ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Special Conditionals

just the truth — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 06:44:47 GMT

I'm sure there are linguistic dictionaries where you live. Why don't you skeddadle to somewhere you can find one and look up systemic and nonsystemic?
I'm really too busy answering other people's questions right now.
No offense, of course.

JT: None taken, Jim. But "systemic and nonsystemic" are not really the questions I had in mind.

Re: Special Conditionals

CalifJim — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:12:12 GMT

Turn-about is fair play.

I'm sure there are linguistic dictionaries where you live. Why don't you skeddadle to somewhere you can find one and look up systemic and nonsystemic?
I'm really too busy answering other people's questions right now.
No offense, of course.

Re: Special Conditionals

jack112 — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:36:11 GMT

Thanks that is helpful just the truth.

Re: Special Conditionals

just the truth — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 07:13:07 GMT

Jack: Are both of these correct? If not, why? What do they mean?

JT: Hey Jack, sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. Yes, both are correct. The difference comes in the meanings.

1. If I remember correctly, I asked you about a car last week. (This one looks right to me, but is this a conditional sentence? I notice the tenses don't match?)

JT: Yes, it's a conditional. "Under the condition that I remember corrctly ...". This would be the more common because people often remember. "If I remember correctly" is simply a softening type of phrasing that makes us sound less forward; we're allowing that there could be a mistake in memory.

Dropping and stating "I remember correctly, I asked ask you about a car last week" is much more agressive, more pointed, more in your face.

We choose tenses to meet requirements for meaning, NOT to satisfy errant prescriptive rules. is a word that describes a state. In English, we use the present tense to illustrate the state of mind.

2. If I remembered correctly, I asked you about a car last week.

This one expresses a true doubt about remembering, but it doesn't seem natural, or should I say it seems a little nonsensical. How could a person who doubts their memory for some point in time in the past, be then certain that "I asked ask you about a car last week".

The problem is, I believe, a semantic one, not a grammatical one. Here's a situation where it could possibly be used.

A: Your wife told youthree days before to ask me on Wedensday and you remembered to ask me and you did ask me. It was last week on Wednesday. She was right there, ask her!

B: Okay, okay. If I remembered correctly, I asked you about a car last week. What can I say -- early onset of Alzheimer's?

Re: Special Conditionals

just the truth — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:24:36 GMT

Could you expand a little on your ideas, with examples, Jim? Or alternatively, address some of the pointed questions I sent your way.

Re: Special Conditionals

CalifJim — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:20:21 GMT

Modals are deontic or epistemic.

Well there's no need to use foul language!

"systemic" vs. "non-systemic" is not the same as "deontic" vs. "epistemic".

Re: Special Conditionals

just the truth — Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:41:37 GMT

Mr P: Unfortunately, we never seem to get very far. As soon as the argument develops a little, you tend to move onto another thread and go back to square one.

JT: I believe I have addressed the actual issues of this thread in a pointed fashion, Mr P. Might I suggest that it is you who has gotten a bit off course. I appreciate your advice and I will certainly take it under advisement. But I couldn't help but notice how you and Jim have failed to address the issues that I raised with each of you.

Re: Special Conditionals

CalifJim — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:09:39 GMT

Pooper-scooper? More like hip boots and shovel!!!

Re: Special Conditionals

MrPedantic — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:52:23 GMT

MrP: Second point. I'm sure you don't need to let your emotions get the better of you, JT. This is a discussion about linguistics. It's not the invasion of Iraq.

JT: That may happen. If I've offended you, I apologise.
...

JT: If I dump on prescriptivists, it's because I believe it's warranted. Note well: I'm not alone in this. Teaching ESL is hard enough without having to rectify old and not so old errors. If an argument strikes a personal chord, then it's up to you [or anyone else] to defend that position.

You haven't offended me personally, JT, so there's no need to apologise.

Nonetheless, you have tried to insult other participants. I suppose you'd call this 'dumping on prescriptivists'. Apt metaphor. But it would help your case and your credibility if you could at least try to resist the urge to lower your pants in public. I'm always interested in your contributions; but your offensive deposits are becoming a problem. It's difficult to follow a line of argument when you're always having to watch where you tread.

'Dumping on prescriptivism' is different. I don't mind if you insult an abstraction. In fact, I have a suggestion. Your posts often include some reference to what I presume is a particular interest of yours: 'descriptivism vs prescriptivism'. Unfortunately, we never seem to get very far. As soon as the argument develops a little, you tend to move onto another thread and go back to square one. It's a little like playing chess for three moves and then finding your opponent has moved onto another board and started again with '1. P-K4'.

So my suggestion is this. Why not go to one of the 'discussion' sections on this forum – Controversial, maybe, or Topics – and post your thoughts on prescriptivism?

Then, when you post on Grammar, you can simply cross-refer to your 'prescriptivism' post when you want to make that particular point. It will save you time, and will also allow a debate to develop.

It's easily done. You format the cross reference like this:

Post:number of post

except with angle brackets for square brackets.

As I say, this is only a suggestion.

But as regards dumping on other users: please do remember to take your deposits home with you. I don't want to have to start pooper-scooping.

MrP

Re: Special Conditionals

just the truth — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:59:01 GMT

CJ: "I would go" and "That would be nice" are pure (non-idiomatic) conditional, but their corresponding "if" clauses are not explicitly stated.

JT: "I will go" and "That will be nice" are also pure conditional, but their corresponding "if" clauses are not explicitly stated.

What do you mean by "non-idiomatic", Jim?

CJ: That's why in modern English the future of the past (or "conditional") is formed with "would" (or "was going to") and the future of the present is formed with "will" (or "is going to").

JT: I'm also confused here. Could you offer some examples to clarify your statement, please?

CJ: Further, it is useful to separate systemic and non-systemic uses of modals. (The idiomatic uses mentioned are what I'd call examples of non-systemic uses.)

JT: That's been done, Jim. Modals are deontic or epistemic. The old system, which "construe them all as tensed in pairs like "can"-"could", "shall"-"should", etc" misleads ESLs on a dramatic scale. Why state that something has tense when it doesn't act in that fashion in actual use?

Re: Special Conditionals

just the truth — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:16:41 GMT

JT: Using would have made the conditional fall somwhere on a scale of more improbable to impossible in the speaker's mind.

MrP: I would be interested to hear your description of this distinct nuance.

JT: allows for a greater possibility; illustrates that the speaker is saying that "the conditional fall somewhere on a scale of more improbable to impossible in the speaker's mind. Both can apply to the same situation. Both point to a future happening; they only signal a stronger or weaker or even an impossible.

The past tense FORM used is only to signal a weaker to an impossible. We know this because we only have one form. Subjunctives express doubt too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JTT: Would you like a piece of pie?

MrP: The fact that a word-form is used in one way in one context doesn't mean it can't be used in another way elsewhere.

JJT: But the fact that all modals operate in all tense/time situations makes it more than a little silly to call them past and present tense forms. Try producing a sentence where the purported past tense modals operate as past tenses of the purported present tense modals.

Explain why ENLs can use in past tense/time situations.

MP: In this instance, the sentence may relate to an event in the future (the taking of the piece of pie), but the 'would' relates to the past, since the guest's desire (or lack of desire) for a piece of pie is assumed to have existed before the question was asked.

So the question indeed uses 'would' as a past-tense verb: it means 'were you wanting (to take) a piece of pie?'.

JT: Not possible, Mr P. The historical past tense form is only used to express politeness.

Are you suggesting that,

OR

means "the guest's desire (or lack of desire) for a piece of pie is assumed to have existed before the question was asked."

Substituting for the identical situation where could all be used doesn't, all of a sudden, switch the time frame into the past.

Using the past tense forms, historical past tense forms in the case of modals, is done for social distancing, to soften our speech, to make it more polite.

Are you suggesting that,

is any different in time reference to,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JTT: "it would take ..." clearly and unequivocably points to a future.

The construction 'stopped' + 'would' doesn't 'point to the future'. It points nowhere. The condition can either be fulfilled or not fulfilled. But at the moment of making the condition, the outcome doesn't exist. So how can we point to it?

JT: Nowhere, Mr P? It seems, though I may be wrong, that you're operating under the illusion that all subjunctive and other past tense form conditionals refer ONLY to unreal conditions.

Imagine you're planning a holiday and I suggest,

If I were you, I would go to Spain.

Does this not refer to a potential future?

could be pure speculation but it could also be based on facts.

1) If I get up at 5AM tomorrow, it will be dark.

Not a future, points to nothing; I don't think that's possible, Sir.

1) is no different than,

If I got up at 5AM tomorrow, it would be dark.

Both point to tomorrow, a clear future reference, and both allow that there is some possibility for that event to occur.

MP: I turn your usual line of argument back on you. One function of past tenses is to express the unreal. That's because we use them to express the unreal in conditional sentences. 'Would' is the star witness in this case: the past tense of 'will'.

JT: Regarding the modals, that's been the tale told, Mr P, but it's false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General points

JTT: unsupported assertion/personal abuse/blah blah blah.

MrP: First point. Why should we accept your unsupported assertions, rather than our own experiences? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested in why you think we should.

JT: You shouldn't. You should argue them vociferously and defend your own.

MrP: Second point. I'm sure you don't need to let your emotions get the better of you, JT. This is a discussion about linguistics. It's not the invasion of Iraq.

JT: That may happen. If I've offended you, I apologise.

We're no doubt all very interested in your arguments, but I don't quite see why you think personal comments are going to persuade anyone. Explain it to me.

JT: If I dump on prescriptivists, it's because I believe it's warranted. Note well: I'm not alone in this. Teaching ESL is hard enough without having to rectify old and not so old errors. If an argument strikes a personal chord, then it's up to you [or anyone else] to defend that position.

Re: Special Conditionals

CalifJim — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 03:40:25 GMT

Goodness! I'm trapped in a conundrum, and I don't even know it!

None of the "would" + base-form-of-verb patterns are past. They are all conditional.

"would like" is an idiom for "want"; the substitute is often made for politeness.

"I would go" and "That would be nice" are pure (non-idiomatic) conditional, but their corresponding "if" clauses are not explicitly stated.

"He would think that" is another idiomatic formula in one reading (stressed "would" suggesting something like typical behavior) and a pure conditional in another reading (unstressed "would") - again without an explicit "if" clause.

Historically "would" was the past of "will". That's why in modern English the future of the past (or "conditional") is formed with "would" (or "was going to") and the future of the present is formed with "will" (or "is going to").

As much as it would simplify the structure of English to construe all modals as tenseless or to construe them all as tensed in pairs like "can"-"could", "shall"-"should", etc., neither "all-or-nothing" theory works very well. I think we need to allow ourselves the scope to explain some structures in terms of one formulation and others, in another.

Further, it is useful to separate systemic and non-systemic uses of modals. (The idiomatic uses mentioned are what I'd call examples of non-systemic uses.)

Re: Special Conditionals

MrPedantic — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:38:45 GMT

JTT: Would you like a piece of pie?

MrP: The fact that a word-form is used in one way in one context doesn't mean it can't be used in another way elsewhere.

In this instance, the sentence may relate to an event in the future (the taking of the piece of pie), but the 'would' relates to the past, since the guest's desire (or lack of desire) for a piece of pie is assumed to have existed before the question was asked.

So the question indeed uses 'would' as a past-tense verb: it means 'were you wanting (to take) a piece of pie?'.

JTT: "it would take ..." clearly and unequivocably points to a future.

The construction 'stopped' + 'would' doesn't 'point to the future'. It points nowhere. The condition can either be fulfilled or not fulfilled. But at the moment of making the condition, the outcome doesn't exist. So how can we point to it?

I turn your usual line of argument back on you. One function of past tenses is to express the unreal. That's because we use them to express the unreal in conditional sentences. 'Would' is the star witness in this case: the past tense of 'will'.

General points

JTT: unsupported assertion/personal abuse/blah blah blah.

MrP: First point. Why should we accept your unsupported assertions, rather than our own experiences? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely interested in why you think we should.

MrP: Second point. I'm sure you don't need to let your emotions get the better of you, JT. This is a discussion about linguistics. It's not the invasion of Iraq.

We're no doubt all very interested in your arguments, but I don't quite see why you think personal comments are going to persuade anyone. Explain it to me.

MrP

Re: Special Conditionals

just the truth — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:47:27 GMT

For more examples of confusion that has resulted from this "sequence of tenses" nonsense, see also,

"Conditionals"

http://www.englishforums.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=63941

Re: Special Conditionals

just the truth — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:39:12 GMT

If they stop making cars now, it would take 60 days to sell everything they have.

What kind of structure is this?

JTT: I think this even has a grammatical name; mixed conditional.

How come the tenses don't match and it is correct? How do you know if this sentence is not a mistake? I can't figure this out.

JTT: First, yes, it's perfectly correct, Jack. The tenses do match. A present tense form is used in the first part to show that the speaker sees the possibility of "stopping making cars" as more probable than if the past tense FORM had been used.

Using would have made the conditional fall somwhere on a scale of more improbable to impossible in the speaker's mind. While some situations are clearly counterfactual, requiring a past tense FORM {___ed}, for many situations, the choice for ENLs is more wide open. It isn't an either/or, it's a nuance.

in the second part is a tenseless modal verb. Because modals are tenseless [in modern English] they can operate in any time sequence. And they do, don't they?

Would you like a piece of pie?

I would go, but ... .

He would think that!

That would be nice.

NONE of the above are past tense/time.

Even in this sentence of yours,

... it would take 60 days to sell everything they have. ,

we see that "it would take ..." clearly and unequivocably points to a future. You are confused because you have, in all likelihood, been misled into thinking that is the past tense of . That's absolutely false. Drop this bit of nonsense and this perfectly natural English sentence makes perfect sense.

Believe the old canard and that leaves you trapped in the same conundrum as CalifJim.