Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:14 pm

Suddenly I have realized, despite so many superficial discussions, no one has ever told me where my reasoning is wrong in "The proofs of the future tense".

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:05 pm

That's because in the past you've either ignored or selectively quoted anything anyone's said to you. Your attitude hasn't changed one iota since you last posted here and noone wishes to waste any more time talking to you.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:30 pm

lolwhites wrote:That's because in the past you've either ignored or selectively quoted anything anyone's said to you. Your attitude hasn't changed one iota since you last posted here and noone wishes to waste any more time talking to you.

How about I say sorry?

I am sorry, really. After all, I haven't blamed anyone. I just avoid blaming. I hope this is forgivable. If I sound arrogant, like I have mistakenly said "I have proven", it is because my English is bad.

I really hope that now someone may give some comment on my reasoning. If you want me to change any offensive wordings, I will. Is this OK? (I will delete "I have proven" now.)

People accused me of not listening to people, they are wrong. I got everything about tense from discussions. I have openly admitted that those who discuss with me are my teachers. I will not eat my words. I cannot think up the whole thing by myself.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:45 pm

I wish I could believe you, Shuntang. I'm willing to go a long ways with people who come to me with questions about English and how it works, but only if they ask the questions sincerely...in the spirit of wanting to know what I think about it and why.

Unfortunately, your history shows that however much you may profess to be a student of English (as the rest of us feel we are too), your attitude is quite clear: "Anything you say that doesn't square with what I 'know' to be true I will 'prove' wrong with my devastating wit and charm and knowledge, emerging as the champion of the rules of English grammar."

You've pretended to be 'sorry' in the past, but that's proved to be not the case. Your modus operandi is to set people up for the sole purpose of shooting them down if you can. And though you haven't succeeded so far, you endlessly claim that you have. No, I'm sorry. I will not be drawn into another pissing contest with you, because I'm afraid apoplectoid emotions will not be good for my heart.

Larry Latham

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:54 pm

shuntang wrote:
You are wrong. Two auxiliaries, Would and Could, in their so-called basic semantic meanings can refer to the past.

I am afraid no one could help you now.

That is past reference? Are you sure.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:55 pm

shuntang wrote:Suddenly I have realized, despite so many superficial discussions, no one has ever told me where my reasoning is wrong in "The proofs of the future tense".

As I said, you've been told, but you haven't listened well.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:56 pm

shuntang wrote:
lolwhites wrote:
I am sorry, really. After all, I haven't blamed anyone. I just avoid blaming. I hope this is forgivable. If I sound arrogant, like I have mistakenly said "I have proven", it is because my English is bad.

Bollocks!

LOL!

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:09 pm

metal56 wrote:
shuntang wrote:Suddenly I have realized, despite so many superficial discussions, no one has ever told me where my reasoning is wrong in "The proofs of the future tense".
As I said, you've been told, but you haven't listened well.

Please be fair. The reasoning of the future tense has not been discussed. If I have missed, please point out.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:20 pm

metal56 wrote:That is past reference? Are you sure.

I have carefully read and analyzed a few classics. I noticed most of modal auxiliary verbs are in the perfective:
Ex: Indeed, he should have called her.

But Would and Could can dispense with the perfective, sometimes, especially when in the negative:
Ex: He could wake up early last week, and was now back to normal.
Ex: She wouldn't agree her son to do so.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:30 pm

shuntang wrote:
metal56 wrote:That is past reference? Are you sure.
I have carefully read and analyzed a few classics. I noticed most of modal auxiliary verbs are in the perfective:
Ex: Indeed, he should have called her.

But Would and Could can dispense with the perfective, sometimes, especially when in the negative:
Ex: He could wake up early last week, and was now back to normal.
Ex: She wouldn't agree her son to do so.

You seem a bit confused on this could/can thing.

Tell me which would you use here?

One day we could live without wars.

One day we will be able to live without wars.

..............

We do not use "could" to say we managed to do something on one occasion in the past.

Do you understand that?

NO! *I could drink two bottles of wine yesterday.

YES! I was able to/managed to drink two bottles of wine yesterday

YES! I succeeded in drinking...

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:19 am

metal56 wrote: You seem a bit confused on this could/can thing.
Tell me which would you use here?
One day we could live without wars.
One day we will be able to live without wars.

A reader (not Metal56) with a special name in this forum usually asks and compares examples which are slightly different. Actually, I know the reader asks in many forums at the same time. I respect that. However, personally I find it unnecessary. In a book or a paragraph, if I use many times of 'IF', I will use other terms to replace it: "When you come here, I will show the book to you."
What I mean is, in English there are many synonyms, and we don't need to split the hairs between them. Theoretically, not two words are of the same meanings, but writers will avoid to use the same word in a paragraph repeatedly without substitutes. Similarly, if I have used many times of Could, I will try Will Be Able To.
..............

metal56 wrote: We do not use "could" to say we managed to do something on one occasion in the past.
Do you understand that?
NO! *I could drink two bottles of wine yesterday.
YES! I was able to/managed to drink two bottles of wine yesterday
YES! I succeeded in drinking...

I didn't make the rule. I observe the rule. I will respect your idea. But if you search the exact match for "yesterday I could", you will find many people have failed to notice your point. I have to include their idea.

==============
We have yet talked about my reasoning of the future tense. If it is completely nonsensical to you, I hope you may at least give a suggestion of the definition of the future time.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:32 am

shuntang wrote: Similarly, if I have used many times of Could, I will try Will Be Able To.
..............

Fine, you go ahead and use English in the Shuntang way.

We do not use "could" to say we managed to do something on one occasion in the past.
Do you understand that?
NO! *I could drink two bottles of wine yesterday.
YES! I was able to/managed to drink two bottles of wine yesterday
YES! I succeeded in drinking...

I didn't make the rule. I observe the rule. I will respect your idea. But if you search the exact match for "yesterday I could", you will find many people have failed to notice your point.

Here's 5 that appeared in the National British Corpus. That is 5 appearances in over 100 million words. All are correct English and very different from your incorrect example.

Yesterday I couldn't have done it.

That one is the negative, and not positive "I managed to".

Yesterday I could barely fly.

That one is the negative, and not positive "I managed to".

When she smiled at me yesterday I could see a resemblance.

Conditional? And not "managed to" or "suceeded in".

it's just that I worked, I think, yesterday I couldn't get into erm, I just could

If you can figure that one. ...

Yeah, yesterday I could smell things first time for ages and ages

"first time for ages and ages". Not a first time, one-off event.

==============

We have yet talked about my reasoning of the future tense. If it is completely nonsensical to you, I hope you may at least give a suggestion of the definition of the future time.

I've given it lots of times and you've rejected it. Time out!

Tara B · Post by **Tara B** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 6:50 pm

Shuntang--

I must admit I didn't read all 17 pages, but in an effort to be constructive. . .

Perhaps you would get further with your "future tense" argument if you 1) made it clear that you are using a different definition of the word "tense" and 2) clearly indicate what you think the definition should be?

However, considering the unanimous consensus on the forum (and the clear expertise of some of the participants), you are still going to have an uphill battle. No matter how much your new definition might help you understand the grammar, it's usually more realistic to put on your slippers than carpet the whole world.

I used to call it "future tense" too, but Stephen Jones straightened me out.

revel · Post by **revel** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:21 pm

Hey all.

Well, I just surfed over to a couple of web sites to find out what "tense" means, that is, I looked it up in Webster's dictionary, I checked it out at Encyclopaedea Britanica, even checked out the Wiki comments on the subject and I am afraid I'm just confused, and Shun is starting to make sense to me. I'm not in the mood to quote things from those sites, but I do begin to wonder if there isn't a lot of whoop-laing going on about whether English has a future "tense" or not, when what my students are interested in knowing is how to talk about the future when trying to speak in English. There are certainly many ways of discussing future events, real, expected, unreal, possible, probable in English and I suppose each needs to be studied, practiced and finally, used in order to get closer and closer to fluent use of English.

Stephen Jones could certainly make some comment, he often clears up confusion of this type. On vacation, Mr Jones? Or just shunning Shun?

peace,
revel.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:28 am

Tara B wrote: I must admit I didn't read all 17 pages, but in an effort to be constructive. . .

Perhaps you would get further with your "future tense" argument if you 1) made it clear that you are using a different definition of the word "tense" and 2) clearly indicate what you think the definition should be?

Don't get me wrong. I have a long time to reach the future tense.

Basically, I am just asking how to define the future time. If I know, I may make myself clearer. I am afraid that if the base (the future time) is vague, how can the things (future actions and future tense) that build on the vagueness be clear? If we cannot define the future time, how can we judge there is no future tense?

I may agree that there is no future tense too, if there is no future time. But in my humble opinion there seems to be the future time. I just don't know how to define it.

In other forums, I saw the same argument that, because they don't know how to define the future time, so there is no future tense. I am afraid they are "jumping into the conclusion".

Teacher Discussion Forums

Basic semantic meanings of modal auxiliaries.

Confused....