Simple Past vs. Past Perfect
Farhad
According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to emphasize
that an action occured before another action in the past. However, the
following two sentences contradict this rule. How would you justify
this?
1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test.
2. Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the child began
to cry.
Farhad
Don Phillipson
news:10ea499f-970c-40b8...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Your grammar books have misled you. Correct English usage is
a matter of consensual approval (not conformity with a priori rules.
Rules are postulated only later, to describe patterns that are
repeatedly found in ordinary language, and as heuristic aids for
language learners.)
But ordinary logic might have forewarned you. The grammar
books say this verb tense is used for function AB and this
is true. But the grammar book does not say that AB is the
only permitted function of this verb tense. Consider:
1. Rule: cats have four legs.
2. Case: my dog has four legs.
3. Inference: therefore my dog is a cat.
There is obviously something wrong about this reasoning.
(This is the logical fallacy of the "undistributed middle.")
Similarly the observation that Past Perfect indicates that
one action preceded another in time (the Rule) does not
permit the Inference that all dogs are cats.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Ian Jackson
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> writes
understands that better than I do! I think that the essence of it is
that 'rules' may not be perfect, and that it is dangerous to try and
apply them to all situations.
But I'm not sure that those two sentences really break 'the rules'. They
would mean more-or-less the same if the past tense had been used, but
with the following differences:
1a. The teacher took my paper before I HAD finished the test.
2a. Before his mother HAD said one word of reprimand, the child began
to cry.
I would usually say this if I was saying it quite some time after it
happened (for example, when telling a story).
1b. The teacher took my paper before I finished the test.
2b. Before his mother said one word of reprimand, the child began
to cry.
I would usually say this if I was saying it immediately after it
happened.
--
Ian
Jerry Friedman
I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use "had" in either sentence. (I'm
American.)
This looks to me as if the past perfect has "spread" into these
sentences from other sentences with the same meanings. We would say,
"The teacher took my paper when I hadn't finished the test yet," and
"The child's mother hadn't said one word of reprimand when he began to
cry."
(I think "positive anymore" is an example of similar "spreading".
Everyone says, "There's not much of that anymore," so some Americans
find it natural to say, "There's only a little of that anymore.")
--
Jerry Friedman
Lars Eighner
<ef67429c-8a2d-4dc2...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Jerry Friedman broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> On Oct 22, 3:54�am, Farhad <fvafa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to emphasize
>> that an action occured before another action in the past. However, the
>> following two sentences contradict this rule. How would you justify
>> this?
>>
>> 1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test.
>> 2. Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the child began
>> to cry.
> I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use "had" in either sentence. (I'm
> American.)
Yes. Perhaps some context might reconcile me to these hads, but otherwise
they seem not quite standard AmE.
> This looks to me as if the past perfect has "spread" into these
> sentences from other sentences with the same meanings. We would say,
> "The teacher took my paper when I hadn't finished the test yet," and
> "The child's mother hadn't said one word of reprimand when he began to
> cry."
This seems to me to be the right track. The hads are in phrases about
events that had *not* occurred.
> (I think "positive anymore" is an example of similar "spreading".
> Everyone says, "There's not much of that anymore," so some Americans
> find it natural to say, "There's only a little of that anymore.")
> --
> Jerry Friedman
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5896, 1993
274 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Wood Avens
<use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>In our last episode,
><ef67429c-8a2d-4dc2...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, the
>lovely and talented Jerry Friedman broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
>> On Oct 22, 3:54�am, Farhad <fvafa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to emphasize
>>> that an action occured before another action in the past. However, the
>>> following two sentences contradict this rule. How would you justify
>>> this?
>>>
>>> 1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test.
>>> 2. Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the child began
>>> to cry.
>
>> I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use "had" in either sentence. (I'm
>> American.)
>
>Yes. Perhaps some context might reconcile me to these hads, but otherwise
>they seem not quite standard AmE.
They seem perfectly normal BrE.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Pat Durkin
news:ef67429c-8a2d-4dc2...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 3:54 am, Farhad <fvafa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to
> emphasize
> that an action occured before another action in the past. However,
> the
> following two sentences contradict this rule. How would you justify
> this?
>
> 1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test.
> 2. Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the child began
> to cry.
Jerry:
I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use "had" in either sentence. (I'm
American.)
Pat:
And, I am pretty sure that I would find the above usages entirely
unremarkable. I would call them standard USage.
Jerru:
This looks to me as if the past perfect has "spread" into these
sentences from other sentences with the same meanings. We would say,
"The teacher took my paper when I hadn't finished the test yet," and
"The child's mother hadn't said one word of reprimand when he began to
cry."
Pat:
I hear this usage from time to time, and I don't think it varies from
a common usage to a remarkable extent.
Jerry:
(I think "positive anymore" is an example of similar "spreading".
Everyone says, "There's not much of that anymore," so some Americans
find it natural to say, "There's only a little of that anymore.")
Pat:
I agree with this usage. I mean, I hear it from time to time. Its
usage is not rare. "Anymore, I can see the field from here.:
--
Pat Durkin
durkinpa at msn.com
Wisconsin
the Omrud
> Jerry:
> (I think "positive anymore" is an example of similar "spreading".
> Everyone says, "There's not much of that anymore," so some Americans
> find it natural to say, "There's only a little of that anymore.")
>
> Pat:
> I agree with this usage. I mean, I hear it from time to time. Its
> usage is not rare. "Anymore, I can see the field from here.:
Not only is that so rare around here (BrE) that I've never heard it, but
I don't even recognise "anymore" as a word. Unless, perhaps, you're a
dyslexic raven.
--
David
Evan Kirshenbaum
They seem perfectly normal AmE to me.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |_Bauplan_ is just the German word
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for blueprint. Typically, one
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |switches languages to indicate
|profundity.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Richard Dawkins
(650)857-7572
Roland Hutchinson
> Wood Avens <wood...@askjennison.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:56:19 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
>> <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In our last episode,
>>><ef67429c-8a2d-4dc2...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>>>the lovely and talented Jerry Friedman broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 22, 3:54 am, Farhad <fvafa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to
>>>>> emphasize that an action occured before another action in the past.
>>>>> However, the following two sentences contradict this rule. How would
>>>>> you justify this?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test. 2.
>>>>> Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the child began to
>>>>> cry.
>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use "had" in either sentence. (I'm
>>>> American.)
>>>
>>>Yes. Perhaps some context might reconcile me to these hads, but
>>>otherwise they seem not quite standard AmE.
>>
>> They seem perfectly normal BrE.
>
> They seem perfectly normal AmE to me.
AOL
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
CDB
>>>> the lovely and talented Jerry Friedman broadcast:
>>>>> On Oct 22, 3:54 am, Farhad <fvafa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to
>>>>>> emphasize that an action occured before another action in the
>>>>>> past. However, the following two sentences contradict this
>>>>>> rule. How would you justify this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test. 2.
>>>>>> Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the child
>>>>>> began to cry.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use "had" in either sentence.
>>>>> (I'm American.)
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Perhaps some context might reconcile me to these hads, but
>>>> otherwise they seem not quite standard AmE.
>>>
>>> They seem perfectly normal BrE.
>>
>> They seem perfectly normal AmE to me.
>
> AOL
>
usage? Is it simply that the sentences quoted with "before" follow
the same pattern as the same ones with "after"? Are the forms of
words cited above assimilated in the speaker's mind to "when I had not
yet finished the test"/"when his mother had not yet said one word of
reprimand"? The use of the word "one" in the second example may
indicate what John Lawler has referred to here as a negative polarity,
which may strengthen the second possibility.
Whatever the explanation is, that was the OP's question. Can the
usage be reconciled with the rule he cited, or can another rule be
extracted from it? That is the puzzlement.
Jerry Friedman
> Roland Hutchinson wrote:
> > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
His a.u.e. post at his Web site includes counterfactual "before" as a
negative-polarity trigger--as was obvious when I thought about "Before
his mother said anything".
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/npi.html
> Whatever the explanation is, that was the OP's question. Can the
> usage be reconciled with the rule he cited, or can another rule be
> extracted from it? That is the puzzlement.
I suspect that negative polarity has something to do with it. This is
probably in the /Cambridge Grammar of the English Language/ or
something.
--
Jerry Friedman
Django Cat
> On Oct 22, 12:56嚙緘m, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Roland Hutchinson wrote:
> > > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> > >> Wood Avens <woodav...@askjennison.com> writes:
> > >>> Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> > >>>> the lovely and talented Jerry Friedman broadcast:
> > >>>>> On Oct 22, 3:54 am, Farhad <fvafa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>> According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to
> > >>>>>> emphasize that an action occured before another action in the
> > >>>>>> past. However, the following two sentences contradict this
> > >>>>>> rule. How would you justify this?
> >
> > >>>>>> 1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test.
> > 2. >>>>>> Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the
> > child >>>>>> began to cry.
> >
> > >>>>> I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use "had" in either sentence.
> > >>>>> (I'm American.)
> >
> > >>>> Yes. 嚙瞑erhaps some context might reconcile me to these hads,
> > but >>>> otherwise they seem not quite standard AmE.
> >
> > >>> They seem perfectly normal BrE.
> >
> > >> They seem perfectly normal AmE to me.
> >
> > > AOL
> >
> > And NAmE too, for that matter. 嚙畿ut what rule can be deduced from
> > this usage? 嚙瘢s it simply that the sentences quoted with "before"
> > follow the same pattern as the same ones with "after"? 嚙璀re the
> > forms of words cited above assimilated in the speaker's mind to
> > "when I had not yet finished the test"/"when his mother had not yet
> > said one word of reprimand"? 嚙確he use of the word "one" in the
> > second example may indicate what John Lawler has referred to here
> > as a negative polarity, which may strengthen the second possibility.
>
> His a.u.e. post at his Web site includes counterfactual "before" as a
> negative-polarity trigger--as was obvious when I thought about "Before
> his mother said anything".
>
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/npi.html
>
> > Whatever the explanation is, that was the OP's question. 嚙瘠an the
> > usage be reconciled with the rule he cited, or can another rule be
> > extracted from it? 嚙確hat is the puzzlement.
>
> I suspect that negative polarity has something to do with it. This is
> probably in the /Cambridge Grammar of the English Language/ or
> something.
I think you're right - having been thinking about this one all day, I
was going to ask the OP if it was possible to recast the example
sentences without using 'before'...
DC
--
Pat Durkin
news:Vc%Dm.411$5w5...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Peter Moylan
Unlike most contributors to this thread, I believe that these examples
are consistent with the rule you gave. Rules like this are
over-simplifications, of course, and often wrong for that reason, but in
this case the rule seems to work.
Both examples are of the form "event A happened before event B". The
extra feature that appears to be confusing you is that, because event A
happened, event B didn't actually occur. In terms of time sequence,
though - and tenses are about time sequence - A did happen before B
would have happened if it had happened.
Some people have suggested that, in some dialects of American English,
the simple past "finished" would have been used instead of "had
finished". That is true if you are saying the sentence just after the
test is over. If, instead, you are talking about a test further in the
past (yesterday, for example), the "had finished" version is necessary.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Django Cat
> Farhad wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to
> > emphasize that an action occured before another action in the past.
> > However, the following two sentences contradict this rule. How
> > would you justify this?
> >
> > 1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test.
> > 2. Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the child began
> > to cry.
>
> Unlike most contributors to this thread, I believe that these
> examples are consistent with the rule you gave. Rules like this are
> over-simplifications, of course, and often wrong for that reason, but
> in this case the rule seems to work.
>
> Both examples are of the form "event A happened before event B". The
> extra feature that appears to be confusing you is that, because event
> A happened, event B didn't actually occur. In terms of time sequence,
> though - and tenses are about time sequence - A did happen before B
> would have happened if it had happened.
Yes, but the problem here is that students are taught that we use Past
Perfect to place an event _earlier_ in time than another, later event
which is in a more recent past:
'I'd finished my coffee [past perfect; earlier event] when the phone
rang [simple past; more recent event]'
To be consistent with this the sentence would need to be BA, not AB:
'I had finished the test before the teacher took my paper.
'The child had begun to cry before his mother said one word of
reprimand'.
But in each of these examples this is the wrong sequence of what we're
told (or we observed) happened.
I think Jerry's observation that 'before' is key to this is on the
right lines, but your point about event A *preventing* event B from
happening may well have legs.
Hmm.
>
> Some people have suggested that, in some dialects of American
> English, the simple past "finished" would have been used instead of
> "had finished". That is true if you are saying the sentence just
> after the test is over. If, instead, you are talking about a test
> further in the past (yesterday, for example), the "had finished"
> version is necessary.
Well, not really - it's about how past events relate in time sequence
to each other, not how far in the past they are. Here's an example in
a very recent time frame:
'Where's my coffee gone?'
'I washed it up'.
'I'd not finished that!'
DC
--
James Hogg
You summarise the rule thus: "Past Perfect is used to emphasize
that an action occurred before another action in the past." That covers
an example like this:
"When the teacher took my paper, I had finished the test."
But the rule works just as well if the first action did *not* occur, in
which case a rule could be phrased: "Past Perfect is used to emphasize
that an action had not been performed or completed before another action
in the past took place."
"When the teacher took my paper, I had not finished the test."
The "before" in your examples has a similar negative effect. The first
action had *not* been completed before the second action happened.
--
James
Farhad
Thanks, everyone! I got the response. I really loved Peter Moylan and
James Hogg's responses. To summarize, one may use Past Perfect to talk
about actions occurred or failed to occure before another action in
the past.
Farhad
Chuck Riggs
>Wood Avens <wood...@askjennison.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:56:19 +0000 (UTC), Lars Eighner
>> <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In our last episode,
>>><ef67429c-8a2d-4dc2...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, the
>>>lovely and talented Jerry Friedman broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 22, 3:54�am, Farhad <fvafa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>
>>>>> According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to
>>>>> emphasize that an action occured before another action in the
>>>>> past. However, the following two sentences contradict this
>>>>> rule. How would you justify this?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test.
>>>>> 2. Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the child began
>>>>> to cry.
>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't use "had" in either sentence. (I'm
>>>> American.)
>>>
>>>Yes. Perhaps some context might reconcile me to these hads, but
>>>otherwise they seem not quite standard AmE.
>>
>> They seem perfectly normal BrE.
>
>They seem perfectly normal AmE to me.
To me too, even though I'd probably leave the "had" out, myself. Six
to one, half a dozen to the other, I'd say.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
who speaks AmE, lives near Dublin, Ireland,usually spells in BrE
and hasn't corrected his email address yet
Chuck Riggs
As a Brit, you naturally split anymores, yet I assume most of you have
read enough AmE that you can make sense of "you don't use a typewriter
anymore, do you?" Even though most Americans, IINM, would find the
word arrangement in the example sentence -- "Anymore, I can see the
field from here" -- strange, especially because of the lack of an
expected negation, they could decipher it to yield "I can not see the
field from here, anymore". I am nearly certain that Southerners would
have an easier time with the trick than Northerners, although that may
be because I'm rereading a Faulkner novel at the moment.
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Chuck Riggs broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:52:21 GMT, the Omrud
><usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>Pat Durkin wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry:
>>> (I think "positive anymore" is an example of similar "spreading".
>>> Everyone says, "There's not much of that anymore," so some Americans
>>> find it natural to say, "There's only a little of that anymore.")
>>>
>>> Pat:
>>> I agree with this usage. I mean, I hear it from time to time. Its
>>> usage is not rare. "Anymore, I can see the field from here.:
>>
>>Not only is that so rare around here (BrE) that I've never heard it, but
>>I don't even recognise "anymore" as a word. Unless, perhaps, you're a
>>dyslexic raven.
> As a Brit, you naturally split anymores,
Here's my chance to slip in my favorite split anymore example. Those who
have seen it, can pass by:
"Does he drink any more?"
"No, but he doesn't drink any less."
> yet I assume most of you have
> read enough AmE that you can make sense of "you don't use a typewriter
> anymore, do you?" Even though most Americans, IINM, would find the
> word arrangement in the example sentence -- "Anymore, I can see the
> field from here" -- strange, especially because of the lack of an
> expected negation, they could decipher it to yield "I can not see the
> field from here, anymore". I am nearly certain that Southerners would
> have an easier time with the trick than Northerners, although that may
> be because I'm rereading a Faulkner novel at the moment.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5897, 1993
275 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
John Lawler
Yeah, more or less. The pluperfect construction is a sort of double
tense,
which doesn't depend so much on whether something occurs, so any
rule shouldn't mention that (as we've seen). It's more like there's a
time associated with any English verb, and if that time is before some
relevant past time (as when comparing two verbs), then one can (but
doesn't necessarily need to) use the pluperfect to note this. Simple
past is often used in the same circumstances, with the relative
priority
either to be inferred or deemed irrelevant.
... and you're right that counterfactual 'before' is a negative
trigger, which
leads to really bizarre sentences sometimes, e.g,
He said he was glad that his mother died before he did,
because he didn't want to cause her so much grief.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler
"It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree.
For if, by ill luck, people understood each other,
they would never agree." - Charles Baudelaire
erilar
Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
> As a Brit, you naturally split anymores, yet I assume most of you have
> read enough AmE that you can make sense of "you don't use a typewriter
> anymore, do you?" Even though most Americans, IINM, would find the
> word arrangement in the example sentence -- "Anymore, I can see the
> field from here" -- strange, especially because of the lack of an
> expected negation, they could decipher it to yield "I can not see the
> field from here, anymore". I am nearly certain that Southerners would
> have an easier time with the trick than Northerners, although that may
> be because I'm rereading a Faulkner novel at the moment.
> --
OK, I'll admit I'm old-fashioned about unnecessary neologisms, but when
did "any" and "more" get mashed together? And to me, "Anymore, I can
see the field from here" doesn't even sound like English.
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
Jerry Friedman
> In article <onh3e5ptcis8kov3b18m2nhlu2kg61g...@4ax.com>,
> Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> > As a Brit, you naturally split anymores, yet I assume most of you have
> > read enough AmE that you can make sense of "you don't use a typewriter
> > anymore, do you?" Even though most Americans, IINM, would find the
> > word arrangement in the example sentence -- "Anymore, I can see the
> > field from here" -- strange, especially because of the lack of an
> > expected negation, they could decipher it to yield "I can not see the
> > field from here, anymore". I am nearly certain that Southerners would
> > have an easier time with the trick than Northerners, although that may
> > be because I'm rereading a Faulkner novel at the moment.
> > --
>
> OK, I'll admit I'm old-fashioned about unnecessary neologisms, but when
> did "any" and "more" get mashed together?
When people noticed that "any more" had two different meanings, as in
Lars's joke. I'm old-fashioned enough to usually write "any more" for
both.
> And to me, "Anymore, I can
> see the field from here" doesn't even sound like English.
I don't like it, but I hear it all the time, and I very much doubt
Chuck's claim that most Americans would find that sentence strange.
--
Jerry Friedman
Roland Hutchinson
I will make the slightly weaker claim that many Americans would find it
strange. Positive "anymore" is a regionalism, but one that has been
spreading anymore. (Ouch! -- it hurt to write that! Positive "anymore"
isn't part of my dialect. I don't think I've ever used it before, and I
may never use it again.)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <onh3e5ptcis8kov3b...@4ax.com>,
> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> As a Brit, you naturally split anymores, yet I assume most of you have
>> read enough AmE that you can make sense of "you don't use a typewriter
>> anymore, do you?" Even though most Americans, IINM, would find the
>> word arrangement in the example sentence -- "Anymore, I can see the
>> field from here" -- strange, especially because of the lack of an
>> expected negation, they could decipher it to yield "I can not see the
>> field from here, anymore". I am nearly certain that Southerners would
>> have an easier time with the trick than Northerners, although that may
>> be because I'm rereading a Faulkner novel at the moment.
>> --
>
> OK, I'll admit I'm old-fashioned about unnecessary neologisms, but when
> did "any" and "more" get mashed together?
The OED cites it to 1908 in a quotation unter "traffic".
1908 S. FORD _Side-Stepping with Shorty_ xiv. 227 It'll be some
time before Langdon'll be pestered anymore by the traffic
cops.
Looking at Google Books, there are a lot of earlier hits, going back
to the 1590s. Many (most of the ones before the twentieth century)
are actually "any more", but not all. And in many, it's hard to tell.
There seems to be more space between the "y" and the "m" than between
other letters in the words, but less space than there is between other
words on the line.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Eric Walker
> According to English grammar books, Past Perfect is used to emphasize
> that an action occured before another action in the past. However, the
> following two sentences contradict this rule. How would you justify
> this?
>
> 1. The teacher took my paper before I had finished the test.
> 2. Before his mother had said one word of reprimand, the child began to
> cry.
Just to be sure we are together here, the past perfect tense "represents
a past action or state as completed at or before a certain past time".
There is no problem in either case.
What is doubtless causing the confusion is the "before" part, because it
seems to leave the act (or state) in question as not completed.
The past perfect tense evolved out of the simple past: the statement "I
had the letter written" (meaning "I had the letter in a written state")
became "I had written the letter". So the true sense of, for example, #1
above is "The teacher took my paper before [the moment when] I had the
test in a finished state."
Another way to conceptualize the matter is to think of the first moment
after the test would presumably have been done as the first moment when
the student could have said "I had finished the test"; that marks a time,
and the sentence states that the teacher took the paper away sometime
before that moment. Look at it as:
The teacher took my paper before [the moment when] I had finished the
test.
That that time is hypothetical--a quantum alternate world--because never
actually reached is immaterial.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Chuck Riggs
<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <onh3e5ptcis8kov3b...@4ax.com>,
> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> As a Brit, you naturally split anymores, yet I assume most of you have
>> read enough AmE that you can make sense of "you don't use a typewriter
>> anymore, do you?" Even though most Americans, IINM, would find the
>> word arrangement in the example sentence -- "Anymore, I can see the
>> field from here" -- strange, especially because of the lack of an
>> expected negation, they could decipher it to yield "I can not see the
>> field from here, anymore". I am nearly certain that Southerners would
>> have an easier time with the trick than Northerners, although that may
>> be because I'm rereading a Faulkner novel at the moment.
>> --
>
>OK, I'll admit I'm old-fashioned about unnecessary neologisms, but when
>did "any" and "more" get mashed together? And to me, "Anymore, I can
>see the field from here" doesn't even sound like English.
Does "I can't see the field from here, anymore" sound like English to
you? Those changes were so minor that, while this may be a sample from
a different dialect, Shirley it is not one from a different language.
Chuck Riggs
Are you joking me? "Anymore, I can see the
field from here" would sound strange to, easily, 99.9% of all
Americans.
erilar
Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
Any space more. I spent many years marking things like "alot" with red
ink. To me "anymore" is red ink territory. It also sounds incredibly
foreign at the beginning of a sentence, however it's written, and I
would also use red ink on it in that position. Your alternative sounds
like English, but is spelled wrong.
MC
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> > >OK, I'll admit I'm old-fashioned about unnecessary neologisms, but when
> > >did "any" and "more" get mashed together? And to me, "Anymore, I can
> > >see the field from here" doesn't even sound like English.
> >
> > Does "I can't see the field from here, anymore" sound like English to
> > you? Those changes were so minor that, while this may be a sample from
> > a different dialect, Shirley it is not one from a different language.
>
> Any space more. I spent many years marking things like "alot" with red
> ink. To me "anymore" is red ink territory. It also sounds incredibly
> foreign at the beginning of a sentence, however it's written, and I
> would also use red ink on it in that position. Your alternative sounds
> like English, but is spelled wrong.
I was taught in BrE that "any more" is the only acceptable spelling.
But I've come to appreciate the distinction between "anymore" and "any
more" in AmE:
"Would you like any more cake?"
"I don't eat cake anymore."
Anymore at the beginning of a sentence seems to be a US regionalism
meaning "these days." Why that should be I have no idea, since it makes
no sense to me, but I have friends in Atlanta and other places in the
south who use it routinely.
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Jerry Friedman
Sorry, Chuck, as you can see from the other replies, it's quite widely
known. I'm not going to say more than half of all Americans use it,
but a sizable fraction do, and it's familiar to the people who hear it
from them.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robin Bignall
wrote:
>In article <drache-1F0B3B....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > >OK, I'll admit I'm old-fashioned about unnecessary neologisms, but when
>> > >did "any" and "more" get mashed together? And to me, "Anymore, I can
>> > >see the field from here" doesn't even sound like English.
>> >
>> > Does "I can't see the field from here, anymore" sound like English to
>> > you? Those changes were so minor that, while this may be a sample from
>> > a different dialect, Shirley it is not one from a different language.
>>
>> Any space more. I spent many years marking things like "alot" with red
>> ink. To me "anymore" is red ink territory. It also sounds incredibly
>> foreign at the beginning of a sentence, however it's written, and I
>> would also use red ink on it in that position. Your alternative sounds
>> like English, but is spelled wrong.
>
>I was taught in BrE that "any more" is the only acceptable spelling.
>
>But I've come to appreciate the distinction between "anymore" and "any
>more" in AmE:
>
>"Would you like any more cake?"
>
>"I don't eat cake anymore."
>
That distinction is certainly in the BrE that I grew up with.
>Anymore at the beginning of a sentence seems to be a US regionalism
>meaning "these days." Why that should be I have no idea, since it makes
>no sense to me, but I have friends in Atlanta and other places in the
>south who use it routinely.
Ditto. I think I first came across this positive "anymore" in posts
by RJV (from whom we've not heard in a while).
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
erilar
<2c7bbdf8-d394-4fa5...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Obviously you encounter a different "half of all Americans" than I do,
as I have never heard it before and it still strikes me as non-English
erilar
MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
> But I've come to appreciate the distinction between "anymore" and "any
> more" in AmE:
>
> "Would you like any more cake?"
>
> "I don't eat cake anymore."
I can see no reason on earth for leaving the space out in the second
instance, since I can hear no difference between the two.
Pat Durkin
news:copespaz-658EEA...@news.eternal-september.org...
And I hear it occasionally here in Wisconsin. I couldn't localize it
as to a particular region or ethnic usage. My family never used it,
but they do say "nowadays" and "nowdays". "Anymore" as I provided in
the example has the same meaning. As does your "these days".
Jerry Friedman
> In article
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 24, 9:23 am, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net> wrote:
> > > Are you joking me? "Anymore, I can see the
> > > field from here" would sound strange to, easily, 99.9% of all
> > > Americans.
>
> > Sorry, Chuck, as you can see from the other replies, it's quite widely
> > known. I'm not going to say more than half of all Americans use it,
> > but a sizable fraction do, and it's familiar to the people who hear it
> > from them.
>
> Obviously you encounter a different "half of all Americans" than I do,
Yep. I'll bet you live in the Northeast or don't converse much with
people who speak in non-standard English, or both.
Did you interpret my comment above as "I'll go as far as saying half
of all Americans use it, but no farther"? I meant it more literally:
a sizable fraction of Americans use it, but I don't know whether it's
more or less than half.
> as I have never heard it before and it still strikes me as non-English
...
If you search for "positive anymore", you'll find a number of articles
asserting that it's common. According to this, it dates back to the
1850s in America:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/08/02/the_word_anymore/
Here's an a.u.e. post by John Lawler:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/anymore.html
I don't like it and never say it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Chuck Riggs
When I lived on the East Coast, I heard and used "nowadays" many
times. I don't recall hearing "nowdays" anywhere, but I may have.
"Anymore" at the beginning of a sentence may possibly be a hooliganism
popular in the rural West or Midwest, because I never heard it in the
Northeast, the urban West or Midwest or in the South, not even in
backward villages in the mountains of West Virginia, when Big George
and I went white water canoeing in that beautiful, even if not
entirely civilized, part of the country.
No "Deliverance" jokes, please. They're old hat by now.
erilar
"Pat Durkin" <dur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "MC" <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
> news:copespaz-658EEA...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > Anymore at the beginning of a sentence seems to be a US regionalism
> > meaning "these days." Why that should be I have no idea, since it
> > makes
> > no sense to me, but I have friends in Atlanta and other places in
> > the
> > south who use it routinely.
>
> And I hear it occasionally here in Wisconsin. I couldn't localize it
> as to a particular region or ethnic usage. My family never used it,
> but they do say "nowadays" and "nowdays". "Anymore" as I provided in
> the example has the same meaning. As does your "these days".
In Wisconsin? Where? I've lived in Wisconsin for most of my 75 years
and encountered a variety of local dialect variations(something I've
studied seriously in the past) and have never heard it that I can
recall--and my memory is in much better shape than my knees nowadays.
Some decades ago I used to teach English first in an area with a strong
German background where I heard idioms that were quite obviously German,
and then later another where we had some Polish influx recent enough
that we had teenagers with a "Lublin accent" a remedial speech teacher
was trying to "cure" 8-)
But no one used "anymore" to begin sentences, nor spelled it as a single
word that I can remember there.
I was teaching both English and German back then, and one of the things
I did was to collect errors in English essays and put them into what I
called "proofreading exercises" that we corrected as an oral exercise in
class. I included things like sentences with "alot", for instance, but
not "anymore".
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Kenneth G. Wilson states in the _Columbia Guide to Standard American
English_ (1993) that:
"anymore" ["any more"] poses no usage issues except when used in
non-negative contexts: "All he does anymore is complain". Such uses
are dialectal in origin but are now found at Conversational level
nearly everywhere. Edited English usually won't tolerate them,...
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs
I don't draw the same conclusion you do, Jerry, looking at the same
replies.
Pistols at dawn may be the only way to settle this argument.
Pat Durkin
news:drache-204049....@news.eternal-september.org...
I found Peter D's research satisfying (Columbia Guide...) in its
conclusions. And I, except for a few years in Illinois (Chicago
area), have spent my 73 years in the south-western part of Wisconsin.
I believe that the few people who have used the expression in my
hearing (never in my reading) were rural or small-town residents. But
not any of them were "hooligans", as Chuck so quaintly and
pejoratively labels them. They may have been in an age group
preceding yours and mine.
Got snow yet? Anymore I find Fall colder than it usetabee.
And, while some people don't _ever_ link "any" with "more", even if
the words are used in the conventional sense (any longer), I would not
find it odd in the evolution of written language. It's just an other
shortening that follows liaisons. When did "an" emerge as a separate
word from "a"?
--
Pat Durkin
durkinpa at msn.com
Wisconsin
Jerry Friedman
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:35:45 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
>
>
>
> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 24, 9:23 am, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:12:54 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
>
> >> <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 23, 3:48 pm, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> In article <onh3e5ptcis8kov3b18m2nhlu2kg61g...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > As a Brit, you naturally split anymores, yet I assume most of you have
> >> >> > read enough AmE that you can make sense of "you don't use a typewriter
> >> >> >anymore, do you?" Even though most Americans, IINM, would find the
> >> >> > word arrangement in the example sentence -- "Anymore, I can see the
> >> >> > field from here" -- strange, especially because of the lack of an
> >> >> > expected negation, they could decipher it to yield "I can not see the
> >> >> > have an easier time with the trick than Northerners, although that may
> >> >> > be because I'm rereading a Faulkner novel at the moment.
> >> >> > --
>
> >> >> OK, I'll admit I'm old-fashioned about unnecessary neologisms, but when
> >> >> did "any" and "more" get mashed together?
>
> >> >When people noticed that "any more" had two different meanings, as in
> >> >Lars's joke. I'm old-fashioned enough to usually write "any more" for
> >> >both.
>
> >> >> And to me, "Anymore, I can
> >> >> see the field from here" doesn't even sound like English.
>
> >> >I don't like it, but I hear it all the time, and I very much doubt
> >> >Chuck's claim that most Americans would find that sentence strange.
>
> >> Are you joking me? "Anymore, I can see the
> >> field from here" would sound strange to, easily, 99.9% of all
> >> Americans.
>
> >Sorry, Chuck, as you can see from the other replies, it's quite widely
> >known. I'm not going to say more than half of all Americans use it,
> >but a sizable fraction do, and it's familiar to the people who hear it
> >from them.
>
> I don't draw the same conclusion you do, Jerry, looking at the same
> replies.
> Pistols at dawn may be the only way to settle this argument.
Dawn in Dublin or Espanola?
--
Jerry Friedman
John Lawler
> "erilar" <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:drache-204049....@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > "Pat Durkin" <durk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> "MC" <copes...@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
As it happens, there's a blog on the subject:
http://positiveanymore.blogspot.com/2006/03/positive-anymore-2-revenge-of-isogloss.html
with pointers to actual research, the upshot of
which (has one ever found downshot of anything?)
is that positive 'anymore' is not a local dialect;
i.e, it's not geographical in its distribution, like
'lorry' vs 'truck' or 'pop' vs 'soda'. Rather, it's
social.
It's also not new. My mother, who was born in
Iowa in 1914, used it natively. This is how I
picked it up, when I was a kid in DeKalb Co.
Illinois. Later, when I became an authority
on Negative Polarity, it was useful to have
native intuitions on the subject.
So, sorry, Chuck. It's not a northwestern,
nor -eastern, nor any other -directional idiom.
It's just one more linguistic variant. Deal,
as my kids used to tell me.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' (I found it!), but rather 'That's
funny ... ' " -- Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
Mark Brader
> So, sorry, Chuck. It [positive "anymore"]'s not a northwestern,
> nor -eastern, nor any other -directional idiom. It's just one
> more linguistic variant.
Interesting. Have we heard about this here before?
--
Mark Brader "People who think for a living have always
Toronto been especially prone to confuse thinking
m...@vex.net with living." -- G.L. Sicherman
Roland Hutchinson
> As it happens, there's a blog on the subject:
> http://positiveanymore.blogspot.com/2006/03/positive-anymore-2-revenge-
of-isogloss.html
> with pointers to actual research, the upshot of which (has one ever
> found downshot of anything?) is that positive 'anymore' is not a local
> dialect; i.e, it's not geographical in its distribution, like 'lorry' vs
> 'truck' or 'pop' vs 'soda'. Rather, it's social.
That's not what the article says. It's social _within_ a limited (but
perhaps large) geographical area, outside of which it is not found in any
social class.
(begin quote:)
In fact, if you follow this last link, you will read
The distribution of positive "anymore" is only vaguely geographic;
mostly it's social dialects -- speech groups not necessarily
distinguished by location -- that show it.
This is true, for the most part, but I think there are nevertheless
geographic limits, outside of which no one of any social group uses
positive 'anymore'. The problem is, I don't really know where these
limits are. Astute commenter and aspiring professional dialectologist
Corrine/Queenie recently joked that the boundary ran through Chicago's
western suburbs. Though she was joking, this may in fact be the case.
Robert Bannister
> shortening that follows liaisons. When did "an" emerge as a separate
> word from "a"?
>
Wasn't it the other way round? In other words, didn't "a" emerge from
"an"? Probably none of us remember; that's old age for you.
--
Rob Bannister
erilar
Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
I can back you up with my bow and arrows 8-)
erilar
"Pat Durkin" <dur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I found Peter D's research satisfying (Columbia Guide...) in its
> conclusions. And I, except for a few years in Illinois (Chicago
> area), have spent my 73 years in the south-western part of Wisconsin.
> I believe that the few people who have used the expression in my
> hearing (never in my reading) were rural or small-town residents. But
> not any of them were "hooligans", as Chuck so quaintly and
> pejoratively labels them. They may have been in an age group
> preceding yours and mine.
When I lived in the southern part of the state I was pretty young and
it wasn't southwest. Further east you get German influence and further
north, where I live now, it's Scandinavian.
>
> Got snow yet? Anymore I find Fall colder than it usetabee.
Well, I did build a fire this morning 8-) But I don't mind cold; I
dislike excessive heat.
>
> And, while some people don't _ever_ link "any" with "more", even if
> the words are used in the conventional sense (any longer), I would not
> find it odd in the evolution of written language. It's just an other
> shortening that follows liaisons. When did "an" emerge as a separate
> word from "a"?
Actually, the question should be when did "a" and "the" lose their
endings? After Alfred and before Chaucer.
erilar
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In fact, if you follow this last link, you will read
>
> The distribution of positive "anymore" is only vaguely geographic;
> mostly it's social dialects -- speech groups not necessarily
> distinguished by location -- that show it.
>
> This is true, for the most part, but I think there are nevertheless
> geographic limits, outside of which no one of any social group uses
> positive 'anymore'. The problem is, I don't really know where these
> limits are. Astute commenter and aspiring professional dialectologist
> Corrine/Queenie recently joked that the boundary ran through Chicago's
> western suburbs. Though she was joking, this may in fact be the case.
The thing is that a big isogloss bundle actually runs through Illinois,
so it's quite possible. And social dialects can also be geographically
concentrated.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
According to the notes in the OED "a" emerged as "an" spoken with the
"n" silent:
Loss of the final consonant -n from the 12th cent. onwards took
place chiefly, but not exclusively, before a following word with
initial consonant...
"an" was originally an unstressed pronunciation of "one".
Chuck Riggs
Wherever we can find her.
Chuck Riggs
What does Mr Wilson have to say about the difference between using
"anymore" in "Few people say this, anymore", which I find literate,
and "Anymore, only the crudest of woodsmen or misguided souls say
this", which I do not?
James Hogg
I don't know what Wilson says, but I looked in the OED to see what it
says. The usage in affirmative contexts is labelled "Chiefly Irish
English and N. Amer. colloq." I was surprised to see a quotation from
Lawrence's "Women in Love":
"'Quite absurd,' he said. 'Suffering bores me, any more.'"
--
James
Chuck Riggs
<dur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I believe that the few people who have used the expression in my
>hearing (never in my reading) were rural or small-town residents. But
>not any of them were "hooligans", as Chuck so quaintly and
>pejoratively labels them.
My use of hooligan, when I use it, is not a label but a way of amusing
myself, which should be obvious to even the casual observer, let alone
an English star. Since a hooligan is "a violent young troublemaker",
according to the COD10, it would be odd for you to take it personally,
as you appear to be doing. Lighten up, Pat.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
He doesn't say anymore than I've quoted (he says nomore than I've
quoted) - he just gives a few examples.
(Add speces to taste.)
Chuck Riggs
I can deal with it, John, even if I don't accept it. My experience
with AmE has taught me that the language usually varies, in the
prevailing accent, vocabulary and syntax, not merely by region and
state, but by city and often by town.
Pat Durkin
news:t01be5d4qvledfmrt...@4ax.com...
Ah! Thanks all. That has reminded me that I knew that (or had an
inkling of it), but blocked it out while trying to decide if I should
bring up a nother think.
Pat Durkin
news:be6be5tc2nob8cun3...@4ax.com...
More labels, Chuck?
In fact, the only difference I find between the first, (literate)
example, and the second (crude, misguided) version is the position of
"anymore" in the sentence. I appreciate your excellent use of the
comma, however.
James Hogg
Your example of "a nother" reminds us that the "n" in liaison sometimes
got attached to the wrong word: "an ewt" became "a newt", "an eke-name"
became "a nickname", while "a nauger" became "an auger".
--
James
Pat Durkin
news:hc4cb5$6p5$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Thanks again.
Any explanation for "Nell, Nelly" from Helen, Ellen, Eleanor, Lenore,
etc. (Ned for Ed)?
I know that gets us off track, but I can actually tell how Will and
Bill are related.
James Hogg
No, it's not off track. The same thing happened to the possessive
"mine". It lost the "n" to become "my" except before vowels. The "n" was
then transferred so that "Mine Elly" became "My Nelly".
--
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>(Add speces to taste.)
Er... spaces.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <copespaz-658EEA...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> MC <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>> But I've come to appreciate the distinction between "anymore" and
>> "any more" in AmE:
>>
>> "Would you like any more cake?"
>>
>> "I don't eat cake anymore."
>
> I can see no reason on earth for leaving the space out in the second
> instance, since I can hear no difference between the two.
How do you feel about "anyone", "anywhere", "anybody", "anyhow",
"anything", and "anyway"?
But to your actual point, I can hear a difference. Perhaps a better
contrast is
Do you like it any more? [than you used to]
Do you like it anymore? [since you found out what it's made of]
The stress pattern is different.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple
|That we couldn't.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
erilar
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> How do you feel about "anyone", "anywhere", "anybody", "anyhow",
> "anything", and "anyway"?
I use them myself. I would never type "anymore"
>
> But to your actual point, I can hear a difference. Perhaps a better
> contrast is
>
> Do you like it any more? [than you used to]
> Do you like it anymore? [since you found out what it's made of]
>
> The stress pattern is different.
If so, it's too slight for me to notice in practice. I'm not sure why
this combination bothers me, but it does. As for starting an English
sentence with it, that makes me shudder.
Garrett Wollman
Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>"an" was originally an unstressed pronunciation of "one".
There's another, archaic "an" which I don't think was, but OED doesn't
seem to know of it.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <vdi2go...@hpl.hp.com>,
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>> How do you feel about "anyone", "anywhere", "anybody", "anyhow",
>> "anything", and "anyway"?
> I use them myself. I would never type "anymore"
>
>> But to your actual point, I can hear a difference. Perhaps a
>> better contrast is
>>
>> Do you like it any more? [than you used to]
>> Do you like it anymore? [since you found out what it's made of]
>>
>> The stress pattern is different.
>
> If so, it's too slight for me to notice in practice. I'm not sure why
> this combination bothers me, but it does. As for starting an English
> sentence with it, that makes me shudder.
It bothers me at the beginning of a sentence, too, but it wouldn't
bother me any less if it were written "any more".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |ActiveX is pretty harmless anyway.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |It can't affect you unless you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |install Windows, and who would be
|foolish enough to do that?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Peter Moylan
(650)857-7572
R H Draney
>
>In article <t01be5d4qvledfmrt...@4ax.com>,
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>"an" was originally an unstressed pronunciation of "one".
>
>There's another, archaic "an" which I don't think was, but OED doesn't
>seem to know of it.
Is that the one that's an antonym of "unless"?...r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Jerry Friedman
> >Peter Duncanson (BrE) <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> >>"an" was originally an unstressed pronunciation of "one".
>
> >There's another, archaic "an" which I don't think was, but OED doesn't
> >seem to know of it.
>
> Is that the one that's an antonym of "unless"?...r
An it so be, it might be under "and", which I believe is its origin.
--
Jerry Friedman
James Hogg
It's in the OED all right, under senses 13-16 of "and", to which the
reader is referred from "an".
--
James
Garrett Wollman
>There's another, archaic "an" which I don't think was, but OED doesn't
>seem to know of it.
But it turns out that I had just misread. It's in the OED under "an,
conj. and n.", 2.
Roland Hutchinson
> "a nauger" became "an auger"
Only after they had been hunted to near-extinction for their hides.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
James Hogg
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:38:53 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
>> "a nauger" became "an auger"
>
> Only after they had been hunted to near-extinction for their hides.
The truth is much more boring than that.
--
James
Mark Brader
>>> "a nauger" became "an auger"
Roland Hutchinson:
>> Only after they had been hunted to near-extinction for their hides.
James Hogg:
> The truth is much more boring than that.
This augurs well for the inauguration of a new subthread.
--
Mark Brader "If the right people don't have power...
Toronto the wrong people get it... ordinary voters!"
m...@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER
Mark Brader
>> (Add speces to taste.)
> Er... spaces.
Yes, spices might cause your writing to exhibit too many species.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Altruism is a fine motive, but if you want results,
m...@vex.net | greed works much better." -- Henry Spencer
Wood Avens
>James Hogg:
>>>> "a nauger" became "an auger"
>
>Roland Hutchinson:
>>> Only after they had been hunted to near-extinction for their hides.
>
>James Hogg:
>> The truth is much more boring than that.
>
>This augurs well for the inauguration of a new subthread.
An auger and a subthread: all you need to sew a vinyl sofa cover.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
James Hogg
> James Hogg:
>>>> "a nauger" became "an auger"
>
> Roland Hutchinson:
>>> Only after they had been hunted to near-extinction for their hides.
>
> James Hogg:
>> The truth is much more boring than that.
>
> This augurs well for the inauguration of a new subthread.
You obviously know the drill.
--
James
Roland Hutchinson
But it's always possible to come up with a new twist.
R H Draney
>
>Peter Duncanson:
>>> (Add speces to taste.)
>> Er... spaces.
>
>Yes, spices might cause your writing to exhibit too many species.
If we're *quite* done moving our vowels....
....r
R H Draney
>
>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:40:10 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>> James Hogg:
>>>>>> "a nauger" became "an auger"
>>>
>>> Roland Hutchinson:
>>>>> Only after they had been hunted to near-extinction for their hides.
>>>
>>> James Hogg:
>>>> The truth is much more boring than that.
>>>
>>> This augurs well for the inauguration of a new subthread.
>>
>> You obviously know the drill.
>
>But it's always possible to come up with a new twist.
I'm already braced for the next bit....r
Donna Richoux
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:41:43 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >Pat Durkin wrote:
> >
> >> shortening that follows liaisons. When did "an" emerge as a separate
> >> word from "a"?
> >Wasn't it the other way round? In other words, didn't "a" emerge from
> >"an"? Probably none of us remember; that's old age for you.
>
> According to the notes in the OED "a" emerged as "an" spoken with the
> "n" silent:
>
> Loss of the final consonant -n from the 12th cent. onwards took
> place chiefly, but not exclusively, before a following word with
> initial consonant...
That matches up with French, doesn't it, and that was the Anglo-Norman
period. I don't know anything about previous Frenches, but today, at
least, the n of "un" is usually silent, like English "a", except it's
pronounced before a vowel sound ("un homme") just like the English
"an". Does the OED credit this English development to French influence?
> "an" was originally an unstressed pronunciation of "one".
Still true for the Dutch, the article "een" being an unstressed
pronunciation of the number "een". My guess is that is the case for
German (ein, ein) as well?
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
James Hogg
> Roland Hutchinson filted:
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:40:10 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>>> James Hogg:
>>>>>>> "a nauger" became "an auger"
>>>> Roland Hutchinson:
>>>>>> Only after they had been hunted to near-extinction for their hides.
>>>>
>>>> James Hogg:
>>>>> The truth is much more boring than that.
>>>> This augurs well for the inauguration of a new subthread.
>>> You obviously know the drill.
>> But it's always possible to come up with a new twist.
>
> I'm already braced for the next bit....r
I'm sorry I broached the subject in the first place.
--
James
Nick
You awl say that now.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Peter Moylan
To the best of my knowledge, it's true for all Indo-European languages.
(Apart, of course, from those that don't have a word meaning "an".) PIE
apparently didn't have either definite or indefinite articles. In newer
languages, the definite articles appear to have evolved out of
demonstrative words like "that", and the indefinite articles evolved
from a number word.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Roland Hutchinson
> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes:
>
>> R H Draney wrote:
>>> Roland Hutchinson filted:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:40:10 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>>>>> James Hogg:
>>>>>>>>> "a nauger" became "an auger"
>>>>>> Roland Hutchinson:
>>>>>>>> Only after they had been hunted to near-extinction for their
>>>>>>>> hides.
>>>>>> James Hogg:
>>>>>>> The truth is much more boring than that.
>>>>>> This augurs well for the inauguration of a new subthread.
>>>>> You obviously know the drill.
>>>> But it's always possible to come up with a new twist.
>>>
>>> I'm already braced for the next bit....r
>>
>> I'm sorry I broached the subject in the first place.
>
> You awl say that now.
Point taken.
Eric Walker
[...]
> . . . I looked in the OED to see what it says. The usage in affirmative
> contexts is labelled "Chiefly Irish English and N. Amer. colloq. . . .
The apparent complexities of this issue escape me. In the standard
negative form, "Alice doesn't live here any more," the sense of "more" is
clear and simple: "additional" or "further" (sense 3 in my desk
dictionary). The statement is, in essence, that Alice's living there has
no further existence or reality.
How that clear sense can be held to indicate "at present" (or "now" or
"these days" or whatever) escapes me: "Suffering bores me any more"--or
however one spells it--makes zero sense.
Suggested or ongoing changes in sense, meaning, or usage need to be
judged by a single criterion: whether they augment or diminish the
ability of a competent user of the tongue to place thoughts in the minds
of others with precision and elegance.
This is not, I reckon, a drastic case, but the points are these: there is
no positive--the new usage adds nothing, since numerous simple, well-
known synonyms already exist (those cited above, "nowadays", "of late",
and many more); and it can be argued that there is at least some
negative, in the confounding of the sense of the old, original meaning.
I vote No.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Chuck Riggs
<dur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"Chuck Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
>news:be6be5tc2nob8cun3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:08:01 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:24:06 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:26:00 -0500, "Pat Durkin"
>>>><dur...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"MC" <cope...@mapca.inter.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:copespaz-658EEA...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <drache-1F0B3B....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > >OK, I'll admit I'm old-fashioned about unnecessary
>>>>>>> > >neologisms,
>>>>>>> > >but when
>>>>>>> > >did "any" and "more" get mashed together? And to me,
>>>>>>> > >"Anymore,
>>>>>>> > >I can
>>>>>>> > >see the field from here" doesn't even sound like English.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Does "I can't see the field from here, anymore" sound like
>>>>>>> > English to
>>>>>>> > you? Those changes were so minor that, while this may be a
>>>>>>> > sample
>>>>>>> > from
>>>>>>> > a different dialect, Shirley it is not one from a different
>>>>>>> > language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any space more. I spent many years marking things like "alot"
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> red
>>>>>>> ink. To me "anymore" is red ink territory. It also sounds
>>>>>>> incredibly
>>>>>>> foreign at the beginning of a sentence, however it's written,
>>>>>>> and I
>>>>>>> would also use red ink on it in that position. Your
>>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>> like English, but is spelled wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was taught in BrE that "any more" is the only acceptable
>>>>>> spelling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I've come to appreciate the distinction between "anymore"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> "any
>>>>>> more" in AmE:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Would you like any more cake?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I don't eat cake anymore."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anymore at the beginning of a sentence seems to be a US
>>>>>> regionalism
>>>>>> meaning "these days." Why that should be I have no idea, since
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> makes
>>>>>> no sense to me, but I have friends in Atlanta and other places
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> south who use it routinely.
>>>>>
>>>>>And I hear it occasionally here in Wisconsin. I couldn't localize
>>>>>it
>>>>>as to a particular region or ethnic usage. My family never used
>>>>>it,
>>>>>but they do say "nowadays" and "nowdays". "Anymore" as I provided
>>>>>in
>>>>>the example has the same meaning. As does your "these days".
>>>>
>>>>When I lived on the East Coast, I heard and used "nowadays" many
>>>>times. I don't recall hearing "nowdays" anywhere, but I may have.
>>>>"Anymore" at the beginning of a sentence may possibly be a
>>>>hooliganism
>>>>popular in the rural West or Midwest, because I never heard it in
>>>>the
>>>>Northeast, the urban West or Midwest or in the South, not even in
>>>>backward villages in the mountains of West Virginia, when Big
>>>>George
>>>>and I went white water canoeing in that beautiful, even if not
>>>>entirely civilized, part of the country.
>>>>No "Deliverance" jokes, please. They're old hat by now.
>>>
>>>Kenneth G. Wilson states in the _Columbia Guide to Standard American
>>>English_ (1993) that:
>>>
>>> "anymore" ["any more"] poses no usage issues except when used in
>>> non-negative contexts: "All he does anymore is complain". Such
>>> uses
>>> are dialectal in origin but are now found at Conversational
>>> level
>>> nearly everywhere. Edited English usually won't tolerate
>>> them,...
>>
>> What does Mr Wilson have to say about the difference between using
>> "anymore" in "Few people say this, anymore", which I find literate,
>> and "Anymore, only the crudest of woodsmen or misguided souls say
>> this", which I do not?
>
>More labels, Chuck?
My actual feelings about people in different walks of life aside,
since these labels, as you call my attempts at humour, got your
attention, I am satisfied.
>In fact, the only difference I find between the first, (literate)
>example, and the second (crude, misguided) version is the position of
>"anymore" in the sentence. I appreciate your excellent use of the
>comma, however.
Thank you for that, Herr Professor, sad though I am that my ear for
the language continues to lack your appreciation.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Peter Moylan
> The apparent complexities of this issue escape me. In the standard
> negative form, "Alice doesn't live here any more," the sense of "more" is
> clear and simple: "additional" or "further" (sense 3 in my desk
> dictionary). The statement is, in essence, that Alice's living there has
> no further existence or reality.
>
> How that clear sense can be held to indicate "at present" (or "now" or
> "these days" or whatever) escapes me: "Suffering bores me any more"--or
> however one spells it--makes zero sense.
"Suffering bores me anymore" does, however, make sense, at least to
people who have the word "anymore" in their active vocabulary. When you
create a new word by joining a couple of existing words, the new word
can acquire a meaning that the original phrase didn't have.
For an example of this, reread the preceding paragraph, but replacing
"however" by "how ever".
erilar
Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.not.china> wrote:
> "Suffering bores me anymore" does, however, make sense, at least to
> people who have the word "anymore" in their active vocabulary. When you
> create a new word by joining a couple of existing words, the new word
> can acquire a meaning that the original phrase didn't have.
I find that sentence meaningless.
erilar
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <vdi2go...@hpl.hp.com>,
> > Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> How do you feel about "anyone", "anywhere", "anybody", "anyhow",
> >> "anything", and "anyway"?
> > I use them myself. I would never type "anymore"
> >
> >> But to your actual point, I can hear a difference. Perhaps a
> >> better contrast is
> >>
> >> Do you like it any more? [than you used to]
> >> Do you like it anymore? [since you found out what it's made of]
> >>
> >> The stress pattern is different.
> >
> > If so, it's too slight for me to notice in practice. I'm not sure why
> > this combination bothers me, but it does. As for starting an English
> > sentence with it, that makes me shudder.
>
> It bothers me at the beginning of a sentence, too, but it wouldn't
> bother me any less if it were written "any more".
Same here. To me, starting a sentence that way is starting with static.
Mike Lyle
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:27:02 +0000, Nick wrote:
>
>> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> R H Draney wrote:
>>>> Roland Hutchinson filted:
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:40:10 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>>>>>> James Hogg:
>>>>>>>>>> "a nauger" became "an auger"
>>>>>>> Roland Hutchinson:
>>>>>>>>> Only after they had been hunted to near-extinction for their
>>>>>>>>> hides.
>>>>>>> James Hogg:
>>>>>>>> The truth is much more boring than that.
>>>>>>> This augurs well for the inauguration of a new subthread.
>>>>>> You obviously know the drill.
>>>>> But it's always possible to come up with a new twist.
>>>>
>>>> I'm already braced for the next bit....r
>>>
>>> I'm sorry I broached the subject in the first place.
>>
>> You awl say that now.
>
> Point taken.
You've nailed it.
--
Mike.
Robin Bignall
I'm finding this thread riveting.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Mike Lyle
As long as nobody screws it up.
--
Mike.
James Hogg
Chuck?
--
James
Jerry Friedman
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:51:31 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > . . . I looked in the OED to see what it says. The usage in affirmative
> > contexts is labelled "Chiefly Irish English and N. Amer. colloq. . . .
>
> The apparent complexities of this issue escape me.
No complexities are apparent to me. People have said they didn't like
it (except that John Lawler grew up using it, so he may well like it
or at least not dislike it), and people have talked about who uses it
and why some have heard it and others haven't.
> In the standard
> negative form, "Alice doesn't live here any more," the sense of "more" is
> clear and simple: "additional" or "further" (sense 3 in my desk
> dictionary). The statement is, in essence, that Alice's living there has
> no further existence or reality.
>
> How that clear sense can be held to indicate "at present" (or "now" or
> "these days" or whatever) escapes me:
The process is simple. "Alice doesn't live here any more" indicates
the same situation as "Alice doesn't live here these days." So if
people don't think about the meanings of "any" and "more", they may
use "any more" to mean "these days" in affirmative contexts.
Of course, why this happens to some phrases and not others, with
speakers in some regions (initially) and not others, is mysterious.
> "Suffering bores me any more"--or
> however one spells it--makes zero sense.
I like the example.
> Suggested or ongoing changes in sense, meaning, or usage need to be
> judged by a single criterion: whether they augment or diminish the
> ability of a competent user of the tongue to place thoughts in the minds
> of others with precision and elegance.
But that's not how a great many people judge them.
> This is not, I reckon, a drastic case, but the points are these: there is
> no positive--the new usage adds nothing, since numerous simple, well-
> known synonyms already exist (those cited above, "nowadays", "of late",
> and many more); and it can be argued that there is at least some
> negative, in the confounding of the sense of the old, original meaning.
>
> I vote No.
Me too. And our votes will have the same effect as everyone else's
votes.
(Firefox's spellchecker flags "else's". I haven't heard that
prescription in, let's see, 27 years.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> Eric Walker wrote:
> > The apparent complexities of this issue escape me. In the standard
> > negative form, "Alice doesn't live here any more," the sense of "more" is
> > clear and simple: "additional" or "further" (sense 3 in my desk
> > dictionary). The statement is, in essence, that Alice's living there has
> > no further existence or reality.
>
> > How that clear sense can be held to indicate "at present" (or "now" or
> > "these days" or whatever) escapes me: "Suffering bores me any more"--or
> > however one spells it--makes zero sense.
>
> "Suffering bores me anymore" does, however, make sense, at least to
> people who have the word "anymore" in their active vocabulary. When you
> create a new word by joining a couple of existing words, the new word
> can acquire a meaning that the original phrase didn't have.
>
> For an example of this, reread the preceding paragraph, but replacing
> "however" by "how ever".
That's a better example than any I could come up with.
Are there any examples beside "anymore" of words or phrases that were
formerly used only with negative polarity but "escaped" to occur in
all situations? In standard or non-standard dialects, either one.
--
Jerry Friedman
Roland Hutchinson
I expect he's bolted.
Skitt
> (Firefox's spellchecker flags "else's". I haven't heard that
> prescription in, let's see, 27 years.)
Firefox has a spelling checker?
--
Skitt (AmE)
Skitt
Oh, never mind. I guess it does when one posts with GG.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Robert Bannister
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:51:31 +0100, James Hogg wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> . . . I looked in the OED to see what it says. The usage in affirmative
>> contexts is labelled "Chiefly Irish English and N. Amer. colloq. . . .
>
> The apparent complexities of this issue escape me. In the standard
> negative form, "Alice doesn't live here any more," the sense of "more" is
> clear and simple: "additional" or "further" (sense 3 in my desk
> dictionary). The statement is, in essence, that Alice's living there has
> no further existence or reality.
>
> How that clear sense can be held to indicate "at present" (or "now" or
> "these days" or whatever) escapes me: "Suffering bores me any more"--or
> however one spells it--makes zero sense.
Perhaps we're lucky these speakers didn't pull the same trick with "no
longer": "Suffering bores me longer" would be a bit confusing.
--
Rob Bannister