Where's the mistake?

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:12 pm

Stephen, I am saddened by this sassy retort. You seem determined to annoy as many people as you can on this forum. What's the point of that? Your attitude is very aggressive if you disagree with something someone says here. Why does that seem necessary to you?

Do you behave this way with your students as well?

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:41 pm

Dear larry,
I had made no comment at all about CS until he decided to take imaginary offence and write a post that consists of nothing more tnan personal slurs.

It no doubt would be more "Christian" to turn the other cheek, but I am not feeling in a charitable mood.

Your attitude is very aggressive if you disagree with something someone says here

Let's look at what he says Larry.

by prescribing, in a rather rude and impolite fashion, I might add, what is obviously the rantings of a language despot.

"Scholarly discussion" indeed! Incidentally, you don't need to be much of a language despot to see that

"both a probablilty or an intention"

is wrong

I never make personal attacks when I disagree with somebody's point. I simply state my point succintly and back it up as stronlgy as I can. It is a way of showing respect for the person's ideas. If they were obviously idiotic I wouldn't waste my time replying.

If CS seeks to be annoyed for no reason, I have no objection to giving him something to be really annoyed about.

And, Larry, somehow I have the sneaking suspicion that you are looking for other places to post so as to avoid explaining how your description of the fundamental nature of will fits in with the examples I gave in the other thread. Please prove me wrong

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:43 am

I had made no comment at all about CS until he decided to take imaginary offence and write a post that consists of nothing more tnan personal slurs.

Why do you suppose he wrote his post, Stephen? Do you think CS woke up this morning and said to himself: "I think I'll jump on Dave's ESL website today and give that Stephen Jones a piece of my mind."? Did he have no justification? It is true you weren't speaking to him directly, but then you do expect other people to read your posts don't you? Can you not imagine they might be offended by your rhetoric at times? Are they just being "sensitive", and should mind their own business? I do believe you have a tendency to irritate many who might read what you write, Stephen, not because of your ideas, but because of the abrasive way you so frequently seem to put them.

If CS seeks to be annoyed for no reason, I have no objection to giving him something to be really annoyed about.

See what I mean?

I feel compelled to ask again, do you treat your students that way?

Larry Latham

CS · Post by CS » Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:04 am

Stephen Jones wrote:Dear larry,
I had made no comment at all about CS until he decided to take imaginary offence and write a post that consists of nothing more tnan personal slurs.

It no doubt would be more "Christian" to turn the other cheek, but I am not feeling in a charitable mood.

Your attitude is very aggressive if you disagree with something someone says here
Let's look at what he says Larry.

by prescribing, in a rather rude and impolite fashion, I might add, what is obviously the rantings of a language despot.
"Scholarly discussion" indeed! Incidentally, you don't need to be much of a language despot to see that
"both a probablilty or an intention"
is wrong

I never make personal attacks when I disagree with somebody's point. I simply state my point succintly and back it up as stronlgy as I can. It is a way of showing respect for the person's ideas. If they were obviously idiotic I wouldn't waste my time replying.

If CS seeks to be annoyed for no reason, I have no objection to giving him something to be really annoyed about.

And, Larry, somehow I have the sneaking suspicion that you are looking for other places to post so as to avoid explaining how your description of the fundamental nature of will fits in with the examples I gave in the other thread. Please prove me wrong

All grumblies aside, the fact of the matter still remains that I've/We've yet to see any kind of argumentation on your part that would sway me/us into accepting your view of the sentence in question. Now, that is not to say that I am held fast to my interpretation and unwilling to budge. On the contrary, I am rather looking forward to seeing you argue your point in a way that serves to impart a better understanding of problem. Question is, can you do it? I'm neither your superior nor your inferior, I am your equal, and as your equal, I am asking that you treat me as such.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:22 pm

Dear CS,
Lets look at your statement regarding this sentence.

whereas the independent clause 'she could finish the race' expresses both a probablilty or an intention.

1. 'both' can't be used with 'or' as we established before.
2. 'Could' does not express probability but rather possibility. 'Could well' or 'could indeed' are used to express probability but 'could' on its own is not.
3. 'Could' does not deal with intention. Possibly you were confusing intention with induction or possibly you were confusing 'will' with 'could'.
4. You were quite right to put a full stop at the end of the sentence, so I can't say your explanation was completely wrong.

It is a little hard to see what you are getting at nere. I rather suspect you had had a bad day before you posted the line above. If you mean that the phrase she could finish the race could on its own refer to possibility or be a logical inference, but that there is a mismatch between that and the subordinate clause I would agree with you. I don't think it is for the reason you give however.

It's the connection between fact and probability and intention that's semantically odd.

Change the subordinate clause to the present,
Although she is very tired, she could finish the race.
and the sentence appears quite correct to me.
Also as I pointed out there are various changes you can make whilst keeping the verb in the past and the sentence still appears to be good English.
Although she was very tired in the mountain stage yesterday, she could still win the Tour de France in the final spurt to Paris today.

I am also unclear as to whether you consider the sentence correct or not, which was the question made by the original poster. Are you saying as I am that the sentence is correct and the equivalent of
Although she was very tired, she was able to win the race.
or that the sentence is incorrect and should be replaced by the above sentence? Or are you saying that the sentence may be ambigous and it would be better style to replace it with the above sentence?

hafez · Post by **hafez** » Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:15 am

there is nothing wrong with this sentence BO i am aalso a tsl teacher i' like to be friend with u

hafez