what do you make of this 'when'?
chance
1. One evening in Paris, during the autumn of eighteen forty-five, I went to visit a friend, Auguste Dupin.
We were smoking our pipes and talking when the door of his apartment opened.
Mister Germont, the head of the Paris police force, came into the room.--The Purloined Letter
by Edgar Allan Poe
2. Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau.--Genesis, 27-5
What do you make of the 'when' of the example 1? Isn't it different from the 'when'
of the example 2, in that the 'when' of 2 is leading a clause which is part of the main statement,
'Rebekah was listening...,while the 'when' of 1 is introducing a clause which is not apparently part
of the main statement? This 'when' is, if anything, like 'and'. Do you agree?
TIA
CK
mm
wrote:
No. I think your distinction is not important. Even if you're right
that one is part of the main statement and one isn't (and I'm not sure
youre right), it doesn't matter. Even in 1, the door opened *when*,
at the time, they were smoking. That's all that "when" means.
Compare,
I was listening when Isaac was talking to
I was listening when Jack tooted the car's horn.
They're different too, but "when" still applies to both of them.
>
>TIA
>
>CK
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
chance
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:atmlj51a1esoj93mk...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:25:06 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>1. One evening in Paris, during the autumn of eighteen forty-five, I went to visit a friend, Auguste Dupin.
>>We were smoking our pipes and talking when the door of his apartment opened.
>>Mister Germont, the head of the Paris police force, came into the room.--The Purloined Letter
>>by Edgar Allan Poe
>>
>>2. Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau.--Genesis, 27-5
>>
>>What do you make of the 'when' of the example 1? Isn't it different from the 'when'
>>of the example 2, in that the 'when' of 2 is leading a clause which is part of the main statement,
>>'Rebekah was listening...,while the 'when' of 1 is introducing a clause which is not apparently part
>>of the main statement? This 'when' is, if anything, like 'and'. Do you agree?
>
> No. I think your distinction is not important. Even if you're right
> that one is part of the main statement and one isn't (and I'm not sure
> youre right), it doesn't matter. Even in 1, the door opened *when*,
> at the time, they were smoking. That's all that "when" means.
The OED says with regard to the definitions of when as follows, for one:
At which time, on which occasion; and then. Sometimes implying suddenness: = and just then, and at that moment.
1893 Law Times XCV. 62/2 An inspector+tested the drain, when he found that the joints of the pipes were not properly cemented.
1894 Baring-Gould Bk. Fairy T. 58 Scarcely had she touched the spindle when she pierced her hand with it.
It seems that your assertion 'That's all that 'when' means' contradicts the the OED's observations.
How would you reconcile your statement with the OED's, if any?
mm
wrote:
>
>"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:atmlj51a1esoj93mk...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:25:06 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>1. One evening in Paris, during the autumn of eighteen forty-five, I went to visit a friend, Auguste Dupin.
>>>We were smoking our pipes and talking when the door of his apartment opened.
>>>Mister Germont, the head of the Paris police force, came into the room.--The Purloined Letter
>>>by Edgar Allan Poe
>>>
>>>2. Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau.--Genesis, 27-5
>>>
>>>What do you make of the 'when' of the example 1? Isn't it different from the 'when'
>>>of the example 2, in that the 'when' of 2 is leading a clause which is part of the main statement,
>>>'Rebekah was listening...,while the 'when' of 1 is introducing a clause which is not apparently part
>>>of the main statement? This 'when' is, if anything, like 'and'. Do you agree?
>>
>> No. I think your distinction is not important. Even if you're right
>> that one is part of the main statement and one isn't (and I'm not sure
>> youre right), it doesn't matter. Even in 1, the door opened *when*,
>> at the time, they were smoking. That's all that "when" means.
See, in the first three words I repeat the meaning of "when", "at the
time". That's the same as "at which time", except "when" has the
ability to connect two clauses. Like other words that start with "w",
which, when, where, why, who, what, and that.
> The OED says with regard to the definitions of when as follows, for one:
>
>At which time, on which occasion; and then. Sometimes implying suddenness: = and just then, and at that moment.
Yes. "At which time", that's what "when" means, just like the oed
says.
>1893 Law Times XCV. 62/2 An inspector+tested the drain, when he found that the joints of the pipes were not properly cemented.
>
>1894 Baring-Gould Bk. Fairy T. 58 Scarcely had she touched the spindle when she pierced her hand with it.
>
>
>
>It seems that your assertion 'That's all that 'when' means' contradicts the the OED's observations.
I don't think so.
>
>How would you reconcile your statement with the OED's, if any?
I think it's pretty obvious that the OED and I agree.
When my mother and I drove me to college in Chicago, she had to drive
home by herself, and there were no expressways where we lived, and
where she wanted to take the fork in the road that went to Indiana,
the sign said "Gary/Hammond". Well all she could think of is that she
didn't want to go to Gary or Hammond. She still made it home all
right. We talked about this and I tried to convince her to only worry
about where she *was* going, and not about other places that the same
road went to. It took her a while to get used to that. I think
there's a similar issue here.
chance
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:4fulj5l9872u5ntt7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:52:25 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:atmlj51a1esoj93mk...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:25:06 +0900, "chance" <cinc...@yahoo.co.kr>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>1. One evening in Paris, during the autumn of eighteen forty-five, I went to visit a friend, Auguste Dupin.
>>>>We were smoking our pipes and talking when the door of his apartment opened.
>>>>Mister Germont, the head of the Paris police force, came into the room.--The Purloined Letter
>>>>by Edgar Allan Poe
>>>>
>>>>2. Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau.--Genesis, 27-5
>>>>
>>>>What do you make of the 'when' of the example 1? Isn't it different from the 'when'
>>>>of the example 2, in that the 'when' of 2 is leading a clause which is part of the main statement,
>>>>'Rebekah was listening...,while the 'when' of 1 is introducing a clause which is not apparently part
>>>>of the main statement? This 'when' is, if anything, like 'and'. Do you agree?
>>>
>>> No. I think your distinction is not important. Even if you're right
>>> that one is part of the main statement and one isn't (and I'm not sure
>>> youre right), it doesn't matter. Even in 1, the door opened *when*,
>>> at the time, they were smoking. That's all that "when" means.
>
> See, in the first three words I repeat the meaning of "when", "at the
> time". That's the same as "at which time", except "when" has the
> ability to connect two clauses. Like other words that start with "w",
> which, when, where, why, who, what, and that.
>
>> The OED says with regard to the definitions of when as follows, for one:
>>
>>At which time, on which occasion; and then. Sometimes implying suddenness: = and just then, and at that moment.
I think that the 'at which time' above quite differs from 'at the time', which will be well illustrated
by the fact that the 'when' of 'An inspector...' means not 'at the time' that 'he found,,,'.
If it is so that An inspector tested the drain at the time that he found that the joints of the pipes were not properly
cemented, it is absurd. You know, the 'which' of 'at which time' refers to the preceding situation
while the of 'at the time' refers to the situation which will follow, so that 'at which time' is exactly 'and then',
which cannot be the 'when' in the sense of 'at the time that', although the two different meanings
are represented by one and the same word, 'when', in this instance.
Eric Walker
They are alike. In each sentence there are two separate propositions,
each a clause:
1a. we were smoking our pipes and talking
1b. the door of his apartment opened
2a. Rebekah was listening
2b. Isaac spoke to his son Esau
In both sentences, "when" is a conjunctive adverb; it links the
subordinate (second) clause to the principal (first) proposition as an
indefinite relative adverb operating with conjunctive force.
Quite a few words can play such a role, including where, whence, whither,
when, why, how, and others.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> "mm" <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in messagenews:4fulj5l9872u5ntt7...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:52:25 +0900, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"mm" <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in messagenews:atmlj51a1esoj93mk...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:25:06 +0900, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr>
Actually the "inspector" sentence is ambiguous. On one reading he
finds that the joints are not properly cemented, and then tests the
drain. The paraphrase would be "at the time (or just after)". But I
guess the intended meaning was that he tested first, "at which time
(or just after)" he found that..etc. This doesn't seem to me like a
very important difference. "When" simply indicates a time coordination
between two events or situations. The precise temporal relations need
to be filled in by a lot of context and real world knowledge. If you
want to be extremely precise, you have to use more than just "when".
But your original examples illustrate a more interesting difference.
"We were smoking our pipes when the door opened..." could be used in
the normal way of "when"-connected sentences, for example in giving a
statement later to the police who are trying to establish the sequence
of events. The police know that the door opened and want you to tell
them what you were doing at that moment. But Poe is using it simply as
a way of connecting two items in a narrative sequence. The readers do
not know the door is going to open until Poe tells them, using a
subordinate clause to do so. This is a very literary device. I don't
think an ordinary person relating an experience would use it; they
would say "We were smoking our pipes, and (then) the door opened".
So I agree with chance that there are two rather different uses of
"when" illustrated in those sentences.
Ross Clark
Django Cat
> > No. I think your distinction is not important. Even if you're
> > right that one is part of the main statement and one isn't (and I'm
> > not sure youre right), it doesn't matter. Even in 1, the door
> > opened when, at the time, they were smoking. That's all that
> > "when" means.
>
> The OED says with regard to the definitions of when as follows, for
> one:
>
> At which time, on which occasion; and then. Sometimes implying
> suddenness: = and just then, and at that moment. 1893 Law Times XCV.
> 62/2 An inspector+tested the drain, when he found that the joints of
> the pipes were not properly cemented. 1894 Baring-Gould Bk. Fairy T.
> 58 Scarcely had she touched the spindle when she pierced her hand
> with it.
>
>
> It seems that your assertion 'That's all that 'when' means'
> contradicts the the OED's observations.
Does it? Why?
DC
--
chance
"Django Cat" <nota...@address.co.uk> wrote in message news:ElH_m.20152$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
The 'at which time' employed by the OED to define the 'when'
as to the effect that it means invariably 'and then'
is quite different from 'at the time that',
for the former is the case of anaphoric deixis,
while the latter is that of cataphoric deixis, the two being quite different categories.
Django Cat
One refers backwards, and the other one forward, yes? But even if
that's correct, and I don't read it in the OED definition, it doesn't
have anything to do with mm's argument, as potentially the 'when' could
refer forwards or backwards. As for 'invariably' we could use an
example like 'when you heat water it boils' but I don't see one like
that in the OED.
I think there is a distinction to be made between your two examples,
but it's not about which direction the 'when' is pointing to it the
sentence.
Both examples contrast simple past and past continuous (aka past
progressive) forms. In EFL/ESL teaching we often use an example
sentence like the one from Poe to introduce usage of the past
continuous. We say that the past continuous sets the scene by
describing what's happening over a period of passing time, while the
simple past describes a point event which happens during this time.
Here's an example from a popular[1] course book:
"In my dream I was watching TV when the Queen knocked at the door".
Many teachers will represent this with a diagram - I hope this works in
text:
>>>> I was watching TV >>>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
^
The Queen knocked at the door.
This is what's happening in your first example:
"We were smoking our pipes and talking when the door of his apartment
opened."
- and potentially we went right on talking and smoking while the cop
stood there.
But the second example is more problematic:
"Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau."
As this suggests both events could have happening at the same time
(though this isn't essential and the point event during a continuous
event thing works just as well) -
"Rebekah was listening when Isaac was speaking to his son Esau."
My first reaction to this was to wonder if this quote was from the King
James version and thus a slightly strange or archaic usage, and Google
it. But what do you actually get as the first three results?
"Now Rebekah was listening *as* Isaac spoke to his son Esau."
and
"Rebekah was listening *while* Isaac spoke to his son Esau." (x2)
There you go. Makes ya think, really.
DC [1] not popular with me.
--
Pat Durkin
Finally! At last! Someone mentions "while"! Actually, Eric used
"while" in a kind of logical contrast (not in a time comparison), but
never even hinted at it in his "Quite a few words can play such a
role, including where, whence, whither, when, why, how, and others."
list.
Peter T. Daniels
Why don't we ask "chance" (or, say, Bart) whether the Korean language
has more than one temporal conjunction, so s/he is looking for a
distinction made in his/her language that isn't grammaticalized in
English?
Django Cat
> On Dec 30, 9:41�ｿｽpm, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> > "mm" <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:4fulj5l9872u5ntt7...@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:52:25 +0900, "chance"
> > > <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> >
> > >>"mm" <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:atmlj51a1esoj93mk...@4ax.com... >>> On
> > Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:25:06 +0900, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr>
> > >>> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > 1. One evening in Paris, during the autumn of eighteen
> > > > > > forty-five, I went to visit a friend, Auguste Dupin. We
> > > > > > were smoking our pipes and talking when the door of his
> > > > > > apartment opened. Mister Germont, the head of the Paris
> > > > > > police force, came into the room.--The Purloined Letter by
> > > > > > Edgar Allan Poe
> >
> > > > > > 2. Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son
> > > > > > Esau.--Genesis, 27-5
> >
> > > > > > What do you make of the 'when' of the example 1? Isn't it
> > > > > > different from the 'when' of the example 2, in that the
> > > > > > 'when' of 2 is leading a clause which is part of the main
> > > > > > statement, 'Rebekah was listening...,while the 'when' of 1
> > > > > > is introducing a clause which is not apparently part of the
> > > > > > main statement? This 'when' is, if anything, like 'and'. Do
> > > > > > you agree?
> >
> > >>> No. �ｿｽI think your distinction is not important. �ｿｽEven if you're
> > right >>> that one is part of the main statement and one isn't (and
> > I'm not sure >>> youre right), it doesn't matter. �ｿｽ Even in 1, the
> > door opened when, >>> at the time, they were smoking. �ｿｽ That's all
> > that "when" means.
> >
> > > See, in the first three words I repeat the meaning of "when", "at
> > > the time". �ｿｽThat's the same as "at which time", except "when" has
> > > the ability to connect two clauses. �ｿｽLike other words that start
> > > with "w", which, when, where, why, who, what, and that.
> >
> > >> The OED says with regard to the definitions of when as follows,
> > for one:
> >
> > > > At which time, on which occasion; and then. Sometimes implying
> > > > suddenness: = and just then, and at that moment.
> >
> > I think that the 'at which time' above quite differs from 'at the
> > time', which will be well illustrated by the fact that the 'when'
> > of 'An inspector...' means not 'at the time' that �ｿｽ'he found,,,'.
> > If it is so that An inspector tested the drain at the time that he
> > found that the joints of the pipes were not properly cemented, it
> > is absurd. You know, the 'which' of 'at which time' refers to the
> > preceding situation while the of 'at the time' refers to the
> > situation which will follow, so that 'at which time' is exactly
> > 'and then', which cannot be the 'when' in the sense of 'at the time
> > that', although the two different meanings are represented by one
> > and the same word, 'when', in this instance.
> >
> > > Yes. �ｿｽ"At which time", that's what "when" means, just like the oed
> > > says.
> >
> > > > 1893 Law Times XCV. 62/2 An inspector+tested the drain, when he
> > > > found that the joints of the pipes were not properly cemented. �ｿｽ
> >
> > > > 1894 Baring-Gould Bk. Fairy T. 58 Scarcely had she touched the
> > > > spindle when she pierced her hand with it.
>
> Actually the "inspector" sentence is ambiguous. On one reading he
> finds that the joints are not properly cemented, and then tests the
> drain. The paraphrase would be "at the time (or just after)". But I
> guess the intended meaning was that he tested first, "at which time
> (or just after)" he found that..etc. This doesn't seem to me like a
> very important difference. "When" simply indicates a time coordination
> between two events or situations. The precise temporal relations need
> to be filled in by a lot of context and real world knowledge. If you
> want to be extremely precise, you have to use more than just "when".
>
> But your original examples illustrate a more interesting difference.
> "We were smoking our pipes when the door opened..." could be used in
> the normal way of "when"-connected sentences, for example in giving a
> statement later to the police who are trying to establish the sequence
> of events. The police know that the door opened and want you to tell
> them what you were doing at that moment. But Poe is using it simply as
> a way of connecting two items in a narrative sequence. The readers do
> not know the door is going to open until Poe tells them, using a
> subordinate clause to do so. This is a very literary device. I don't
> think an ordinary person relating an experience would use it; they
> would say "We were smoking our pipes, and (then) the door opened".
>
"I was watching TV when the phone rang?" I'd say that.
--
Bart Mathias
Short answer (otherwise the same as Ross', I believe), you can move the
"when" clause to the front of the sentence and preserve the sense in 2
but not in 1 (even if you make the necessary change of "his" to "my
friend Auguste Dupin's").
I was going to ask you what Peter suggested. Can't you translate both
of these sentences with "cek-ey (aka "cheok-e")? I imagine you'd just
have to turn the first clause ("We were ... talking") into a sentence
and start the second with "ku cek-ey."
But maybe if I knew Korean I would think the "when" in 2 has to be
"ttay-ey"?
Bart Mathias
mm
wrote:
Not if the "when" clause precedes the other clause. "When you close
the door, be sure to lock it."
>while the of 'at the time' refers to the situation which will follow,
It does! I don't think so. Whether you mean within the sentence and
paragraph or you mean in order by time, it can refer to any time,
depending on the rest of the sentence.
> so that 'at which time' is exactly 'and then',
>which cannot be the 'when' in the sense of 'at the time that',
You'd have to show me a sentence to convince me they aren't the same.
And certainly to convince me that "at which time" is more exact than
"when" or "at the time". They can all be exact, and they can all be
approximate, depending on the facts, the intention, and the rest of
the sentence.
> although the two different meanings
>are represented by one and the same word, 'when', in this instance.
As Peter says, "Why don't we ask "chance" (or, say, Bart) whether the
Korean language has more than one temporal conjunction, so s/he is
looking for a distinction made in his/her language that isn't
grammaticalized in English?" Yes, why don't we?
>> Yes. "At which time", that's what "when" means, just like the oed
>> says.
>>
chance
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:dm9nj5d061ah19vvs...@4ax.com...
...she was anorexic for over 17 years, during which time she experienced
most of the symptoms she describes and received most of the treatments
she discusses.
Can you replace the 'which' of 'which time' with 'the'?
I believe 'at which time' is analogous to 'during which time'
as far as the subject in question is concerned.
Do you deny the distinction between the anaphoric deictic,
'at which time', and the cataphoric deictic, 'at the time that'?
>> although the two different meanings
>>are represented by one and the same word, 'when', in this instance.
>
> As Peter says, "Why don't we ask "chance" (or, say, Bart) whether the
> Korean language has more than one temporal conjunction, so s/he is
> looking for a distinction made in his/her language that isn't
> grammaticalized in English?" Yes, why don't we?
As Ross expounded, there are two different uses of 'when' in the English language,
which the OED ascertained as 'grammaticalized' in English.
chance
"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:hhga9f$tbf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> chance wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1. One evening in Paris, during the autumn of eighteen forty-five, I went to visit a friend, Auguste Dupin.
>> We were smoking our pipes and talking when the door of his apartment opened.
>> Mister Germont, the head of the Paris police force, came into the room.--The Purloined Letter
>> by Edgar Allan Poe
>>
>> 2. Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau.--Genesis, 27-5
>>
>> What do you make of the 'when' of the example 1? Isn't it different from the 'when'
>> of the example 2, in that the 'when' of 2 is leading a clause which is part of the main statement,
>> 'Rebekah was listening...,while the 'when' of 1 is introducing a clause which is not apparently part
>> of the main statement? This 'when' is, if anything, like 'and'. Do you agree?
>
> Short answer (otherwise the same as Ross', I believe), you can move the
> "when" clause to the front of the sentence and preserve the sense in 2
> but not in 1 (even if you make the necessary change of "his" to "my
> friend Auguste Dupin's").
>
> I was going to ask you what Peter suggested. Can't you translate both
> of these sentences with "cek-ey (aka "cheok-e")?
You can no more do so than you can do so in English, syntactically.
I imagine you'd just
> have to turn the first clause ("We were ... talking") into a sentence
> and start the second with "ku cek-ey."
In that case , 'ku cek-ey' should be 'ku ttay-ey'. Isn't it the case
in English, too?
> But maybe if I knew Korean I would think the "when" in 2 has to be
> "ttay-ey"?
Yes.
> Bart Mathias
Peter T. Daniels
> "mm" <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in messagenews:dm9nj5d061ah19vvs...@4ax.com...
> > You'd have to show me a sentence to convince me they aren't the same.
> > And certainly to convince me that "at which time" is more exact than
> > "when" or "at the time". They can all be exact, and they can all be
> > approximate, depending on the facts, the intention, and the rest of
> > the sentence.
>
> ...she was anorexic for over 17 years, during which time she experienced
> most of the symptoms she describes and received most of the treatments
> she discusses.
>
> Can you replace the 'which' of 'which time' with 'the'?
The question makes no sense. "Which" is there to make the temporal
clause into a subordinate clause.
. "... during which time ... " sounds like a policeman giving
testimony in court and trying to sound "formal" and "professional."
Normally, it would be a new sentence: "During that time she
experienced ...".
> I believe 'at which time' is analogous to 'during which time'
> as far as the subject in question is concerned.
What do you mean by "analogous"? They're both prepositions, and in
this example they are synonymous.
> Do you deny the distinction between the anaphoric deictic,
> 'at which time', and the cataphoric deictic, 'at the time that'?
The syntax is different. The semantics is the same. You could not use
"at the time that" in the anorexia sentence.
> >> although the two different meanings
> >>are represented by one and the same word, 'when', in this instance.
>
> > As Peter says, "Why don't we ask "chance" (or, say, Bart) whether the
> > Korean language has more than one temporal conjunction, so s/he is
> > looking for a distinction made in his/her language that isn't
> > grammaticalized in English?" Yes, why don't we?
>
> As Ross expounded, there are two different uses of 'when' in the English language,
> which the OED ascertained as 'grammaticalized' in English.
I didn't see Ross "expounding" any such thing. I saw Bart identifying
two different lexical items in Korean which are covered by a single
lexical item in English.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Bart Mathias" <math...@hawaii.edu> wrote in messagenews:hhga9f$tbf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Thank you for confirming precisely what I suspected: you are trying to
carry a grammatical distinction from your native language over into a
language that does not grammaticalize that distinction.
mm
wrote:
"During which time" is very different from "at which time". How can
you not know that? I made no statements about "during which time".
>Can you replace the 'which' of 'which time' with 'the'?
If you do, you'll have no connection between the clauses,
>I believe 'at which time' is analogous to 'during which time'
>as far as the subject in question is concerned.
I believe you believe wrong.
>Do you deny the distinction
What distinction?
>between the anaphoric deictic,
>'at which time', and the cataphoric deictic, 'at the time that'?
They seem about the same to me. If you mean that one looks back and
the other forward, no, that's not true.
You can just as easily say, "You will report to the 110 Main Street,
at which time you'll be inducted into the US Army". or "You reported
to 110 Main St. at which time you were inducted into the army. Well
actually the second sentence is not as good, eeven though you think
the phrase is anaphoric.
Same with "at the time that".
>>> although the two different meanings
>>>are represented by one and the same word, 'when', in this instance.
>>
>> As Peter says, "Why don't we ask "chance" (or, say, Bart) whether the
>> Korean language has more than one temporal conjunction, so s/he is
>> looking for a distinction made in his/her language that isn't
>> grammaticalized in English?" Yes, why don't we?
>
>As Ross expounded, there are two different uses of 'when' in the English language,
>which the OED ascertained as 'grammaticalized' in English.
Apparently Ross didn't say that. And the OED gave two sentences
that used the word "when". It didn't reach the conclusion you're
trying to reach.
chance
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>>...she was anorexic for over 17 years, during which time she experienced
>>most of the symptoms she describes and received most of the treatments
>>she discusses.
>
> "During which time" is very different from "at which time". How can
> you not know that? I made no statements about "during which time".
Here you go.
A local couple arrested on domestic assault charges Sunday had an unusual choice of alleged weaponry -- Cheetos.
Warrants filed by Cpl. Kevin Roddy, of the Bedford County Sheriff's Department, stated
he responded to a call at a home on Pass Road, where 40-year-old James Earl Taylor and Mary S. Childers, 44,
were allegedly involved in an argument.
According to Roddy's report, the pair became "involved in a verbal altercation" with each other
"at which time Cheetos potato chips were used in the assault."
"There was evidence of the assault," the report read, "however no physical marks on either party
and the primary aggressor was unable to be determined."
Both Taylor and Childers were charged by Roddy with domestic assault.
Both posted a bond of $2,500 and will appear in Bedford County General Sessions Court on July 15.
Bart Mathias
> [...]
> A local couple arrested on domestic assault charges Sunday had an unusual choice of alleged weaponry -- Cheetos.
> Warrants filed by Cpl. Kevin Roddy, of the Bedford County Sheriff's Department, stated
> he responded to a call at a home on Pass Road, where 40-year-old James Earl Taylor and Mary S. Childers, 44,
> were allegedly involved in an argument.
>
> According to Roddy's report, the pair became "involved in a verbal altercation" with each other
>
> "at which time Cheetos potato chips were used in the assault."
Sounds like one of them threw a bag of Cheetos at the other.
"During which time" would sound like one kept hitting the other
repeatedly with a bag of Cheetos.
> "There was evidence of the assault," the report read, "however no physical marks on either party
> [...]."
Cheetos make lousy weapons.
Bart Mathias
Bart Mathias
> "Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:hhga9f$tbf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> chance wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. One evening in Paris, during the autumn of eighteen forty-five, I went to visit a friend, Auguste Dupin.
>>> We were smoking our pipes and talking when the door of his apartment opened.
>>> Mister Germont, the head of the Paris police force, came into the room.--The Purloined Letter
>>> by Edgar Allan Poe
>>>
>>> 2. Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau.--Genesis, 27-5
>>>
>>> What do you make of the 'when' of the example 1? Isn't it different from the 'when'
>>> of the example 2, in that the 'when' of 2 is leading a clause which is part of the main statement,
>>> 'Rebekah was listening...,while the 'when' of 1 is introducing a clause which is not apparently part
>>> of the main statement? This 'when' is, if anything, like 'and'. Do you agree?
>> Short answer (otherwise the same as Ross', I believe), you can move the
>> "when" clause to the front of the sentence and preserve the sense in 2
>> but not in 1 (even if you make the necessary change of "his" to "my
>> friend Auguste Dupin's").
>>
>> I was going to ask you what Peter suggested. Can't you translate both
>> of these sentences with "cek-ey (aka "cheok-e")?
Well, can 1 be translated with "ttay-ey"?
> You can no more do so than you can do so in English, syntactically.
>
> I imagine you'd just
>> have to turn the first clause ("We were ... talking") into a sentence
>> and start the second with "ku cek-ey."
>
> In that case , 'ku cek-ey' should be 'ku ttay-ey'. Isn't it the case
> in English, too?
No. "Cek" and "ttay" are not English words, nor are there distinct
translations for them.
Bart
chance
"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:hhov5m$169$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> chance wrote:
>> "Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:hhga9f$tbf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> chance wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. One evening in Paris, during the autumn of eighteen forty-five, I went to visit a friend, Auguste Dupin.
>>>> We were smoking our pipes and talking when the door of his apartment opened.
>>>> Mister Germont, the head of the Paris police force, came into the room.--The Purloined Letter
>>>> by Edgar Allan Poe
>>>>
>>>> 2. Rebekah was listening when Isaac spoke to his son Esau.--Genesis, 27-5
>>>>
>>>> What do you make of the 'when' of the example 1? Isn't it different from the 'when'
>>>> of the example 2, in that the 'when' of 2 is leading a clause which is part of the main statement,
>>>> 'Rebekah was listening...,while the 'when' of 1 is introducing a clause which is not apparently part
>>>> of the main statement? This 'when' is, if anything, like 'and'. Do you agree?
>>> Short answer (otherwise the same as Ross', I believe), you can move the
>>> "when" clause to the front of the sentence and preserve the sense in 2
>>> but not in 1 (even if you make the necessary change of "his" to "my
>>> friend Auguste Dupin's").
>>>
>>> I was going to ask you what Peter suggested. Can't you translate both
>>> of these sentences with "cek-ey (aka "cheok-e")?
>
> Well, can 1 be translated with "ttay-ey"?
You know 'ttay-ey' is synonymous with 'cek-ey'.
I don't know why you did ask this question, ie, 'Can't you trasnlate...'
because you are a topnotch expert of Japanese, a cognate language of Korean,
so you may well construe from your Japanese the answer from the question.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Bart Mathias" <math...@hawaii.edu> wrote in messagenews:hhov5m$169$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>> I was going to ask you what Peter suggested. Can't you translate both
> >>> of these sentences with "cek-ey (aka "cheok-e")?
>
> > Well, can 1 be translated with "ttay-ey"?
>
> You know 'ttay-ey' is synonymous with 'cek-ey'.
In any sentence ever uttered, can you use either of those two words
without changing the meaning of the sentence the slightest bit?
> I don't know why you did ask this question, ie, 'Can't you trasnlate...'
> because you are a topnotch expert of Japanese, a cognate language of Korean,
> so you may well construe from your Japanese the answer from the question.
?? You're a native speaker of Korean, right? Does that mean that you
can understand Japanese?
Have you ever studied Japanese?
Bart Mathias
Chance, a regular at sci.lang.japan (when anything happens there) for
two or three years now, is quite good at Japanese, more so than at
English, in my judgment (and likely more so than this "topnotch expert
of Japanese").
Can't guess at his speaking ability, but as for Japanese, I think he
probably just missed having to use Japanese in grammar school.
Bart
Bart Mathias
> "Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:hhov5m$169$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> chance wrote:
>>> "Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:hhga9f$tbf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> I was going to ask you what Peter suggested. Can't you translate both
>>>> of these sentences with "cek-ey (aka "cheok-e")?
>> Well, can 1 be translated with "ttay-ey"?
>
> You know 'ttay-ey' is synonymous with 'cek-ey'.
> I don't know why you did ask this question, ie, 'Can't you trasnlate...'
> because you are a topnotch expert of Japanese, a cognate language of Korean,
> so you may well construe from your Japanese the answer from the question.
Well, let me give you just a little clue at the answer to your question,
in the form of part
of your original answer to my first question (I'll offset it with rows
of "*"):
>>> You can no more do so than you can do so in English, syntactically.
>>>
>>> I imagine you'd just
>>>> have to turn the first clause ("We were ... talking") into a sentence
>>>> and start the second with "ku cek-ey."
******************************************************
>>> In that case , 'ku cek-ey' should be 'ku ttay-ey'.
******************************************************
>>> Isn't it the case in English, too?
>> No. "Cek" and "ttay" are not English words, nor are there distinct
>> translations for them.
It seems to me that J. toki-ni works for both sentences. For the first,
"... toki-ni, (totsuzen) ..." or (breaking into two sentences, and
starting the second) "Sono toki-ni (totsuzen), ..." / "Totsuzen, ..."
What Japanese word seems a better match for "ceok" that "toki"?
Bart Mathias
chance
"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:hi30i3$lg0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
But then, the two are quite different syntactically.
> What Japanese word seems a better match for "ceok" that "toki"?
'Toki' is the best match for 'ceok' as well as for 'ttay',
for the two are synonymous and interchangeable.
However, the latter may be more direct than the former.
By 'direct, I mean 'precise'.
>
> Bart Mathias
chance
"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message news:hi2vjp$i1u$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You might have said as well: No one need correct what he writes or speaks
in Japanese.