# there was a snake entered my house yesterday



## lingkky

"there was a snake entered my house yesterday."

I am going to write an essay.Is the past tense  tense "entered"used correctly in the sentence?

Can continous tense be accepted too?
"There was a snake entering my house yesterday"
which one is suitable and what is the difference?


----------



## Englishmypassion

No.
_A snake entered my house yesterday._


----------



## Copperknickers

lingkky said:


> "there was a snake entered my house yesterday."
> 
> I am going to write an essay.Is the past tense  tense "entered"used correctly in the sentence?



It's not usually correct to use an impersonal construction ('there was') in addition to a verb: you can simply use 'to be', e.g. 'there was a snake in my house yesterday', or the verb, 'A snake entered my house yesterday'. 

(people from Ireland have a tendency to use the construction you suggest when speaking English, because that is the construction used in the Irish language, but you will be unlikely to come across this and should not use it yourself).


----------



## lingkky

"There was a snake entering my house yeaterday"
How about this sentence?Does it exist in English?is it same with "A snake entered my house yesterday"?


----------



## Copperknickers

lingkky said:


> "There was a snake entering my house yeaterday"
> How about this sentence?Does it exist in English?is it same with "A snake entered my house yesterday"?



It is technically correct, but it would not be used, except in very bizarre circumstances, mainly becaused 'enter' is usually used of humans, not of animals, and also because 'was entering' indicates that something took quite a long time since it indicates a continuous process. I suppose that a snake would take longer than most of us to enter a house, but still, there's no need for an imperfect tense, unless it was interrupted: for example, 'I was entering the house, when I detected a foul odour emanating from the kitchen' (which indicates that the detection of the odour happened suddenly even while the speaker was still stepping over the threshold).


----------



## Englishmypassion

Copperknickers said:


> (people from Ireland have a tendency to use the construction you suggest when speaking English, because that is the construction used in the Irish language, but you will be unlikely to come across this and should not use it yourself).



But I guess even Irish people would not use the exact construction/sentence used in the OP. Right? Wouldn't they use a relative pronoun (_that_) after "snake"? 

Thanks.


----------



## lingkky

Ok.I give some sentences and I need someone to check them.
"There were many people played in the pkayground yesterday. "
"There were many people played in the playground yesterday".
"There are many people play in the playground everyday."
"There are many people playing in the playground now."

Are they all correct?


----------



## Englishmypassion

I'm afraid only the last one is correct.


----------



## lingkky

Englishmypassion said:


> I'm afraid only the last one is correct.


if I add a word "who"
"There were many people who played in the playground yesterday."
Still wrong?


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Copperknickers said:


> "...people from Ireland have a tendency to use the construction you suggest when speaking English, because that is the construction used in the Irish language..."



I thought there were no snakes in Ireland  because St. Patrick drove them all out? 

Indian English speakers also use the continuous form more than is the standard elsewhere. 

You might say, in the context of a longer sentence, something like "I saw a snake entering (or an equivalent verb) my house yesterday, and I killed it.", but not "There was..."


----------



## lingkky

"There were many people who played in the playground yestersay."

Is it correct after  I added a word "who"in the sentence?


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

It's possible, again depending on context.


----------



## Englishmypassion

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> Indian English speakers also use the continuous form more than is the standard elsewhere.



You are absolutely right about that, and your comment reminds me of the funny poems "Goodbye Party For Miss Pushpa" and "Why the World is Fighting Fighting"  penned by  Nissim Ezekiel to parody the Indian usage. However, the OP is not Indian.

Would you please answer my question in post #6? 

Thank you very much.


----------



## pickarooney

Yeah, they might well (the absence of snakes apart) although I can't say as how it matches any construction in the Irish language.


----------



## lingkky

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> It's possible, again depending on context.


Thank you.In conclusion,
"There were many people played in the        playground."(incorrect)

"There were many people who played in     the playground"(correct)

Like this ?


----------



## Englishmypassion

Yes, lingkky. Grammatically.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

"There were many people who played in the playground" is grammatical, and possibly correct, but note that it may not be the sentence you want -- *context* is very important!!!


----------



## lingkky

Thank you


----------



## velisarius

_There was *this* snake entered my house yesterday.
_
Not suitable for an essay, but for me that would be fine in informal spoken English.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Englishmypassion said:


> But I guess even Irish people would not use the exact construction/sentence used in the OP. Right? Wouldn't they use a relative pronoun (_that_) after "snake"?
> 
> Thanks.



Wait for pickarooney to weigh in on this, Emp - he's Irish (I'm not)! 

Oops, he did (#14).


----------



## lingkky

velisarius said:


> _There was *this* snake entered my house yesterday.
> _
> Not suitable for an essay, but for me that would be fine in informal spoken English.


It was this snake is more correct I think


----------



## Englishmypassion

lingkky said:


> It was this snake is more correct I think



That's a different construction, not a more correct construction-- on the contrary, that doesn't probably work with "entered my house yesterday".


----------



## Packard

I tried many options but for "snake" I keep coming back to "got"

_A snake got in my house.  I have no idea how._


----------



## lingkky

Englishmypassion said:


> That's a different construction, not a more correct construction-- on the contrary, that doesn't probably work with "entered my house yesterday".


"It was the snake which entered my house "
This one is better and can be accepted in writing I think


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

lingkky said:


> "It was the snake which entered my house "
> This one is better and can be accepted in writing I think



I'm not sure about this; it sounds like the answer to the question, "Was it the snake or the armadillo that got into your house?"


----------



## Englishmypassion

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> it sounds like the answer to the question, "Was it the snake or the armadillo that got your house?"



Exactly my thoughts. 
So while the sentence is correct, it has a different meaning than the sentence(s)discussed earlier, lingkky.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> _There was *this* snake entered my house yesterday.
> _
> Not suitable for an essay, but for me that would be fine in informal spoken English.


I'm surprised you recommend this.  That unjustified demonstrative is offensive to many.


----------



## Packard

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm surprised you recommend this.  That unjustified demonstrative is offensive to many.


 
I have no idea what this is about.  Snakes are reptiles.  Are reptiles offensive?


----------



## Englishmypassion

Not sure of your question, Packard, but I'm fairly sure TT is talking about the use of "this" (a demonstrative determiner) there. I think the objection raised/offence taken is that the snake is not close to the speaker in time or space, so the use of "this" is not justified.


----------



## DonnyB

Englishmypassion said:


> Not sure of your question, Packard, but I'm fairly sure TT is talking about the use of "this" (a demonstrative determiner) there. I think the objection raised/offence taken is that the snake is not close to the speaker in time or space, so the use of "this" is not justified.


That was the interpretation I put on it, too.  That usage of "this" is quite widespread in informal spoken BE, and virtually amounts to being slang, but I've never before come across it being described as "offensive".


----------



## Packard

DonnyB said:


> That was the interpretation I put on it, too.  That usage of "this" is quite widespread in informal spoken BE, and virtually amounts to being slang, but I've never before come across it being described as "offensive".



It sounded like substandard English; I didn't understand the "offensive" part though.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

It (the inclusion of "this) is not at all uncommon in relaxed (I suppose some would say"lax") AE; what surprised me was that veli, a BE speaker, found it unobjectionable.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Packard said:


> It sounded like substandard English; I didn't understand the "offensive" part though.



I suppose T T meant that some native speakers would wrinkle their noses at it.


----------



## Packard

ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> I suppose T T meant that some native speakers would wrinkle their noses at it.



The usage smelled bad.  OK I'll buy that metaphor.


----------



## velisarius

It might be substandard, but the OP sentence sounds like a natural BE sentence to me. I added the caveat that it shouldn't be used in an essay. It's colloquial, normal English as far as I'm concerned, with or without "this".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> It might be substandard, but the OP sentence sounds like a natural BE sentence to me. I added the caveat that it shouldn't be used in an essay. It's colloquial, normal English as far as I'm concerned, with or without "this".


Ok, take away the demonstrative and substitute an article - *there was a snake entered my house yesterday*.  That sounds like an old-fashioned beginning to a story.  If we are starting a story, that might be fine.  It's a very particular register.

_A knight there was, and that a worthy man._


----------



## Copperknickers

Englishmypassion said:


> But I guess even Irish people would not use the exact construction/sentence used in the OP. Right? Wouldn't they use a relative pronoun (_that_) after "snake"?
> 
> Thanks.



No, they would never insert 'that', they would say it as in the OP.



ain'ttranslationfun? said:


> I thought there were no snakes in Ireland  because St. Patrick drove them all out?
> 
> Indian English speakers also use the continuous form more than is the standard elsewhere.
> 
> You might say, in the context of a longer sentence, something like "I saw a snake entering (or an equivalent verb) my house yesterday, and I killed it.", but not "There was..."



And I thought most Indians were Hindu and wouldn't dream of killing an innocent snake.


----------



## velisarius

I don't think the use of the past participle in the OP has anything to do with the continuous form "there was a snake entering..." I don't really see why Coppernickers brought it up here: 



Copperknickers said:


> lso because 'was entering' indicates that something took quite a long time since it indicates a continuous process.



"There was a snake entered my house..." for me is simply an alternative way of saying that "A snake entered my house..."
.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm not even sure it's a past participle, Mrs V.  I'd go for a simple past in a relative clause where _which_ is elided.

_There was a snake which entered my house..._


----------



## velisarius

I agree wholeheartedly,  Mr TT.


----------



## Copperknickers

velisarius said:


> I don't think the use of the past participle in the OP has anything to do with the continuous form "there was a snake entering..." I don't really see why Coppernickers brought it up here.



My mistake: 'There was a snake entered' is such an unusual phrasing that my brain automatically translated it to 'there was a snake entering'. Please disregard that part of my post.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

"So there was this snake that had got(ten) into my house. I clubbed it to death, filleted it, and cooked it in the oven with white wine, _herbes de provence_, and shallots."


----------



## Englishmypassion

Wow, you are a great gourmet.
Thanks for the "fillets".


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Copperknickers said:


> 'I was entering the house, when I detected a foul odour emanating from the kitchen' (which indicates that the detection of the odour happened suddenly even while the speaker was still stepping over the threshold).



Maybe the odor came from this thread: It stinks or it is stinking ? 

(I had already posted my #42 when I thought of this and wanted to include in that post, but apparently this operation (adding a quote to an already-posted thread) can't be performed.)


----------



## velisarius

I think you can do that, ain'tt.

You can add the quote to a new post, copy it, but don't post your reply - then click on 'edit' in your previous post and paste the copied quote in there. It's easier than it sounds.


----------



## velisarius

It seems to me that the sentence may fall into the category of "object contact relative" as described here: Subject contact relatives | Yale Grammatical Diversity Project

While the Project suggests there that subject contact relatives are more common in certain American dialects and in Hibernian English, it's also noted that "Several authors suggest that subject contact relatives are also observed in many speakers of standard English, even though they are more common for speakers of the varieties mentioned above."


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Thanks, veli - I'll have to try that!


----------



## bennymix

From your source.

3) a. I know *a man lives in St. Louis.*
(Ozark English; Elgin & Haden 1991, p. 9)

I heartily agree with the Ozark part.   Hence the OP, lingky should be cautioned that if she's in the US *and wants to sound like a hillbilly*, go ahead!

NOTE:  This applies to the OP sentence as well, in my opinion;
"there was a snake entered my house yesterday."   {Ozark English!}

NOTE2:  This applies as well to Velisarius' revised OP*

_There was *this* snake entered my house yesterday._




velisarius said:


> It seems to me that the sentence may fall into the category of "object contact relative" as described here: Subject contact relatives | Yale Grammatical Diversity Project
> 
> While the Project suggests there that subject contact relatives are more common in certain American dialects and in Hibernian English, it's also noted that "Several authors suggest that subject contact relatives are also observed in many speakers of standard English, even though they are more common for speakers of the varieties mentioned above."


----------

