Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Er, nie mam zielonego pojecia, mateDo you mean that English has developed an aorist tense, Al.
('Haven't a clue' for those who don't do Polish).I quite agree with you here, Stephen.Being an excellent stylist doesn't stop one making the odd clanger...
But I seriously doubt this. If I'm not mistaken, Bryson has cleverly and correctly used the language in a way that illuminates one of the common misconceptions many people (yes, even English teachers) hold about modal auxiliaries as a class of words, and also about the individual meaning of will. Modal auxiliaries are not verbs (though they occur in the verb phrase). My point in asserting this is to suggest that they do not lend meaning to the sentence in the same way that verbs do. What they achieve is quite remarkable, and unique. Verbs are an intregal part of the proposition. Modal auxiliaries signal the user's present-time opinion about certain elements of the proposition advanced by the rest of the sentence. It is though he speaks the sentence, but simultaneously stands off to the side and comments on the viability of the proposition. The exact nature of his comment varies with the use of individual modal auxiliaries. For example, use of can or could allows the speaker to judge (at the exact moment of use) his opinion of the ability or possibility of the proposition....and that is what Bryson has done.
This is one of your perpetual hobbyhorses Larry and every time you ride it you fall down at the first fence.She can run very fast.
...is a fundamentally different statement from
She runs very fast.
...in that in the first, the producer of that sentence has added his momentary, present-time opinion of the runner's ability. The second sentence states the proposition as fact. Note, too, that the meaning conveyed in either sentence, despite the verb being cast in present-tense form, has nothing whatever to do with assertions about present time, or any time. Nor does it suggest anything about the runner's habits. The first sentence is an assessment, the second a fact. (Of course, subsequent experience may either confirm or deny the actual truth of the assertion).
The reason it caught your attention is precisley because it was a mistake.Nothing about English grammar forces him to choose one way or the other...it is his choice as the producer. But it sure got my attention.
...but it looks to me like you aren't quite understanding your own assertions here. "...the first one merely states that she is able to run fast" is quite different from what you suggest the second one means, despite your use of "merely". Who decides whether she is able as regards the utterance of the sentence? It is not the runner. She is not promoting herself with this sentence. The speaker is, and he alone makes the determination. So the judgment involved cannot be anyone's but his, and his use of can means he is representing that it is his opinion and is not to be interpreted as fact. Why else have this feature of English available to us? If fact alone is sufficient, we can use the second sentence in present simple tense.The second statement implies that she runs fast habitually, and the first one merely states that she is able to run fast.
). Obviously, the coyote died, but so did the mammoths, eventually... ).
Oh, Oh...we'd better watch out, Stephen. We might be destined to become part of the fossil record.Obviously, the coyote died, but so did the mammoths, eventually...
Not necessarily, Duncan. She may only have done it once, or, as you later suggest, we may be observing, for the first time, her performance as we speak. The speaker may have no pre-knowledge of her running record. In either case, we hardly could say that his opinion is based on what she has "usually" been able to do up to now. The basis of his opinion is irrelevant. What matters is that modal auxiliaries (as a class--all of them) offer him an opportunity to express it. If you, as listener, find his opinion odd, you can always reply saying, "Why do you say that?"although Larry insists that the "can" one is an opinion regarding ability, that opinion is based on what she has "usually" been able to do up to now
Because I felt it was necessary to discuss something in general about modal auxiliaries, Duncan, of which will is one, but rather a complicated one. So I elected to show the generalities using can, which has a more straightfoward meaning (or at least it seems easier to explain clearly).And why, exactly, did you introduce these "present" examples, when the foregoing discussion was about "will", Larry?!
I'd've thought context (background knowledge and situation, either past, or what we've just learnt, or here, seen perhaps) was about the only thing that could help anybody form let alone express an opinion! Are you saying that the entire modal system operates independently of context (at least as far as a speaker is concerned)?! Me confused!!LarryLatham wrote:The speaker may have no pre-knowledge of her running record. In either case, we hardly could say that his opinion is based on what she has "usually" been able to do up to now. >>> The basis of his opinion is irrelevant. What matters is that modal auxiliaries (as a class--all of them) offer him an opportunity to express it. <<< If you, as listener, find his opinion odd, you can always reply saying, "Why do you say that?"
Anyone else experience that?).Ah, Larry, I read the above again and think I understand things now. So you would view "She can run very fast" as being more an opinion, and "She runs very fast" more as a fact or comment, right?LarryLatham wrote: (SJ said:)"The second statement implies that she runs fast habitually, and the first one merely states that she is able to run fast."
...but it looks to me like you aren't quite understanding your own assertions here. "...the first one merely states that she is able to run fast" is quite different from what you suggest the second one means, despite your use of "merely". Who decides whether she is able as regards the utterance of the sentence? It is not the runner. She is not promoting herself with this sentence. The speaker is, and he alone makes the determination. So the judgment involved cannot be anyone's but his, and his use of can means he is representing that it is his opinion and is not to be interpreted as fact. Why else have this feature of English available to us? If fact alone is sufficient, we can use the second sentence in present simple tense.
As for the second sentence implying that she runs fast habitually..., Stephen, think about what you are saying. Habitually, gives the impression that it is her custom to (run fast). I cannot believe that you actually think She runs fast, and It is her custom to run fast are sentences with identical meanings.
You are a smart guy, and you often have spot on comments. But I'm afraid you've missed the boat entirely here.
Larry Latham
Nope. Context will nearly always play a role in interpretation for both speakers and listeners. For example, She can't run might mean the speaker doesn't feel she has the ability.Are you saying that the entire modal system operates independently of context (at least as far as a speaker is concerned)?!
).
Oh, Duncan. Be assured that I'm not in the least upset. If I've given you that impression, it is I who should apologize.Sorry if I have upset you!
