 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / April 2008"learn to to", "learning to do", "learning how to do"...
He is learning how to play the piano. He is learning to play the piano. He learned how to play the piano. He learned to play the piano. May I ask what's the difference between these sentences? Thank you for helping me with this! > He is learning how to play the piano. > He is learning to play the piano. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > May I ask what's the difference between these sentences? > Thank you for helping me with this! No real difference between 1 and 2 -- but 2 is probably what most people would say. In both cases we infer that the learning process is still going on. 3 and 4 are also identical in meaning, but again 4 sounds more natural. In both cases we infer that the learning process is now complete. In other contexts, the inclusion "how" might be desirable or even essential. For example: "He learned how to tell lies" means that he discovered how to lie successfully, whereas "He learned to tell lies" means that he found lying was in certain circumstances the best course to follow. [...] > In other contexts, the inclusion "how" might be desirable or even > essential. For example: > "He learned how to tell lies" means that he discovered how to lie > successfully, whereas > "He learned to tell lies" means that he found lying was in certain > circumstances the best course to follow. Why isn't "how" desirable in OT's context as well? i.e.: "He learned how to play piano" means that he was taught to play like a pro, whereas "He learned to play piano" means that he learned the basics of playing piano. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "He learned to play piano" means that he learned the basics of playing > piano. What an odd distinction. --Jeff  SignatureTake up the White Man's burden-- Send forth the best ye breed-- Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; [...] Take up the White Man's burden-- The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought, Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought. [...] Take up the White Man's burden-- And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- "Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?" --Rudyard Kipling, "The White Man's Burden," 1899 >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >What an odd distinction. Indeed, that distinction would whooooosh right past me. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >> On Apr 28, 8:13?pm, Fred Springer <fred.sprin...@ntlworld.com> > wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Indeed, that distinction would whooooosh right past me. Me too. OK, let's push this one out: 'When they lost all their money, the family learnt to make soup'. (ie, they got used to it). 'In his quest to become the world's greatest chef, he learnt how to make soup'. (ie, he studied technique to a high level). Waddya think? DC -- > > >> On Apr 28, 8:13?pm, Fred Springer <fred.sprin...@ntlworld.com> > > wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Waddya think? I think that the distinction you have here is similar to the "He learnt how to tell lies" / "He learnt to tell lies" example posted earlier. In appropriate contexts, "learnt to" can be used with the sense of "became accustomed to doing because it was necessary or advantageous", while "learnt how to" can't. Another example would be: "I learnt how to enjoy it" "I learnt to enjoy it" > He is learning how to play the piano. > He is learning to play the piano. > He learned how to play the piano. > He learned to play the piano. > > May I ask what's the difference between these sentences? As posted April 26 answering your question: What's the difference between "He has moved out." and "He moved out."? > Conventional parsing helps. These pairs exemplify > 1: simple past tense of a verb (using no auxiliary verb) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > must say. In some cases, no rule governs our preference > for one form over another. You have by now asked the same sort of question at least three times, apparently not seeing why they were the same sort of question, or perhaps not noticing that each got the same sort of answer, as here. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > He is learning how to play the piano. > > He is learning to play the piano. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > same sort of question, or perhaps not noticing that > each got the same sort of answer, as here. Sorry for the repost. I didn't noticed that I've posted another similar question until someboby answer it. I wanted to delete it, but since it has been answered, so I decide to let it stay. > > He is learning how to play the piano. > > He is learning to play the piano. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > As posted April 26 answering your question: > What's the difference between "He has moved out." and "He moved out."? One's simple past and the other's present perfect. What's that got to do with the price of fish? (Or the OP's question?). DC -- >>> He is learning how to play the piano. >>> He is learning to play the piano. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > One's simple past and the other's present perfect. What's that got to > do with the price of fish? (Or the OP's question?). Because the guy's up to something. Haven't you noticed he ignores return questions? SignatureMike. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** The reason why I ask this question is becuase my grammar book says "He learned how to read and write at the age of five." means "He was learning how to read and write when he was five."(continuing process), whereas "He learned to read and write at the age of five." means "He successfully acquired the ability to read and write at the age of five." (completed process) What do you think? Is my grammar book correct? > The reason why I ask this question is becuase my grammar book says "He > learned how to read and write at the age of five." means "He was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What do you think? Is my grammar book correct? Unless I'm missing the point, no. To me, both sentences mean exactly the same thing, namely that during the course of his sixth year he learned how to read and write, and gained a reasonable proficiency (taking into account his age) in those skills. In a slightly looser interpretation, most people would probably allow the possibility that some of the learning started before he was five and the proficiency was attained at the age of five. The difference with "he was learning how to read and write when he was five" is that it doesn't necessarily imply that the learning process was completed satisfactorily at that age (or at all). For example, you could say "he was learning how to read and write when he was five, but now he's eight and he still can't write his own name". > > The reason why I ask this question is becuase my grammar book says "He > > learned how to read and write at the age of five." means "He was [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > could say "he was learning how to read and write when he was five, but > now he's eight and he still can't write his own name". I forgot to say... in the examples in my second paragraph the inclusion or omission of "how" again does not affect the meaning in any way that I can discern. >> The reason why I ask this question is becuase my grammar book says "He >> learned how to read and write at the age of five." means "He was [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >could say "he was learning how to read and write when he was five, but >now he's eight and he still can't write his own name". Matt, you state that "both sentences mean exactly the same thing" and then in the second paragraph explain the difference in the meanings of the two sentences! A difficulty in comparing the sentences is that the first one suggests that learning was completed while the boy was five but does not state this absolutely. "He learned how to read and write at the age of five" suggests strongly, to me, that by the age of six he was able to read and write (with a proficiency appropriate to his age). In contrast "He was learning how to read and write when he was five" does not carry the some suggestion of completion. Consider two sentences, one using "learning" and the other "learned". "He was learning how to read and write when he was five, and when he was ten, and fifteen, and twenty." That describes a continuing (unsuccessful) process. "He learned how to read and write at the age of five, and at the age of ten, and fifteen, and twenty." That suggests that he learned the skills of reading and writing but kept losing them and that he had to keep relearning. These sentences do not describe the same difficulty in learning. The first might describe a person with learning difficulties. His ability lies to one end of the ordinary, familiar, range of learning abilities. The second does does not suggest a learning problem that lies in that range. It suggests an abnormality in brain function. While those examples are contrived to emphasise differences in meaning, I don't think that they are perversely contrived. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Apr 29, 11:44 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:31:38 -0700 (PDT), Matt > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > thing" and then in the second paragraph explain the difference > in the meanings of the two sentences! By "both sentences" I meant the two sentences that Datere was asking about, i.e. "He learned how to read and write at the age of five" and "He learned to read and write at the age of five". Datere's grammar book is making a distinction in meaning but I don't see one. > A difficulty in comparing the sentences is that the first one > suggests that learning was completed while the boy was five but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In contrast "He was learning how to read and write when he was > five" does not carry the some suggestion of completion. Indeed. This is the point I was making in the second paragraph. I think we are in agreement -- there's just been some confusion about which sentences I was referring to. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.