|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
newbie
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 38 |
In my proposed solution to this ongoing thread, I mistakenly switched "first case" and "second case" in the second paragraph. But I have rewritten and reposted my comments here, as a new thread, with apologies (as if grammar were not confusing enough).
RE:
a) Jean would have liked to have seen those letters.
b) Jean would have liked to see those letters.
I would like to hazard a solution to the discussion as to which of these two sentences is the correct one.
They are both correct.
In the first case the predicate of the dependent clause is in the present perfect tense; while in the second case the predicate is in the simple present tense.
In other words, the subjunctive modal 'would' governs, in the first case, a verb phrase in the present perfect (inflected to indicate a state of completion), and in the second case, a verb form in the infinitve (without any inflection to indicate a state completion).
It is simply a difference of how you choose to conceive the imagined enjoyment of Jane in the event she had seen the letters.
In the first case, the speaker imagines Jane has already seen ("have seen") the letters, and is pleased. In the second case the speaker imagines the abstract experience of seeing the letters without any indication of time or completion ("to see"), by which Jane is equally pleased.
Now, unless I'm mistaken, it's merely a different use of tense to express the cause of a hypothetical state in the subjunctive mood.
Your thoughts here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Um...I'm not sure it was a case of one being incorrect; let me go take another look.
Edit: tell you what--I think this thread may be a matter of lack of information. I suspect you may not have realized you could have edited your other post, and therefore didn't have to start over; however, if you simply chose to start over anyway, that's okay too.
I was going to PM you, but we've had a couple other new folks lately, so I'll post in case they weren't aware of a few things. Oh--welcome aBoard, by the way!
Re: editing posts--you know the little gold icon that you click on to Reply to a Post? On your own posts, you should see a second one next to that one--click on that, and you will be given a screen that will allow you to edit or delete your post.
Re: making posts--if you look up towards the top of your screen where your text window is, you'll see a sentence that ends with you may use markup in your posts. If you click on the last four words, you'll be given some instructions on how to do things like make your text colored, italicized, etc. There is also a way to make links in your posts clickable, something that I in particular would appreciate very much; more often than not, I don't take the time to click on them anyway [shame e], and I almost never take the trouble to copy an address and paste it into a new window. Just the way I operate.
Essentially, most things are done by putting some instruction--say, a color or url--inside these brackets [] in front of whatever you want changed, then putting a slash in front of it--/instruction--in another set of [] after. The instruction (sorry, I don't know the proper term for telling a computer what to do) to make an address clickable is url. So you would put url inside [], then the address, and /url inside the brackets at the end of the address. Lemme see--I'll use the other brackets as an ex., so it won't actually change the text:
{url}http://wordsmith.org/board/editpost.
plCat=&Board=words&Number=150513&page=0&view=
collapsed&what=showflat&sb=5&part=1&vc=1{/url}
Had I used [] instead of {}, all you'd have seen (or would have liked to have seen, heh) would have been the link, clickable. Two things, re: addresses:
1.) I used to put them wherever I had stopped typing, and they didn't always work; however, since I began starting a new line whenever I put an address to link to, I have had no problems.
2.) For AWAD addresses, please delete everything after the post number, 150513 in the above case. Long addresses tend to make the screen go wide, meaning you have to scroll from side to side to finish reading; rather a pain.
***********************************************************
Thank you again, tsuwm, for providing all this info. and for holding my hand through those instructions which were incomprehensible to me at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
And, of course, Jackie has shown, by negative example, the perils of using the entire string involved in the url. You don't need the entire string when making a link to an old post or thread just the part up to that "Number= nnnnnn" is enough. Posting the entire string will make the screen go wide on many browsers. Thus: http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=150513is sufficient.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Did your screen go wide, Faldage? Anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
>>by which Jane is equally pleased<<
True, I interpreting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
edited out long url to unwiden screen
>Did your screen go wide, Faldage? Anyone?
you've got to be kidding!?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
My screen went absurdly wide.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
pssst, Jackie.. come here for a second..
why, exactly, do you think we preach cutting off those links
after Number=xxxxxx??
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
funny, mine didn't go wide. it put in a line break after the ? both times...
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
newbie
|
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 38 |
Thank you very much for the instruction.
Apposite to the purpose for which this message board was created, let me put it thusly:
What is the opposite of computer-genius?
Let it be my new moniker.
However, I only wish your attention to the details of the message board's technical workings extended to the entries they are surely ancillary to.
To explain:
You write:
"I'm not sure it was a case of one being incorrect; let me go take another look [...] tell you what--I think this thread may be a matter of lack of information."
But I'm afraid it was a question of one being (believed to be) incorrect.
Recall the poster from the same thread who wrote:
"What I struggle with is that "would have liked" sounds like past tense, and "see" sounds like present tense."
You will argue that here the poster is merely speaking of preference, not of correct or incorrect. But I rest my case on the word "struggle".
It was this "struggle" I was addressing.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,810
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
373
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
