Teacher Discussion Forums

"To use to do X" once had an ordinary present form in English, e.g. 1. I do not use to jest (Romeo and Juliet) 2. I do not use to let my wife be acquainted with the secret affairs of my state (Walpole, Castle of Otranto) 3. Tattle [a character] does not use to bely a lady (Congreve, Love for Love) T...

I'm not sure who the "linguists" are, or where their report may be found; but this might be a significant passage: Linguists have found, however, that although they may understand thousands of words, many choose to limit themselves to a much smaller range in regular conversation and on a daily basis...

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was some new circumscription, like "Blank Generation".

(On reflection, it might well be.)

MrP

she states that no child acquiring English would abstract (3) from (1) and (2): (3) a. *Who do you wanna come? b. Who do you want to come? I'm startled by the asterisk. Guasti's argument is interesting; but I would have thought that speakers who tend to contract "want to" in ordinary "want + to-inf...

"Cuckquean" for the female equivalent turns up in Elizabethan and Jacobean drama; Joyce revives it in Ulysses (for the old woman who brings the milk).

Not I think an intuitive word; it seems to imply the more active party.

MrP

Macavity wrote:Football managers and players use it all the time -enough said.

But pundits and commentators are the happy home of conditional variety:

1. If he had done XYZ, that was in.
2. Were he to do XYZ right now, it's in.
3. Had he only have done XYZ...

etc.

MrP

I've spent too much of my scholarly life studying English grammar in a serious way. English syntax is a deep and interesting subject. It is much too important to be reduced to a bunch of trivial don't-do-this prescriptions by a pair of idiosyncratic bumblers who can't even tell when they've broken ...

I suppose "At the end of the day" provides a usefully sonorous introduction to a statement, especially in an interview; while "I personally" allows a little melody of tentativeness and guardedness that isn't possible with a bare "I".

MrP

So go on then, is there a difference between subjunctive and conditionals? I would agree that a conditional clause can take several forms, only some of which involve a verb in the subjunctive. For instance, here, the protasis accepts a condition for the rhetorical purpose of bringing evidence again...

Not at all – that's why we have to give the editor the "benefit of the doubt" (in the hope that that wasn't his unspoken thought).

MrP

It does seem to suggest an unspoken "if he were alive today"; but I suppose even listings editors should be given the benefit of the doubt.

(I would opt for "must be" as well.)

MrP

JuanTwoThree wrote:
"I gotta go"

"So do I"

I wonder whether this parallels the BrE/AmE difference you sometimes hear in the possessive sense of "have" / "have got"

— "I have a dream."
— "So do I." (AmE)
— "So have I." (BrE)

MrP

1. He has worked there since 1995. 2. He worked there since 1995. 3. He worked there from 1995. I would agree that in #1 we can't say for certain whether he still works there; but we can perhaps say that the situation (his working there) is still current. If something is still "news", the present pe...

I would use a comma if I wanted to imply a pause after "but", e.g. 1. The delivery boy knew I was away on holiday, but still left my organic vegetable box on the doorstep in full view of every passing housebreaker. 2. The delivery boy knew I was away on holiday but still left my organic vegetable bo...

1. The decision is yet/still to be announced. 2. The decision is to be announced on Friday. 3. I am to be made king. 4. I have yet/still to see an explanation. 5. I still have to see an explanation. 6. I have only to see an explanation. 7. *I have to see an explanation [where "have to" <> "must"]. I...