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.

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.

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=150513

is sufficient.

Did your screen go wide, Faldage? Anyone?

>>by which Jane is equally pleased<<

True, I interpreting.

edited out long url to unwiden screen

>Did your screen go wide, Faldage? Anyone?

you've got to be kidding!?

My screen went absurdly wide.

pssst, Jackie.. come here for a second..

why, exactly, do you think we preach cutting off those links
after Number=xxxxxx??

funny, mine didn't go wide. it put in a line break after the ? both times...

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.

>mine didn't go wide. it put in a line break after the ? both times...

I just checked, and firefox goes wide, IE puts in line breaks -- this on a 19" FPD, full screen, 1024x768.
(in the interests of full disclosure)

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.

I would like to hazard a more pointless exercise for anyone who has anything better to do with their idle time.

a) Jean would have liked to have seen those letters.
b) Jean would have liked to see those letters.

Thank heavens, some of us are still possessed with common sense.

I think you have wandered onto the wrong board, somehow.

I didn't bring the question up. In answering it, I was trying to put it aside.

It is incredible that you should criticise me for not being above a question posted by another poster.

If you showed the same magnanimity, this would still be a question about the predicates to dependent clauses in the subjunctive mood, and not a character attack.

So in that sense you are right. I have "wandered onto the wrong board, somehow."

Good-bye.

that's a shame, Ulrich. sorry to see you go.

I'm one that doesn't know my dependent clauses from Santa, I just enjoy talking about words. there are others who just want to c(l)ause disruption.

"moss" is a sock puppet (pseudonym) for an individual who has been banned by management from this site. Apparently, he has taken the trouble to find another computer from which to post. He uses other pseudonyms as well, including "plutarch" "carpathian" and several more. Apparently, he has seen fit to find another computer from which to post. It is generally believed that it is his intention to destroy this board.

I am so angry I can hardly type straight; but first, I'll respond to tsuwm's question: no, I wasn't kidding. My screen did not go wide--that's why I was asking if anyone else's had. I have now EDITED THE POST to break up the not-actually-clickable-link; I hope that helped.

Now...moss/plutarch--you have NO RIGHT to come back on here and accuse other people of not having common sense! What do you call bringing up that name that you said Father Steve--a member of the clergy!!!!--had been called?! If you think that is common sense, then Buster, you have another think coming. I call it damned poor taste.

I'm going to PM ullrich and try to apologize for you--but all I can do is hope to undo the damage you have done...yet again. I wish you would stay away from AWADtalk, period, no matter what name you sign up under. As I told you before, the good posts that you have made are NOT WORTH all the headaches you have caused. To MANY MANY people here, not just me.

I have now EDITED THE POST to break up the not-actually-clickable-link; I hope that helped.

Your post is just fine now, Jackie. Now all we have to do is
get tsuwm to edit his where he quoted you.

I GUESS your not the only one to edit a post--but as USUAL, MOSS (AKA PLUTARCH, etc) has edit his post --with out noting his edits--to make it seem totally bland and simple..AND to TRY TO MAKE IT APPEAR as if others are acting UNREASONABLE.

TRUTH is, the current "POSTS' by MOSS ARE LIES. LIES OF OMMISSION. HE has edited away his insults. and he is pretendign to be "mr. NICEGUY'. DON'T be fooled.

I saw "moss" had made a moderate number of postings, and jumped to the conclusion that he was a established member and therefore in some way representative of the attitude of this forum.

Clearly he is not.

I'm sorry if my depature was curt, but I thought that I had found yet another potentially enjoyable chat forum ruined by that intellectual hauteur, nitpicking and antagonism people like "moss" seem to relish in.

I was wrong.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the situation with "moss" to me.

Re: I thought that I had found yet another potentially enjoyable chat forum ruined by ...nitpicking ...

we have some nitpicker's extrordinare here.. but they are not vicious. just pendantic!

so, if nitpicking is pet peeve.. well expect to get petted (or peeved!)
(i am glad you came back!)

Good.

In that case, I would like to point out the following:

The word 'hazard' is a transitive verb and must take a direct object. For example, 'wear' -- another transitive verb -- is never used without an object, as in "I like to wear."

Transitive verbs without objects leave one asking "what?"

Take, for example, the recent riposte:

"I would like to hazard a more pointless exercise for anyone who has anything better to do with their idle time."

In this sentence, the object of 'hazard' is a more pointless exercise. One is left wondering what more pointless exercise the poster is going to hazard. None is given, and, in such cases, the statement itself must stand in, by default, for the missing object.

This is unintentionally and disastrously ironic: the more pointless exercise the poster hazards is his own criticism of that exercise.

I appreciate that this is a forum about lexicon, and not syntax, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

" . . . appreciate that this is a forum about lexicon, and not syntax, but I thought it was worth mentioning.'

lol.

Syntax is good! I, Hazard.

Good.

In that case, I would like to point out the following: Hey--now don't be takin' too many daggoned liberties, Bub!
So glad you're back! [hug] That guy has cost us several members, and I just got enraged when I saw he'd managed it yet again.

"I would like to hazard a more pointless exercise for anyone who has anything better to do with their idle time."

<mutter>
must have dropped inexplicably out of self-editing/effacing loop...</mutter>

-ron (lending an ear) obvious

I appreciate that this is a forum about lexicon, and not syntax, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Just a nit to pick, but the sentence is syntactically correct, as you pointed out. The fault lies in the pragmatics of moss's posting.

[Edited typo.]

> The fault lies in the pragamatics of moss's posting.

one must assume you meant pragmatics and not pangrammatics, as I don't spot a q in moss's post.
-joe (nitwit) friday

pragamatics / presto chango / perigrammaticists

'umble zmjezhd as in PIE

'umble zmjezhd as in PIE

Yes. The syntax is correct, but only if the poster meant to say: "Here is a more pointless exercise." I am sure he did not mean to say that, so I would maintain that it is in fact a question of synax : a case of syntatical malapropism.

When correct syntax in the wrong context conveys the wrong meaning then it is not "corrrect" syntax, no more than "defecation" is the right word in the sentence "I am suing her for defecation" although the word "defecation" itself is "correct" the intended word is "defamation" (unless of course... but no, let's no go there).

"I am suing her for defecation"

Uli, people have said stranger things than this in my courtroom!

Daggoned liberties?

Forgive the tu quoque, but the poster in question set the precedent.

Could also be defalcation.

the poster in question set the precedent.
That is irrelevant. You have taken a liberty without proper pre-authorization. All liberties must be applied for at the, uh, Department of Liberties Department. You did not file such a request. Please see the Clerk of Liberties should you desire to take any liberties in the future. Ask for Requisition Form Number 75-H-615j; in triplicate.
*********************************************************

Seriously, now: what is a 'tu quoque', please?

'tu quoque' is a logical fallacy. It is performed by responding to the accusation "You did X" by saying "Maybe, but you did X, too." Whether or not the accuser did X is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the original accusation. The response is a sort of red herring which doesn't respond at all to the accusation but rather launches another in answer, thereby hoping to redirect the argument away from the original accusation.

Tu quoque: "Oh, like you've never made a mistake."

Perhaps the most overworked logical fallacy?

Does anyone know the precise translation of this phrase?

Is it, roughly, "you yourself" ?

the precise translation of this phrase

quoque, placed after the word which it emphasizes, also, too.

"placed after the word which it emphasizes."

I don't understand. Postpositively? Adverbially? Could you possibly offer an example?

(By the way: if threads digress as widely as this one has from the original subject line, is it customary to start a new thread? Just wondering).

The response is a sort of red herring which doesn't respond at all to the accusation
Something like begging the question, then?