"I've been knowing him for years"?

Share on Facebook

Anonymous

#573101 Sat, 04 Oct 08 02:08 PM

Goodman:

- I've never written
“I stopped know it” as you claim I have.

Again, you used this request to split my paragraph right between the
statement and its "elaboration". Why do you do that? That's inadequate. 

Look here:
[link].
That's the address of a page with that my post. The Windows bar at the very
top mentions 70 000 examples, while the post itself includes only 700. Can
I have any explication to that phenomenon other that someone didn't like
such a big number of examples of "been knowing"?

[Edited by a moderator. Please calm down, everyoe is volunteer here.

You may not like the answers, so you can ask someone else.]

Anonymous

Verbs, Numbers, Stative Verbs, Paragraphs

Avangi

#573164 Sat, 04 Oct 08 06:36 PM

Anonymous
That's the address of a page with that my post. The Windows bar at the very top mentions 70 000 examples, while the post itself includes only 700.

Hi Anon. I see that the discrepancy persists. It's a complete mystery to me, and I'm really hoping someone can explain it. I share your concern. I'm going to try a test, but I fully expect the "windows bar" will reflect an edit.

And I honestly can't imagine that someone would alter it intentionally. - A.

Avangi

Joined on Mon, Nov 19 2007

Senior Member (3,789)

". . . le plaisir delicieux et toujours nouveau d'une occupation inutile." - Henri de Regnier

Avangi

#573166 Sat, 04 Oct 08 06:40 PM

test: What about 70000 examples?

Edit. Hmm - - - It has to be the first line of the top post on a page other than the first page in the thread. Right now we're back in Oops mode.

Edit. Edit. Okay, I succeeded in making a test on the end of an old thread. When I edited the first line of text (eg. changed 70000 to 700) the change subsequently appeared in the windows header above, as well.

I'm at a complete loss to explain the discrepancy which appears in this thread (post #572474).

I've just now noticed that there are other discrepancies between the two lines:

2CalifJim: What about 70000 examples of "I've been k...

2CalifJim:
What about 700 examples of "been knowing"? ;)

I think perhaps the "windows header" line came from the original of the two duplicate posts which were in the thread at one time. I recall that the format (line length) was different. I seem to recall the 70000 in both, but I can't be sure.

- A.

Avangi

Anonymous

#573343 Sun, 05 Oct 08 09:57 AM

2Avangi:

Thanks for addressing the problem. I remember when I was posting that post I was answered with something like "oops, we have a problem". I did it again from another computer and the answer was the same. Then both posts showed up in a couple of hours. And I don't think anymore that someone did it intentionally. So, the bottomline is 70 000 instances of "been knowing", which is a part of a proof that "to know" CAN be durative.

Also I registered but have never been sent a confirmation message.

Anonymous

Avangi

#573601 Mon, 06 Oct 08 12:03 AM

We're all struggling with the danged "Ooopses." I guess it's the price of success. According to our "resident" expert, Hitchhiker, the database is so huge now that it's difficult to spread the processing power around to cover all the functions, or something like that. The staff are working on it, and don't always have time to address all the inquires. I have a few outstanding ones myself.

Hopefully, someone will be able to help with your registration problem.

Best of luck, - A.

Avangi

Goodman

#573702 Mon, 06 Oct 08 07:55 AM

Anon,

I didn’t change anything in your previous post in my response to your persistence on the perfect progressive usage of “knowing”. Your accusation had no basis. This awkward usage was what started all the fuzz on Google search discrepancy, and disputes. The oppsoing view with this usage was not solely mine. You are upset because you couldn’t convince the forum to accept what you believed in your mind was the correct use of “I have been knowing him for years”. To be truthful, personally I couldn’t care less if you still insist on using it that way and being adamant about its “durative property” because my intent to respond to your post was not to make pointless argument which seemed to be the direction it was going. You've won!

Before concluding this thread, I like to make it clear. I didn’t not change the content of your post. I just copied and pasted part of your post in response. I gave you my reasoning and examples with the disapproval to your “durative” usage.

If you say “I forgot I have a 10 o’clock meeting” Can you equate this to “I don’t know I have a meeting at 10 o’clock ? No!

If you forgot to turn in your project yesterday which was assigned to you, it does not mean you don’t knowit’s due.
You can’t tell your boss “I forgot about it conveniently because you forgot to know” can you?

If you forget something, you just temporarily can’t remember, but not because you don’t know.

Agreeing and disproving a particluar English usage is very common in any forum. If you still like to engage in an intellectual discussion, everyone is happy to do so. But if your mood is not one to learn but to insist, then suit yourself.

Goodman

Joined on Mon, Nov 7 2005

Calif. USA

Senior Member (3,247)

The name says it all!

Perfect Progressive

Avangi

#573708 Mon, 06 Oct 08 08:14 AM

Hi, Goodman,

One man's intellectual discussion is another man's rant.

Adversarial discussions are not necessarily uncivil. I see nothing uncivil about defending one's position in an exhaustive manner. Who should be the first to roll over and play dead?

Lay on, MacDuff!

- A.

Avangi

Anonymous

#573749 Mon, 06 Oct 08 01:29 PM

Goodman:

I didn’t not change the content of your post
No, you did. You said that I had said "I stopped know it". I've never written so. I wrote "I stopped knowing it".

If you say “I forgot I have a 10 o’clock meeting” Can you equate this to “I don’t know I have a meeting at 10 o’clock ? No!

You are right, I can't equate this. But I surely can equate "I forgot the password" to "I don't know the password". I can agree with you that "to know" IS NOT ALWAYS durative. But you should agree that IT CAN BE durative, hence yo should permit using it with Perfect Progressive in particular cases.

Again, the problem arose when someone spread the impossibility to use the stative verbs in Progressive Tense (with which I completely agree) onto another Progressive Tense (Perfect), with which I disagree. We can't use them in PROGRESSIVE TENSE, not in PROGRESSIVE TENSES. Despite having similar names, those two tenses are very different.

Anonymous

Verbs, Tenses, Stative Verbs, Perfect Progressive

Goodman

#573792 Mon, 06 Oct 08 04:47 PM

Avangi
Hi, Goodman,

One man's intellectual discussion is another man's rant.

Adversarial discussions are not necessarily uncivil. I see nothing uncivil about defending one's position in an exhaustive manner. Who should be the first to roll over and play dead?

Lay on, MacDuff!

- A.

Hello Avangi,

<<One man's intellectual discussion is another man's rant>> I am curious, what state of mind were you in when this statement was conceived? I am not sure how you stand with the question in discussion and surely I don’t quite follow the connection between “intellectual” and rant. But I can definitely agree there is only a fine line separating a genius and mad man.

In case you missed it in my last reply thread, I said “ You won”. I guess you got the answer who played dead. To me, a discussion became pointless when one side insists on his belief that he is right without grounds to prove it and refuses to produce logical reasons to defend his view.

Goodman

1 2 3 4 5 6