|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:51 am Post subject: conditional question |
 |
|
I have a question on a conditional sentence that I hope someone can help with. I checked my references, but they didn't help with the question at hand.
Here's the sentence:
If time were [standing/to stand] still, history would end.
I think the answer is "to stand", but I'm not sure of the grammartical explanation. A student wants to know why "to stand" is correct and why
"standing" is incorrect.
Thanks for any help with this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:20 am Post subject: Re: conditional question |
|
|
| raewon wrote: |
I have a question on a conditional sentence that I hope someone can help with. I checked my references, but they didn't help with the question at hand.
Here's the sentence:
If time were [standing/to stand] still, history would end.
I think the answer is "to stand", but I'm not sure of the grammartical explanation. A student wants to know why "to stand" is correct and why
"standing" is incorrect.
Thanks for any help with this one. |
I believe this might be a semantics problem, not a grammatical one. Even then, semantically, I'm not so sure because using the continuous implies that if time stands still even for a moment, history would end. However, using "to stand still" is ambiguous because we don't know how long this would be. In my opinion, both are correct grammatically. But the sentence needs more information semantically, like "if time were to stand still forever, history would end". Of course it would along with everything else. It's an abstract statement, nonsensical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
**********************
Last edited by young_clinton on Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm laughing at the thought of trying to explain this to a student, or even a co-teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Some main verbs have to be followed by gerunds, and some main verbs have to be followed by infinitives. Then there is a whole slew of main verbs that can use either, but the meaning a gerund would imply is slightly different from what an infinitive would imply. I don't know if the entire list is on the internet or not, I haven't really looked at it that much. |
You're right with your definition of the two forms' meanings but I think you're getting confused here with the structure verb + gerund/infinitive and different tenses. There's no main verb and secondary verb here, just 2 forms of the single verb stand still.
You 've got 'were standing', which is usually referred to as the past continuous and the structure 'to be' + infinitive which is a kind of formal future form quite often used in newspaper articles without the auxiliary e.g. 'Obama to visit Korea.'
As Stain points out the continuous form 'were standing' suggests a longer
action. I think the idea here is that as soon as time stopped, history would end, so the other form 'were to stand still' is preferable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: conditional question |
|
|
| raewon wrote: |
I have a question on a conditional sentence that I hope someone can help with. I checked my references, but they didn't help with the question at hand.
Here's the sentence:
If time were [standing/to stand] still, history would end.
I think the answer is "to stand", but I'm not sure of the grammartical explanation. A student wants to know why "to stand" is correct and why
"standing" is incorrect.
Thanks for any help with this one. |
Hello Raewon,
Some good answers in this thread.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, there in no incorrect answer independent of context.
Both can be correct, but not equal.
And, as Ed mentions...the infinitive is preferred.
If you are looking for a way to explain why, it might be best to look at the independent clause.
...(then) history would stop.
Using the modal - would - implied future.
Therefore, given a lack of context, the best answer would be to match the dependent clause to the independent clause.
If time were to stand still, - future conditional
then history would stop. - future conditional
If time were standing still - present subjunctive conditional? - debatable.
Ed mentions 'were standing' is usually referred to as past continuous; however, in this case it is being used in the subjunctive mood,
which is also a grammatically correct form.
Which is why he and the others have mentioned that it still works.
However, it does not equal, or match, the independent clause.
If time were standing still, (then) history would have stopped. (already stopped) - better balance.
Stain is laughing at me now, so I better stop. 
Hope this is useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks a lot for all of the replies. They were all very helpful. I was sure that I was overlooking something simple for as to why "standing" couldn't be
grammatically possible.
Hope everyone is having a great weekend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
