after they slept / after they sleep
- Thread starter ADMP
- Start date
neither, I started the rest of my work after the children went to bed.
(1) is ok while (2) is incorrect.
The tense of the subordinate clasue should agree with that of the main clause.
edit: I agree with Sally about "the" rest of my work.
"I started [the rest of my work] after children had gone to bed
I am so sorry. It's a typing error. The correct sentence is
I am thinking what to do after I went/go home ( Action is not finished and going to happen in future)
Sorry, but this is not correct. Properly, it would be:
"I am thinking about what I am going to do after I get home"
1. You are thinking about something;
2. You are going to do something after you get home;
I absolutely agree with Okey-Dokey (with the minor amendment noted).
I am thinking (about) what to do after I get home.
"Go home" implies leaving and heading in the direction of your home from some place otherwise. "Get home" is more appropriate in this context, as it implies arriving at home from some other place otherwise.
"Go home" implies leaving and heading in the direction of your home from some place otherwise. "Get home" is more appropriate in this context, as it implies arriving at home from some other place otherwise.
Ok, sorry for the confusion.
I've got some questions:
what's wrong with: thinking what to do here?
And why is go wrong? I've thought it's possible in the sentence.
Tom
Yours is perfectly fine, Thomas. It's a variation. In fact, I would prefer yours in writing -- maybe Dimcl's in speaking. They're both good.
Probably I said that about writing context because I can see the character wandering around, saying to himself: "What to do. What to do, what to do ..." Whereas it just isn't as eloquent -- or stylistic, I should say -- to write: "What am I going to do? What am I going to do?" The shorter spurts give a nervier quality to him.
Yes, I actually thought of replacing go with come when I was replying to the question since logically it and get are better here, but I guess there's a context in which go would be fine too.
Tom
I respectfully disagree, Coiffe. To say "...thinking what to do" is the same as:
"I am thinking where to go for my vacation" OR
"I am thinking what to do in my garden this year"
One thinks "about" or "of" and I'm sure that this needs to be conveyed in either conversation or writing.
With all due respect, Dimcl, I'll have to disagree. To me "thinking what to do/where to go" sounds very natural to me, and "thinking of what to do" and "thinking about what to do" are the same. I feel that in this case the preposition "of/about" can be safely omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence.
Really? Yikes, you and Coiffe have thrown me for a loop! So, if I say:
"I'm thinking who should get my inheritance"
you don't find anything wrong with that?
Dimcl,
No problem, I'm thinking of a line from Shakespeare, I just can't place it -- maybe later. (Many characters had the dilemma -- Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello -- but this is specific dialogue I am remembering. No matter now.)
Holy Smoke! Well, I guess (that) I keep thinking (about) the fact that ESL students should learn the "proper" way before becoming accustomed to our idiomatic conversational styles (heaven help them!). I don't envy ADMP if this subject comes up on a grammar test at some point!Sounds perfect to me!It actually sounds better to me without the prepositions.
According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, if you are trying to make a decision or you are weighing and considering, then you should use about after thinking. My thought is that in this case about would be functioning as a particle.
I am thinking about taking a trip to the zoo tomorrow.
The sentence sounds very weird to me without the about. I have only heard non-native English speakers omit the about. Note also that thinking about could be changed to considering in this sentence, though that is not always the case.
In the next sentence, I'm not pondering something but perhaps remembering something.
I am thinking of my mother.
Without the of you would have a sentence fragment. I am thinking my mother. I'm thinking my mother what?
I'm thinking my mother will come home from the hospital today.
Note the elided that in the sentence. My mother is the subject of a subordinate clause.
How about thinking followed by what?
I am thinking what I will teach tomorrow.
Not good, there's something missing. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I am thinking what I will teach tomorrow will be helpful for my student.
Note that there is an elided that in the sentence. "What I will teach tomorrow" is the subject of a subordinate clause.
If I am still deciding what I will teach, then I need the about.
I am thinking about what I will teach tomorrow.
Dimcl
It sounds good to me only if "who should get my inheritance" is a direct thought which means it should be written this way:
I'm thinking, "Who should get my inheritance?"
Also these sentences:
I'm thinking, "Where should I go?"
I'm thinking, "What should I do after I get home?"
I'm thinking, "Where should I plant the azaleas?"
If it is not a direct thought, the about is needed. It doesn't sound right without it. With the sentences containing I in the question part, I and should change places:
I'm thinking about where I should go.
I'm thinking about what I should do after I get home.
I'm thinking about where I should plant the azaleas.
If I leave out the about, I have an incomplete subordinate clause.
I'm thinking where I should go.<-- I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I'm thinking (that) where I should go is Spain.
I'm thinking what I should do after I get home. <-- I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I'm thinking (that) what I should do after I get home is paint the house.
I'm thinking where I should plant the azaleas. <-- I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I'm thinking (that) where I should plant the azaleas is along the deck wall.
In short, leaving out the about or the of creates the subject for a subordinate clause with the introductory that elided out. That is why I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. I'm subconsciously thinking, "Where's the predicate for the subject in that clause?"
Orange Blossom
I am thinking about taking a trip to the zoo tomorrow.
The sentence sounds very weird to me without the about. I have only heard non-native English speakers omit the about. Note also that thinking about could be changed to considering in this sentence, though that is not always the case.
In the next sentence, I'm not pondering something but perhaps remembering something.
I am thinking of my mother.
Without the of you would have a sentence fragment. I am thinking my mother. I'm thinking my mother what?
I'm thinking my mother will come home from the hospital today.
Note the elided that in the sentence. My mother is the subject of a subordinate clause.
How about thinking followed by what?
I am thinking what I will teach tomorrow.
Not good, there's something missing. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I am thinking what I will teach tomorrow will be helpful for my student.
Note that there is an elided that in the sentence. "What I will teach tomorrow" is the subject of a subordinate clause.
If I am still deciding what I will teach, then I need the about.
I am thinking about what I will teach tomorrow.
Dimcl
mrbilal87
.Sounds perfect to me!
It sounds good to me only if "who should get my inheritance" is a direct thought which means it should be written this way:
I'm thinking, "Who should get my inheritance?"
Also these sentences:
I'm thinking, "Where should I go?"
I'm thinking, "What should I do after I get home?"
I'm thinking, "Where should I plant the azaleas?"
If it is not a direct thought, the about is needed. It doesn't sound right without it. With the sentences containing I in the question part, I and should change places:
I'm thinking about where I should go.
I'm thinking about what I should do after I get home.
I'm thinking about where I should plant the azaleas.
If I leave out the about, I have an incomplete subordinate clause.
I'm thinking where I should go.<-- I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I'm thinking (that) where I should go is Spain.
I'm thinking what I should do after I get home. <-- I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I'm thinking (that) what I should do after I get home is paint the house.
I'm thinking where I should plant the azaleas. <-- I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I'm thinking (that) where I should plant the azaleas is along the deck wall.
In short, leaving out the about or the of creates the subject for a subordinate clause with the introductory that elided out. That is why I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. I'm subconsciously thinking, "Where's the predicate for the subject in that clause?"
Orange Blossom
You said in the beginning of this thread you wanted to express it in the future tense: something you will be going to do. That's why I offered this:
After I get home and put the children to bed, I'll finish the rest of my work.
I am thinking is present tense. If you want to keep that part of the sentence like that, I'd re-write it to say:
I think when I get home, I'll put the children to bed, and then I'll finish the rest of my work.
Happening in the future as you requested.
AngelEyes
"think" has both transitive and intransitive usages.
Concerning transitive usage, here are some examples:
Think how much you can earn if the advertisement attracts over 100 customers.
I can't think what you actually mean.
I think you'd better run, or you'll be late.
None of the above sentences needs a preposition.
Concerning transitive usage, here are some examples:
Think how much you can earn if the advertisement attracts over 100 customers.
I can't think what you actually mean.
I think you'd better run, or you'll be late.
None of the above sentences needs a preposition.
Sentence 1 is a command structure; hence, no need of 'of' or 'about'. We dont' need the phrasal verb here with its particle, not preposition.
Sentence 3 is another example of a sentence with the elided that
I think (that) you'd better run, or you'll be late.
The subordinate clause has a predicate and 'run' doesn't need an object.
Sentence 2, I'm not so sure about. I'd prefer to insert an 'of'.
Angeleyes
ADMP
In the sentence as ADMP has composed it here, my thought is that she/he is deciding what he/she will do after she/he gets home. If that is the case, the sentence should be written this way:
I am thinking about what I will [should is another option] do after I go home.
If she has already decided what he/she will do, then yes thinking should change to think:
I think (that) when [or after] I get home, I will put the children to bed, and then I'll finish the rest of my work.
Or:
I think (that) when [or after] I get home, I'll finish my work after I put the children to bed.
Orange Blossom
In sentence 2 "I can't think what you actually mean", think is equivalent to imagine/comprehend, and thus a transitive verb.
Another look-up in dictionary.com:
American Heritage Dictionary -
think
(thĭngk) Pronunciation Key v. thought (thôt), think·ing, thinks
v. tr.
- To have or formulate in the mind.
- To reason about or reflect on; ponder: Think how complex language is. Think the matter through.
- To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering: thinking what to do.
- To expect; hope: They thought she'd arrive early.
- To intend: They thought they'd take their time.
- .....
Thanks, Leon. There's one other thing in the deep structure, and I'm surprised nobody picked up on it. I didn't think of it either, for a day or two:In sentence 2 "I can't think what you actually mean", think is equivalent to imagine/comprehend, and thus a transitive verb.
Another look-up in dictionary.com:
American Heritage Dictionary -
think
v. thought (thôt), think·ing, thinks
v. tr.
- To have or formulate in the mind.
- To reason about or reflect on; ponder: Think how complex language is. Think the matter through.
- To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering: thinking what to do.
- To expect; hope: They thought she'd arrive early.
- To intend: They thought they'd take their time.
- .....
"I don't know what to do."
The phrase/sentence "What to do." or "What to do?" is just a shortened form of the complete sentence above. The "I don't know" has been suppressed. It's the same as:
"Where to go." or "Where to go?"
(from deletion transformation applied to "I don't know where to go.")
The sentence "I am thinking, 'What to do?' " is simply a substitution/replacement transformation.
The way you put it in "I am thinking. 'What to do?' " seems still trying to stress the intransitive usage of think, which requires a propsition of or about in front of "what to do" when connecting the both parts together. However, in my opinion, whether with or without a preposition is both correct but carries slightly different meaning.
e.g.
I am thinking what to do. <--- with emphasis on thinking
I am thinking about what to do. <--- with emphasis on what to do.