http://www.englishforums.com/English/LinguisticsDiscussionForum/Forum35.htmGet into the nitty-gritty of the language.enXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75586Tue, 26 May 2009 23:26:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:75586MrPedantic0http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75586http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-75586.xmlCJ, I too was baffled by the last comment. However, I fed it into Babelfish, converted it into NL, and then converted it back again. (This was the nearest I could get to Double Dutch.) Result: 'And the question to pleasure explained, is not said you, Jim?' A vast improvement, in my opinion. MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75574Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:26:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:75574CalifJim1http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75574http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-75574.xmlhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75447Tue, 26 May 2009 23:26:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:75447just the truth2http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75447http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-75447.xmlAnd the issue has been satisfactorily cleared up, wouldn't you say, Jim?http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75440Tue, 26 May 2009 23:26:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:75440CalifJim3http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75440http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-75440.xmlBut why did you include "probably will" in the list, and not, for example, "usually can", or "certainly should"? How did adverbs get drawn into the discussion? You made it sound as if you had some point to make about "will" carrying a separate meaning from "probably will", which, while not untrue, seems beside the point.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75427Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:26:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:75427just the truth4http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75427http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-75427.xmlCJ: Slip of the pen? JTT: Thanks Jim. No, I simply wasn't clear. Let me clear this up for you right now. The point you need to consider is that 'might' always exhibits a diminished possibility in its epistemic role. It CARRIES a separate MEANING from 'may', should, must, will, probably will, could, can, shall, ought to, etc. It carries a meaning that is different from all of them. Some of them share the same area of meaning but they all express something different.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75381Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:26:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:75381MrPedantic5http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75381http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-75381.xmlWell, if it helps, I'll try again: Are you implying that if word A differs in meaning from word B, and both A and B are verbs, then A is a different verb from B – even if word A is identical to word B? MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75343Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:26:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:75343CalifJim6http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75343http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-75343.xmlI don't recall where I said that 'probably will' is a separate verb. Here's a reminder, JT: It is a separate verb from 'may', should, must, will, probably will , could, can, shall, ought to, etc. Slip of the pen?http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75265Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:26:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:75265just the truth7http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#75265http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-75265.xmlMr P wrote: 1. Are you now calling 'probably will' a separate verb, JT? 2. Are you implying that if word A differs in meaning from word B, and both A and B are verbs, then A is a different verb from B – even if word A is identical to word B? 1. I don't recall where I said that 'probably will' is a separate verb. 2. Just after coming off a posting where you explained yourself sooooo well, Mr P, you fall back into this. Would you like to try again?http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#73973Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73973MrPedantic8http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/2/xqlj/Post.htm#73973http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73973.xmlThe point you need to consider is that 'might' always exhibits a diminished possibility in its epistemic role. It is a separate verb from 'may', should, must, will, probably will, could, can, shall, ought to, etc. It carries a meaning that is different from all of them. Some of them share the same area of meaning but they all express something different. 1. Are you now calling 'probably will' a separate verb, JT? 2. Are you implying that if word A differs in meaning from word B, and both A and B are verbs, then A is a different verb from B – even if word A is identical to word B? MrPhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73755Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73755just the truth9http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73755http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73755.xmlMr P wrote: My point was that if 'may' and 'might' may be classed as separate verbs on the basis of 'diminished possibility' in the latter, so may these two parts of the verb 'to be', since in #1, the 'if that were' shows less possibility than the 'if that was' in #2. But we know that 'diminished possibility' in this case is simply a function of the subjunctive. Therefore if the distinction between 'may' and 'might' rests upon 'diminished possibility', as stated in the passage JTT cites in the may/might thread, that in itself is no reason to class them as separate verbs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's nice to see you explain your position, Mr P. The point you need to consider is that 'might' always exhibits a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73729Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73729CalifJim10http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73729http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73729.xmlMr. P., Just wanted to stop by in this thread and let you know that I understand your argument exactly, and it makes perfect sense to me, no matter what anyone else says. Jimhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73700Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73700MrPedantic11http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73700http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73700.xmlMy examples did not relate to 'subjunctive versus indicative', but 'subjunctive and indicative. In other words, they have nothing to do with our old friend 'if I was/if I were'. I use 'to be' simply because in 'to be' the subjunctive is more visible. To start again: 1. If that were true, he would be wearing a nasturtium in his buttonhole. 2. If that was true, why wasn't he wearing a nasturtium in his buttonhole? #1 has a subjunctive: 'were'. (Some people would say 'was'; but my point here is about the subjunctive, so that's irrelevant.) #2 has an indicative: 'was'. (This 'was' may not be replaced with a subjunctive 'were'. The 'that' has been accepted as true.) My point was that if 'may' and 'might' may be classed...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73679Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73679just the truth12http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73679http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73679.xmlJT: Casi, if you're at the grocery store and you utter, "I wish I was at home", how can this be, I quote, "actually possible; factual"? Casi: Uhm, . . . let me think. . . Ah! Here we are: one can make it possible by actually going home? Was that a trick question, JTT. With "were", there is no possibility of going home; that's why the speaker uses "were". I wish I were at home. (meaning, I can't go home; it's not a possibility at this time.) I wish I was at home. (meaning, I can go home, but it's not a possibility at this time.) JTT: I wish I were in the kitchen. (the meaning is, I can't go into the kitchen; it's not a possibility at this time.)???? I just went into the kitchen, Casi and got a...http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73668Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73668Casi13http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73668http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73668.xmlCasi, if you're at the grocery store and you utter, "I wish I was at home", how can this be, I quote, "actually possible; factual"? Uhm, . . . let me think. . . Ah! Here we are: one can make it possible by actually going home? Was that a trick question, JTT. With "were", there is no possibility of going home; that's why the speaker uses "were". I wish I were at home. (meaning, I can't go home; it's not a possibility at this time.) I wish I was at home. (meaning, I can go home, but it's not a possibility at this time.) OK. Shall we return to the topic, now, specifically my question to you?http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73664Tue, 26 May 2009 23:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73664just the truth14http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73664http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73664.xmlJT: Now we have 'were' showing 'fact' and 'was' showing counterfactuality. Flexible little devils, these past tense FORMS. Casi: Do you mean like this? Counterfactual: I wish I was at home. (opposite of fact: I'm not at home) If so, I have to politely disagree: I wish I was at home. (it's actually possible; factual) I wish I were at home. (it's impossible; counterfactual) Then ye be wrong, Lassie. Casi, if you're at the grocery store and you utter, "I wish I was at home", how can this be, I quote, "actually possible; factual"?http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73652Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73652Casi15http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73652http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73652.xmlNow we have 'were' showing 'fact' and 'was' showing counterfactuality. Flexible little devils, these past tense FORMS. Do you mean like this? Counterfactual: I wish I was at home. (opposite of fact: I'm not at home) If so, I have to politely disagree: I wish I was at home. (it's actually possible; factual) I wish I were at home. (it's impossible; counterfactual)http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73614Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73614MrPedantic16http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htm#73614http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73614.xmlFor context of above quote: Post:73581http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htmTue, 27 Jan 2009 00:26:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:73602just the truth17http://www.englishforums.com/English/SubjunctiveVersusIndicative/xqlj/post.htmhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/comments35-73602.xmlMr Pedantic wrote: The OED's 'may/might' entry takes us back to Fortiter's thread: 1. If that were true, he would be wearing a nasturtium in his buttonhole. 2. If that was true, why wasn't he wearing a nasturtium in his buttonhole? If we were to apply the logic of earlier posts in this thread, 'were' and 'was' would have to be classed as different verbs here, since the subjunctive 'were' in #1 shows 'diminished possibility', while the indicative 'was' in #2 shows fact. Or do we redefine the subjunctive as inhouse modality? MrP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JT That is completely illogical, Mr P. You're grasping at straws. Modal verbs and the 'be' verb are more than slightly different. It's obvious that...