Many environmentalists, and some economists

[tim]

glad to hear it!

[momo32]

Dear Ron，

Can you explain the following？
In my mind ， we cannot use have done ，when the clause does not contain since for or something else. Please correct it

of course they aren't parallel. why should they be?

THX

[tim]

What exactly are you asking us to correct? Can you be more specific about what point you're trying to make and what your question is?

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron，

Can you explain the following？
In my mind ， we cannot use have done ，when the clause does not contain since for or something else. Please correct it

What you're thinking about is this:
If "since ..." IS present, then, in most cases, the adjacent sentence SHOULD use "has/have ___ed".

The problem is that you're seeing "If x is present, then you should use y", and mistakenly thinking that "If x is not present, then you shouldn't use y".
That's a big mistake.

[srikanthd654]

Hi Ron,

Could you please elaborate more on when to use "for+ ing" form. I have seen couple OG questions with this preposition form.

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

Could you please elaborate more on when to use "for+ ing" form. I have seen couple OG questions with this preposition form.

Thanks

This question would be better suited to a new thread in the General Verbal folder.

When you post that thread, please do the following:

* Cite the edition number(s) and problem number(s) of these OG questions.
Do not quote the problems themselves.

* Please ask your question as specifically as possible, in the context of those problems.

Thanks.

[AnkurR175]

of course they aren't parallel. why should they be?

when we use simple present, it represents "eternal truth"...
looking at the first part of the sentence "Many environmentalists, and some economists, say that free trade encourages industry to relocate to countries with ineffective or poorly enforced antipollution laws, mostly in the developing world, and that...."

"...free trade encourages industry..." refers to an eternal truth. But free trade itself is a recent phenomena. So, ideally it should have been "...free trade has encouraged industry...". I understand it is out of the purview of the question, but it is really bothering me.

Plus, given "and" shouldn't we look at it as:
"free trade encourages industry..." AND "rich nations join in this downward slide..."?
So, ideally, shouldn't both be treated as eternal truths??

[RonPurewal]

"free trade encourages xxx" is a fact of economic theory, IN GENERAL. this is not just a fact about the current set-up of free trade that exists at the moment -- it's a generality. (i.e., if you set up another free-trade arrangement, in another world, somewhere else, the same sort of thing would obtain, according to the theory.)

the fact about rich nations, on the other hand, is just something that's happened this one time.