http://www.englishforums.com/search/pro.htm?q=user%3aForbes&o=DateDescendingSearch results for 'user:Forbes'en-USXMOD (Build: 3616.28671)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Complain/lvvqh/post.htm#944439Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:05:00 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:944439forbesIn the sentence "complain" has no object and is therefore intransitive, as indeed it always is. The main clause is "Students complain" and the subordinate clause "the teacher does not give enough homework" in which the subject is "teacher" and the object "enough homework".http://www.englishforums.com/English/ShutUp/2/krldd/Post.htm#851070Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:56:08 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:851070forbesOn the other hand if you say I walked up the stairs , yoy can say : Up the stairs , I walked. This will indicate the difference betweenparticles and prepositions. Best of luck The problem is though that you can say "I walked up". If a definition of a preposition is that it must govern something what is it governing here?http://www.englishforums.com/English/OnGenitiveAntecedants/jqzdg/post.htm#831990Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:47:19 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:831990forbesJohn and Mary were discussing the education received by Newton and his father. Mary said, "Newton's father said he was good at Latin."http://www.englishforums.com/English/OnGenitiveAntecedants/jqzdg/post.htm#831859Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:40:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:831859forbesNo. "The genius of Newton allowed him..." would presumably be acceptable to anyone who thought that the original was ungrammatical; it is difficult to justify why one should be correct and the other not. "Newton's genius allowed Newton..." seems awkward. One asks "Why not use a pronoun?" Of course ambiguity can arise if one is not careful. "Newton's father encouraged him to study Latin" is not ambiguous, but "Newton's father said he was good at Latin" is.http://www.englishforums.com/English/OfA/jljwd/post.htm#813318Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:20:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:813318forbesIf you don't believe that anyone can know the answer, why ask the question? I just gave my opinion.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MultipleStandardEnglishes/2/jmckg/Post.htm#813272Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:15:12 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:813272forbesC'mon, Forbes, tell it as it is. Right. I will. I said: "All native English speakers really ought to be able to speak to each other without too much difficulty." What I meant was that most native speakers of English are to a great or less extent bidialectal, or at least bivarietal. It is be hoped that all native speakers of English receive some education and that education will involve them in learning some variety of Standard English. None of the varieties of Standard English differ from each other by very much at all. This means that, on the whole, native speakers of English can understand each other so long as, if they come from different parts of the world, each of them does not insist on speaking his...http://www.englishforums.com/English/MultipleStandardEnglishes/jmckg/post.htm#812787Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:54:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:812787forbesAgain we seem to be looking at multiple Standard Englishes - dialects of a dialect/sociolect, so to speak. It is the classic problem of how far you go in classification. If one is comparing the styles of two different writers, or perhaps 'schools' of writers, it is perfectly legitimate to point out the differences. A newspaper may for example have a 'house style' that differs from that of another newspaper. I do not think that justifies us in saying that there are two different dialects or even sociolects. 'Standard English' involves some continuity, but is nevertheless constantly changingly and within it at any given moment there are always possibilities. There is no hard and fast rule as to what...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ADialect/jjpmx/post.htm#811969Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:01:25 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:811969forbesStandard English is a dialect. Other varieties of English have not devleoped from Standard English, but rather they and Standard English have developed from a common ancestor.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MultipleStandardEnglishes/jmckg/post.htm#811957Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:50:11 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:811957forbesIf we are to take this to its logical conclusion then every writer's own ideas about what is correct (and it seems that in any case we are often talking about style rather than grammar) must be a separate Standard English. Standard English if it is anything has to be a sort of average and also subject to constant change. People are always too keen to home in on difference when comparing different forms of English. A few differences between writers does no mean they have different standards.http://www.englishforums.com/English/MorePerfect/2/jklnz/Post.htm#807239Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:22:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:807239forbesI quote from Good and Bad English by Wilfred Whitten and Frank Whitaker (published 1938) and bought in a second-hand bookshop many years ago for 4p: LOGIC NOTWITHSTANDING ARE THERE DEGREES OF PERFECTION? Many people worry about the little illogicalities that abound in accepted English . One of their favourite contentions is that the absolute can have no degrees, and therefore such expressions as "truer," "more correct," "very sincerely," "utmost limit," "more correct," "very best" are wrong. One of these sticklers wrote to me: "There are no grades of truth." Not, perhaps, in the sight of heaven, but in the world as it is we are compelled to admit degrees of truth....http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseCommasWell/jwmgw/post.htm#795153Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:46:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:795153forbesThere are clear instances of over-punctuation and others of under-punctuation. In between it is a matter of style and preference. When in doubt, listening to the countours of how the sentence would be spoken can be a good guide, but not an infallible one. Sometimes I write something and a comma goes in and comes out because I cannot decide if it helps or hinders.http://www.englishforums.com/English/UseCommasWell/jwmgw/post.htm#794714Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:58:20 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:794714forbesTo an extent, yes. No one should lay down the law with hard and fast rules about punctuation.http://www.englishforums.com/English/OpacityAndPhrasalVerbs/3/jvpbz/Post.htm#790223Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:16:14 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:790223forbesSo long as people use the phrase its meaning will not be obscure or opaque, though as time goes on its origins may become obscure. "Hang up" is, or is in the course of becoming, a macrosememe, that is a phrase the meaning of which cannot be predicted from its constituent parts. "Hang up" may one day be on a par with "go to the wall". This refers to the time when churches had no seating in the nave and the elderly who could not stand for the length of a service went and sat on the stone seats at the side. Many people use the phrase entirely oblivious to its origins and notwithstanding that seating is now provided in the naves of churches. "Hang up" may go the way of "pull the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/AdequateDescription/3/jvdcl/Post.htm#790182Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:42:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:790182forbesIf you formulate a grammatical rule, it is likely it will have exceptions. It is more than possible that there will be exceptions to the exceptions, and even exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions. How long a grammar is is going to depend on how far you go in treating the exceptions. The length of a grammar will also depend on how much attention you are going to pay to idioms and the like. If you want to know how to say "...is cold" in French you need to know that you say "Il fait froid" if you are referring to the weather, "Il a froid" if you are referring to a person" and "Il est froid" if you are referring to an object. If this information is not contained in a grammar, where...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhomWasGivenTheBook/5/pxwp/Post.htm#790147Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:11:52 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:790147forbesThis is a spin-off from: Post:77524 where (among other things) the sentence 1. '*Whom was given the book?' was discussed. I understand that in AmE, this sentence is acceptable: 2. Whom did you give the book? If 'whom' is acceptable in #2 for 'to whom', is 'whom' acceptable in #1 for 'to whom'? If so, is #1 acceptable as an inversion, with 'book' as subject? 3. 'Whom (IO) was given the book (S)? i.e. 'the book was given to whom?' Just curious. MrP To answer this question we need to look at the sentence: I was given the book. At first glance this looks like a passive construction in which "I" is the subject of the sentence. A moment's...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ContractTerminationEnglish-Law/wzvcd/post.htm#694004Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:52:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:694004forbesYour questions are really about the law, rather than legal English. I suggest you post them in this forum: http://www.swarb.co.uk/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=3db45b3c04a86031bccecd57870614cdhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/CorrectUsageFirstFirst-Served/3/bdcjn/Post.htm#693130Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:36:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:693130forbesThe writer of the Wikipedia article holds this opinion: The phrase is often but erroneously stated as "first come, first serve" (instead of "served"). This is an error because "come" is grammatically (and somewhat archaically) functioning as a past participle, as it does in the sentence, "They are come." The phrase abbreviates the sentence "The first come is the first served."http://www.englishforums.com/English/Bilingualism/wzrvz/post.htm#693127Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:24:33 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:693127forbesFor example, the guy who's sitting next to me at the office says he's bilingual because he spent a couple of years in Australia when he was a child. I cannot deny he's got a very good accent, and speaks rather fluently (although not completely grammatically), but each time he has to write something, he's continually asking me how he can translate this or that, or how a word is spelt. I, on the contrary, am much better at writing or reading, but my foreign accent is very strong, I'm not half as fluent as he is, and I have a hard time understanding spoken English. Whatever bilingual means: 1. The inability to write a language or write it properly does not come into it. 2. Having difficulty translating from one language...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoDialectsForMe/2/wdbpn/Post.htm#685468Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:58:39 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:685468forbesYou are right that it is unwise to try and adopt a specific accent such as a Bronx accent without living in the right area. You say that you want an accent that is pleasant to listen to; that is very subjective. The fact is that, at least in Britain - I cannot speak for the US or any other English speaking areas - the way you speak goes a long way to pigeonholing you. If you speak with a foreign accent you will not be pigeonholed - except as a foreigner.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheEnglishLanguages/wchpl/post.htm#685127Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:56:45 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:685127forbesAnyone who sets out to classify anything soon finds that not everything fits into the neat categories he has devised. Whilst zoologists and botanists do not exactly have an easy time (zoologists thought they had mammals sorted until they learned about the duck billed platypus) the classification of languages at certain levels is tricky because there are not necessarily discrete entities. Linguists like to talk about dialect continua. They say things like: "There are only dialects". Even so, there comes a point where there is a break in the continuum. "Dutch" and "German" are both south Germanic languages and there is a continuum of dialects between them so that at one level it is difficult to say that...http://www.englishforums.com/English/TwoDialectsForMe/wdbpn/post.htm#684681Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:13:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:684681forbesThere is, I think, a difference between pronunciation and accent, though I am not quite sure what it is. Perhaps it is a question of degree. It is perfectly possible to pronounce words correctly but with different accents. Different accents may of course involve different articulations of vowels and consonants, but they also involve other aspects like pitch and intonation. Unless learned at a young age by immersion, most people have at least a trace of a foreign accent when they speak a foreign language.http://www.englishforums.com/English/DedicatingABook/wdvrk/post.htm#684177Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:37:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:684177forbesIt depends how close the friend is and what you want to say. (By the way, it is only authors who dedicate books to people; the word you are looking for is "inscribe".)http://www.englishforums.com/English/Accent/2/hjdrz/Post.htm#680597Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:59:47 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:680597forbesIt is true that North American English is more homogenous than the English spoken in the Britsh Isles. You will hear more varieties of English travelling 100 miles from any point in the British Isles than if you travel from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Circle. Many people from the north of England and Scotland cannot differentiate between a London accent and an Australian accent, but those in the south of England would never confuse them, though they would have a problem telling the difference betwen a New Zealand accent and an Australian accent.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheEnglishLanguages/wchpl/post.htm#680492Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:19:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:680492forbesWhether the term is useful or not depends on what taxonomic level you are entering and what taxonomic levels you consider should be fixed for your immediate purpose.http://www.englishforums.com/English/EnglishLegalSentenceGiving-Meaning/wcgxp/post.htm#680488Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:08:06 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:680488forbesActually I am a lawyer. The problem is that the legal language of one country may not have an exact equivalent in another (even if both use the same language) because different legal systems have different concepts and procedures. Even if you translate literally a lawyer from another country may not understand the full significance of what he reads. The document you want to translate may not have an equivalent in any English speaking country. If you are unfamiliar with English legal language the best you can do is to stay as faithful as you can to the original. You also need to bear in mind the purpose of the translation. If it is for use in another legal jursisdiction then obviously it needs to be as accurate as possible and where...http://www.englishforums.com/English/EnglishLegalSentenceGiving-Meaning/wcgxp/post.htm#680317Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:18:44 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:680317forbesIt is difficult to suggest precise wording without knowing what form the document that is being signed takes and whether ir not it is attached to anything. A slight problem is that English legal documents tend not to referring to signing in the way the Arabic original appears to. If it is a stand alone certificate then I suggest something like: I certify that I have read and noted the contents of the documents in the case of.. Signed.. Date.. If it is a certificate attached to the documents: I certify that I have read and noted the contents of the attached documents. Signed.. Date..http://www.englishforums.com/English/EnglishLegalSentenceGiving-Meaning/wcgxp/post.htm#680050Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:04:50 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:680050forbesOur signature proves (signals) readability and approval of the documents, dated (today's date). I do not think that "readability" can be right - it suggests that the documents are easy to read. "Approval" suggests that the documents have been sanctioned in some way. Are you simply trying to say that the prosecutor has read and noted the contents of the documents? What language is the original in? If it is in French or Spanish I may be able to help.http://www.englishforums.com/English/LegalMeaningOfUntil/hlpgn/post.htm#679915Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:07:42 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679915forbesIn cases such as this one needs to look at the document over all to see if there is some contraindication that the word "until" should not be given its ordinary meaning. If for example the loan was taken out on 1/11/2007 (or on 1/11 in some earlier year) it is reasonable to assume that the early repayment charges should apply for a complete year or years and that would mean that 31/10/2008 was included.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TestamentaryTrust/hppxx/post.htm#679910Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:51:28 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679910forbesNot a will drafted by a lawyer - or at least I hope not. It could have created a "half-secret trust" - see here for further information. http://www.blurtit.com/q865097.html Under English law a person's domicile (not quite the same as his place of residence) is important when it comes to interpreting wills. If a person was domiciled outside England and Wales at the relevant time the doctrine of "renvoi" under international private law may be invoked. The matter is "sent back" to the country of domicile to determine according to its laws. This can present a problem if the law of the country says that wills are to be interpreted according to the nationality and not domicile of the person who made the will.http://www.englishforums.com/English/SuoMotu/dpqbh/post.htm#679906Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:30:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679906forbesI think it is a Latin phrase used in ancient British legalese that the British themselves probably have long stopped using, but continues to be, by Indian elites, to keep their fellow men, already cowed by poor English language skills, discombobulated. Its use, like the myriads of other pompous, archaic and unfamiliar words and phrases that Indians writing English love using, therefore, does not promote the cause of communication. It merely reaffirms Indians' inability to adapt to modernity, to change for the better. I think that is going rather too far and is a wild generalisation. It is my own very limited experience that some Indians can be inclined to officiousness, but I think their use of language, which may strike the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/ToWhomItMayConcern/6/cnpjr/Post.htm#679904Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:16:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:679904forbesI recently wrote a letter of explanation to a board of members who oversee the disbursement of financial aid to university students. Not knowing their names / gender / position / titles, I used the phrase, "To whom it may concern:". I double-checked with the English department before sending my statement and I was told that it was perfectly fine to use this phrase. I do not think this use is quite correct. "To whom it may concern" should only be used where the person who is to read the letter is unknown. That is not the same as not knowing someone's name. In this case you knew who your letter was going to - the board. I think you had two options: 1. To address the letter to the board and start: "Dear...http://www.englishforums.com/English/EducatedAmericans/5/hmrkm/Post.htm#668870Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:50:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:668870forbes"Standard" and "non-standard" dialects/languages are each complete systems and equally complex with their own rules of syntax, morphology etc. There is no correlation between intelligence and the language faculty. Whilst intelligence (however it is defined or measured) is on a sliding scale, the language faculty is not - either you have it or you do not. A person of below average intelligence brought up in an environment of standard language speakers is going to speak the standard language perfectly. It can therefore be seen that the ability to speak the standard language cannot be an indicator of intelligence. The problem is that people associate intelligence with education, assuming both that the more intelligent...http://www.englishforums.com/English/EducatedAmericans/3/hmrkm/Post.htm#663868Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:21:46 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:663868forbesBut beyond the ivory towers, the main question was: why do most of the general public believe that those who do not use the standard dialect are unintelligent? I expect their reasoning goes something like this: Anyone who does not grasp what he is taught in school lacks intelligence We are taught correct English in school Anyone who does not speak correct English has failed to grasp the principles of correct English he was taught in school Therefore anyone who does not speak correct English lacks intelligencehttp://www.englishforums.com/English/EducatedAmericans/3/hmrkm/Post.htm#663854Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:08:58 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:663854forbes<It is all-pervading and hardly surprising since it results from people having invested a lot of time in learning what they believe to be correct .> Or that which they insist on being accepted as the only correct form, even though they know the idea of "correct" in subjective. In short, many prescritivists market, lies and take part in cover-ups. You go too far and impute to people motives they do not have. The whole point is that most people do not appreciate that notions of correctness in language are subjective. When we go to school we are taught many things. A lot of it is facts. Some of it, like history, may be facts, but with a spin that society has put on the facts. Some of it is strictly theory, but neverthless...http://www.englishforums.com/English/EducatedAmericans/2/hmrkm/Post.htm#662782Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:25:07 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:662782forbesI think everybody code-switches to some degree, as long as there is some sort of reason to do so in their society. It doesn't mean they use two dialects just as a bilingual uses two languages, because people often respond to dialect as if it is indicitive of attitude (and it may be). I think that code-switching is something more specific than using different languages or varieties in different situations. It is rather changing from one language or variety to another in a conversation, perhaps even in mid-sentence. Linguists support bidialectism? In their function as educators, they spill red ink on the essays of native speakers who use dialect or non-standard forms, give them low marks, and thus prevent them from progressing in our...http://www.englishforums.com/English/VocabularyAndDictionaries/hxhxn/post.htm#656406Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:35:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:656406forbesAs Mr P suggests, the only way forward is to note the context in each case. Dictionaries cannot provide information on all the overtones and subtleties associated with a word. As to whether all native English speakers mean the same thing by the same words, a philosophical answer is that we do not know. Leaving aside cases where people use the wrong "learned" word because they misunderstand its meaning, I am nevertheless fairly confident that all native English speakers mean the same thing when they use words like "glisten", "glitter", "glint" and "gleam" and would never use one where the other was needed. "Glisten" implies the presence of some moisture, whereas...http://www.englishforums.com/English/EducatedAmericans/hmrkm/post.htm#650448Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:10:22 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:650448forbesWhilst it may be true that on the whole the amount of education a person receives is proportional to the level of his intelligence, the corollary, that the level of ones intelligience is proportional to the education one has received, is not true. Any educated person who believes the contrary is overeducated for his intelligence.http://www.englishforums.com/English/DashesOrBracketingCommas/hgvhg/post.htm#615454Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:37:23 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:615454forbesYou have a bit of a problem because whichever you choose may not meet with the approval of whoever reads your statement! Dashes seem to be used more now than they were; I know I use them more than I used to On balance I would say the second looks fine, while the first looks a fraction awkward, but only a fraction. Why not avoid the problem and make two sentences, or, even better, use a semi-colon: I also have a desire to study the classics, such as Shakespeare, Chaucer, Fitzgerald and Hemingway; I believe knowledge of the English language and literature is a generally attractive and advantageous quality both professionally and socially Hint: try to avoid the word "desire" as it has amorous overtones. How about: I would also...http://www.englishforums.com/English/GrosslyInadequate/hzxqv/post.htm#614147Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:11:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:614147forbes<Giving the -ing form a new name will only confuse people.> Coclusion: better the confusion you know? Rather: if people are not confused we do not want to confuse them and if people are already confused we do not want to add to their confusion.http://www.englishforums.com/English/GrosslyInadequate/hzxqv/post.htm#614003Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:58:31 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:614003forbesSounds like just another desire to replace one convention with another. Giving the -ing form a new name will only confuse people.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CandidatesForAFutureTense/6/hvzbh/Post.htm#613369Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:20:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:613369forbesLet me give an example of why I do not think that labels are necessarily important in language teaching. When I was taught Spanish some 45 years ago I was taught that when verbs were conjugated like this: me lavo te lavas se lava nos lavamos os laváis se lavan they were called "reflexive". I learned about the different situations where Spanish requires use of this "reflexive" form. Modern usage requires us to call this form "pronomial", pointing out that it is only where the action is done by the subject to him or herself that the verb is truly reflexive. In other words, "reflexive" should now only be used to describe one possible meaning of a pronomial verb, not the form of the verb. Did the...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CandidatesForAFutureTense/6/hvzbh/Post.htm#613347Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:45:24 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:613347forbesthe question about why you consider shall/will the suitable candidate for the term "future tense" stands. I consider shall/will the suitable candidate for the term "future tense" because I believe there to be a general consensus to that effect. I believe the general consensus to be right only because it follows convention and because any definition of "future tense" that does not follow the general consensus is just an attempt to create a new convention. There are no absolutes here - just different ways of looking at things.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CandidatesForAFutureTense/5/hvzbh/Post.htm#613342Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:34:54 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:613342forbesAre you suggesting that it was ordinary language users - or those who do not know that cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and kohl rabi are varieties of the same species, and that carrots and parsnips are not only different species, but in different general - invented the term "future tense" and chose "will/shall" as the candidate for role? I would suggest only that it is a consensus that has emerged in the general education system. (I refrain from commenting on whether "ordinary language users" and those unfamiliar with the taxonomy of plants are very broadly in the same class.)http://www.englishforums.com/English/CandidatesForAFutureTense/5/hvzbh/Post.htm#613053Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:28:59 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:613053forbesHumans like to classify. Language itself is an act of classification. We can distinguish between informal and formal classifications. When we are cooking, rhubarb is a fruit and an aubergines is a vegetable. A botanist will disagree and insist that the edible part of rhubarb is a stem and that an aubergine is a fruit. When shopping though any sensible botanist will look for rhubarb tart with other fruit tarts and expect to find aubergines in the section with cabbage and potatoes and not with the oranges and pears. The two systems of classification have different purposes. If fruit and vegetables were displayed in supermarkets according to a strict scientific principles no one would easily find what he wanted. When a botanist is...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CandidatesForAFutureTense/4/hvzbh/Post.htm#611249Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:00:09 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:611249forbesWhy that and not "he may eat", "she is eating", "he is going to eat" and other combinations as future tenses. Because that is to confuse the future tense with means of expressing futurity. I think it is helpful to compare English with Spanish. If a tense is a finite form of the verb comprising one word, then Spanish has a future tense. But futurity can, and in some cases must, be expressed by other means, and the future tense is used other than to express futurity. No one on that account suggests that Spanish has no future tense. The problem is that the English verbal system does not readily admit neat classification. Any classification has to be provisional.http://www.englishforums.com/English/AreReadyKissWhomGoodbye/hzzmw/post.htm#611037Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:47:29 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:611037forbesI am ready to kiss it goodbye in some situations. I would never say: "Whom did you meet?", but I do use it after prepositions, though I am probably more likely to use the inverted form e.g. "Who by?" Anyway, I don't think G K Pullum should be laying down the law on the matter. Let those who want to carry on using it do so.http://www.englishforums.com/English/CandidatesForAFutureTense/3/hvzbh/Post.htm#610583Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:21:30 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:610583forbesI am the first to lament that the insights of linguistics do not have a wider circulation. However, when our blogger says that decades of linguistic analysis tell us that English has no future tense, all that it is saying is something like this: linguists have made a narrow definition of "tense" and, according to that definition, English has no future tense . If a linguist leaves the groves of academe and goes around saying English has no future tense he is very liable to be misunderstood; people will think he is saying that English has no way of expressing the future. All languages can talk about the future. Even Chinese can talk about the future - if it could not you would not be able to make an appointment in China. Further,...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CandidatesForAFutureTense/3/hvzbh/Post.htm#610256Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:23:17 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:610256forbesSome would contrast compound forms such as "she will eat" with forms in other languages (e.g. "elle mangera"), and argue that the latter is an inflected form, and thus a genuine "future tense", whereas the former is modal, and therefore is not. I don't see this myself, as "elle mangera" is itself a compound form: "elle manger + a", i.e. pronoun + infinitive + 3rd person singular of "avoir". I think that many would argue that "mangera" is a "simple" tense, saying the "a" had become grammaticalised. A rough and ready test is that you cannot insert anything between "manger" and "a". Compare the passé composé where you can...http://www.englishforums.com/English/CandidatesForAFutureTense/hvzbh/post.htm#606447Sat, 06 Dec 2008 10:33:10 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:606447forbesSome linguists insist that English has no future tense since there is no separate form of the verb for it. Ignoring that and assuming that verb forms with shall/will are a future tense, the problem is that (a) other ways are used to refer to the future: she eats out tonight; and (b) the shall/will form does not always refer to the future: she will eat apples even though they disagree with her.http://www.englishforums.com/English/TheAnalysisAnalyticalLanguages/bkdzc/post.htm#599100Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:35:38 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:599100forbesI am not sure your German example is a good one. The indirect object can be expressed in English without a preposition: Give the man a medal. Give me it etc. More generally, I do not think it is the case at all that languages that use prepositions rather than case endings are more readily universally understood. It is, as you half suggest, a question of what you are used to. There are some languages that make do with far fewer prepositions than English and they not make use of case endings. Anyway, the point I am trying to get at is that when the function of a word in an utterance is not indicated either by a preposition or some bound morpheme, the meaning can often only be determined by context or you simply have to know.