Zompist Bboard Again

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:33 am

Darren wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:29 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 6:51 am But, on the other hand, the presence of -n’t seems to be key here:

3. ?? If I had not have had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.
4. * If I had have had that cake, it would’ve gone mouldy.

Honestly 4 kinda works for me.

Interesting… for me it’s completely ungrammatical, no uncertainty about it.

"If I had had that cake, it wouldn't've gone mouldy" definitely works for me. So does "If I had've known, I wouldn't've eaten the cake" (only informally though). Combining those to make 4 only makes it a bit weirder.

Darren wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:42 am "If I had had that cake, it wouldn't've gone mouldy" definitely works for me.

This is just standard English, surely?

So does "If I had've known, I wouldn't've eaten the cake" (only informally though). Combining those to make 4 only makes it a bit weirder.

Maybe the key then is the contraction of have to ’ve [ə], not just not (although I think not definitely helps).

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:36 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 6:18 pm I think it's a generalisation of 'I could have done that', which doesn't really make a lot of sense when one analyses it.

This particular construction does make sense to me. You just need to notice that English modals don’t really have past tense forms — so if you want to place a modal in the past, you need to use a perfect, and there’s only one syntactically valid way of doing that.

That's a tad difficult when they do, as is most clearly seen when the sequence of tenses rule is applied.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 7:28 am

Darren wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:42 am "If I had had that cake, it wouldn't've gone mouldy" definitely works for me.

This is just standard English, surely?

This to me is standard English. It does not exude any of the auxiliary funniness that is present in these other examples.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 7:28 am

So does "If I had've known, I wouldn't've eaten the cake" (only informally though). Combining those to make 4 only makes it a bit weirder.

Maybe the key then is the contraction of have to ’ve [ə], not just not (although I think not definitely helps).

To me the negation is not necessary, just the reduction of have to [ə]~[əv]~[əf].

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 12:46 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:36 am

Richard W wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 6:18 pm I think it's a generalisation of 'I could have done that', which doesn't really make a lot of sense when one analyses it.

This particular construction does make sense to me. You just need to notice that English modals don’t really have past tense forms — so if you want to place a modal in the past, you need to use a perfect, and there’s only one syntactically valid way of doing that.

That's a tad difficult when they do, as is most clearly seen when the sequence of tenses rule is applied.

What do you mean by ‘the sequence of tenses rule’?

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 12:48 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 12:46 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:36 am

This particular construction does make sense to me. You just need to notice that English modals don’t really have past tense forms — so if you want to place a modal in the past, you need to use a perfect, and there’s only one syntactically valid way of doing that.

That's a tad difficult when they do, as is most clearly seen when the sequence of tenses rule is applied.

What do you mean by ‘the sequence of tenses rule’?

Where subordinate clauses agree with the clause to which they are subordinate with regard to tense.

One thing that should be remembered is that in many modern English varieties, should is not a past tense/subjunctive counterpart to shall but rather a modal by itself because shall is primarily limited to high registers and is effectively moribund in everyday speech (in this way it reminds me of whom, which I did not know the "correct" usage of before I took some German in college and realized it was the English counterpart to StG wen and wem).

Sorry for asking something so obvious, but the results of my quick web search on the matter seem to be a bit contradictory:

"Celts" and "Celtic" - hard or soft c?

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 2:03 am Sorry for asking something so obvious, but the results of my quick web search on the matter seem to be a bit contradictory:

"Celts" and "Celtic" - hard or soft c?

Usually hard, but it can be soft in some contexts, e.g. the Glasgow football club.

anteallach wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 2:50 am

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 2:03 am Sorry for asking something so obvious, but the results of my quick web search on the matter seem to be a bit contradictory:

"Celts" and "Celtic" - hard or soft c?

Usually hard, but it can be soft in some contexts, e.g. the Glasgow football club.

Thank you. That's roughly what the web search told me, but I wasn't sure if it might be a British vs. American thing.

I have always heard that "Canadian goose" is considered wrong and one should instead say "Canada goose". Why don't other animals follow the same convention, though? Nobody says "Persia cat" or "Ireland setter" or "Africa elephant" after all.

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 10:25 am I have always heard that "Canadian goose" is considered wrong and one should instead say "Canada goose". Why don't other animals follow the same convention, though? Nobody says "Persia cat" or "Ireland setter" or "Africa elephant" after all.

Because languages aren't "logical".

There is a fun folk etymology that the goose is named after ornithologist John Canada, not the country. Alas, there is no record of such a person, and the story is almost certainly a myth created to explain the unusual formula of the name. The nominal use of place names seems more common for plants, as exemplified by the Canada thistle.

There's a similar discrepancy between state and national descriptors for goods. In American English (unlike British English from what I've seen and heard), we typically don't say "Floridian oranges" but rather "Florida oranges"; "Texas brisket" and not "Texan brisket."

Glass Half Baked wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:43 pm There is a fun folk etymology that the goose is named after ornithologist John Canada, not the country. Alas, there is no record of such a person, and the story is almost certainly a myth created to explain the unusual formula of the name. The nominal use of place names seems more common for plants, as exemplified by the Canada thistle.

As a sidenote, am I the only one annoyed by the presumed recent tendency for country adjectives to fall out of use completely? As in "China restaurant" instead of "Chinese restaurant" or "Spain road" instead of "Spanish road"? Or maybe I'm reading too much non-native English online. I dunno.

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 3:40 pm As in "China restaurant" instead of "Chinese restaurant" or "Spain road" instead of "Spanish road"?

Do you mean this Spanish Road? How often do people even talk about that one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Road

Petition to rename this thread "England Questions."

Sign your name:

1. Glass Half Baked

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 4:10 pm

Zju wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 3:40 pm As in "China restaurant" instead of "Chinese restaurant" or "Spain road" instead of "Spanish road"?

Do you mean this Spanish Road? How often do people even talk about that one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Road

No, I made up the example. But I swear I kept seeing such examples quite often one or two months ago.

Does anyone else use tag or (which I invariably pronounce as /ər/ [ʁ̩ˤ]) at the end of sentences in English? (I myself use it very frequently without even thinking.) I know that tag oder is very normal in spoken German, and it seems to be pretty similar in meaning. I never see it in written English, even English that is meant to be informal or to reflect everyday speech.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 3:54 pm Does anyone else use tag or (which I invariably pronounce as /ər/ [ʁ̩ˤ]) at the end of sentences in English? (I myself use it very frequently without even thinking.) I know that tag oder is very normal in spoken German, and it seems to be pretty similar in meaning. I never see it in written English, even English that is meant to be informal or to reflect everyday speech.

Never heard of this before.