Played myself in scrabble. I won! What is the difference between playing with someone and playing someone? What if someone is replaced with the speaker themselves? Is the sentence in the quote cor...
meaning - What difference is between playing with someone and playing ...
I was playing hockey. You could use it as a way to say "No" when invited to play a game or a match or something similar. For example: Want to play a game of chess? I just played. Give me an hour to recharge my brain. If you say, "I was just playing" it means that you were just kidding around about whatever the topic of the conversation is. For ...
Is it idiomatic to say "I just played" or "I was just playing" in ...
Both "play" and "playing" is correct here. People often see him (who is) playing basketball on the playground at the weekend. People often see him (who) play basketball on the playground at the weekend. So essentially both carry the same meaning.
You're presenting the participial phrase as a parenthetical, and probably supplemental, modifier. The question is how to explain why it fails as a direct modifier. It fails because personal pronouns, especially in the subjective case, don't typically work that way. Things like "tall she" and "she playing the piano" aren't coherent phrases.
He isn't playing football anymore. Also in US English, any more (two words) is used as a determiner to refer to quantities. There aren't any more cheesburgers. In UK English, anymore is typically considered incorrect, and any more is the correct spelling for both parts of speech.
He had been playing for two hours. In the absence of any mention of such a subsequent event, this use of a past perfect continuous construction would be at best unusual, and arguably simply wrong.
He was playing for two hours or he had been playing for two hours
But if I ask an aging tennis star "are you still playing tennis," the understood meaning is "Do you play tennis games from time to time, regularly?" —an "ongoing current action" made up of many individual "completed" actions.
“I have been playing a lot of tennis recently“ is the action completed ...
I think that "on the field" and "in the field" are often used rather interchangeably in such contexts, with limited regard for what kind of field it is. If it is actually a totally undeveloped meadow, "on the field" seems less likely, but in informal speech might still be used.
1 Both " playing " and " acting " may be used for what an actor dfoes in a play, film, video or TV show. Indeed " player " is another term for " actor ", and it normally has much the same meaning, The word "acting" is generally used more frequently than "playing" for the general concept.
Cook (2000) defined language play as playing with words and meanings, playing in language and creating fictional words, and playing with pragmatics, which entails enjoyment with language.
Is there no way to state the generic playing without a direct object? Or is "playing" inherently a transitive verb? Cambridge Dictionary first sense seems to suggest intransitive, but it seems to always have a "with him" or "on the street" after it. Is it natural to have this kind of conversation: "What were you doing?" "I was playing." "Oh, what did you play?/Who do you play with?"
+1, though it's a bit of an oversimplification; something like "she who is playing the piano" or "she of the long hair" is grammatical but literary, whereas the OP's *"she playing the piano" is out-and-out ungrammatical.
He had been playing for two hours. This one is similar to second one in the meaning, but it emphasizes that the action of playing was completely done; If he did anything else, he must have done it after this action.
I need to be playing in Europe I need to play in Europe Which sentence is more correct or is there any difference at all?