you reply with an angry post, please see that I am smiling and trying to be nice :)

Richie
www.newspeak.pl

Richie,miło tu widziec fajnego teachera z otwarta głową ,a ta dyskusja jest ogromnie ciekawa.I wiesz -take easy -te złośliwości Engee.You must know that intelligent peole tend to be malicious and I suppose that is the case,isn't Engee?
Proszę,Richie nie zniechęcaj się i zaglądaj tu czasem.

We all are being bumptious at times. In Engee's case it's been more frequent than ever. Maybe, try as he might he couldn't get to the point and started stabbing a bit harder the guy who turned out to be his match.

Engee, please us and let it go :)