http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=tag%3aAccents+tag%3aConditionals&tag=Accents,Conditionals&orTags=0Search results for 'tag:Accents tag:Conditionals' matching tags 'Accents' and 'Conditionals'en-USCSMOD (Build: 3191.21962)http://www.englishforums.com/English/ToPedanticus/2/lxkh/Post.htm#58266Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:23:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:58266MrPedanticIt was a curious business. It made things very awkward for foreign businessmen who, when faced with a few stumbling words of French or German from their British counterparts, were put in the difficult position of deciding how to guide the conversation gently back to a language that was comprehensible to both parties. I'm not quite sure what started the vogue, or why it just as suddenly ended. The odd fact remains: for a brief few years, you could see several people with pursed lips learning foreign languages, in the average British railway carriage. Now you see none. <br /> <br />But the English relationship with the French language is in itself quite curious, and probably requires a thread of its own. For instance, even a phrase as common in English as 'raison d'être' should never be pronounced with an 'authentic' accent, except in burlesque. It must be pronounced as badly as possible. Whereas with Spanish or Italian words and phrases, an attempt at an authentic pronunciation is acceptable; except in the case of foodstuffs. With foodstuffs, it would be regarded as pretentious: thus 'taggly-a-telly', for instance. (And in England you can buy one 'panini'.) <br /> <br />But back to the matter in hand: <br /> <br />1. I would myself use 'searched' and 'stopped'; but it is very difficult to explain. Even native speakers are sometimes uncomfortable with the past tense in this situation, and 'mis-correct' it to the present. It seems to be required by the 'past tense' in the 'if' clause of the 'second conditional', and has the same function of expressing the unreal, rather than the truly 'past'. <br /> <br />2a. Here perhaps 'included caveats' would be better. <br />2b. Either 'issue', if the caveats are forcefully put; or perhaps again simply 'some of the caveats he includes elsewhere'. <br /> <br />3. I'm not sure 'book' works here; maybe 'work of philosophy', 'philosophic treatise', 'philosophic text'. <br /> <br />'Curing by argument' is unusual; the 'curing' seems to demand an object. <br /> <br />Atootaleur, <br />MrP <br /> <br /> <br />http://www.englishforums.com/English/AmericanEnglishSubjunctive/3/wnqm/Post.htm#43345Wed, 25 Aug 2004 05:26:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:43345CalifJimHi, Miriam! <br /> <br />Thanks so much for your reply. Of course I'm still interested! <br /> <br />1. Sometimes when examples are given, certain forms begin to sound more acceptable. Strangely enough, only your example with "wish" still seems weird to me! The other two don't really sound that formal to me. I can imagine reading them in a newspaper from time to time. I need to revise my opinion slightly. <br /> <br />2. Well, God is a special case! -- as is the Queen, I suppose! But note that a command is still a command, even when we are extra polite and say "please". Please open the door, Oscar. Please save the Queen, God. Please live long, King. OK. Maybe I'm stretching it a bit with these paraphrases, but the form of the mandative subjunctive is the same as the form of the imperative. In fact, all present subjunctive forms are the same as the imperative. I don't find this unusual since subjunctive is so often associated with the idea of one person exerting his will upon another, whether gently or forcefully (urge vs. demand). <br /> <br />3. Whoooooo! I find this one astounding: Incorrect >> <img src="/emoticons/emotion-7.gif" alt="Tongue Tied [:S]" /> <br /> <br />Ramsey, in A Textbook of Modern Spanish (revised by R. K. Spaulding) gives the sequence of tenses you cite as correct, and adds another section just after (in Section 24.16) stating: "A single exception to the principles stated with regard to the past tenses of the subjunctive is that the '-ra' form ... may take the place of the conditional in all types of conditional tenses." He gives the following example, both variants of which he considers correct: <br /> <br />Si V. no hubiera acudido generosamente en mi ayuda, ya habria (or hubiera) muerto de hambre. <br /> <br />Butt and Benjamin, in Grammar of Modern Spanish, write (Section 14.5.2) "The -ra subjunctive may be [used as] a stylistic variant for the conditional ... This is normal in all styles with the auxiliary 'haber : habria sido mejor / hubiera sido mejor' "it would have been better". And again at Section 16.1.1.b: "[The -ra form] regularly replaces the conditional of 'haber'." <br /> <br />Since this isn't a Spanish Forum, I guess I'd better "cool it". Isn't it interesting how native speakers can end up with a totally different impression of their own language compared to those who "studied" it from books as an outsider? <br /> <br />Best regards, <br />Jim <br /> <br />P.S. I read Spanish quite well and can understand nearly 95% of the television news. I can't say the same for my speaking ability, although I managed a trip through Spain without much trouble. Once I accidentally used flash in a museum where it was forbidden. I understood everything they said to me about how I should be thrown out for such an infraction, etc., etc., but I feigned incomprehension and an even worse American accent than I actually had, and they took pity on me and let me stay! (Be sure to remember that trick when you visit the U.S.) <img src="/emoticons/emotion-1.gif" alt="Smile [:)]" /> <br />