English Language Learners

Anonymous

5:24 AM

@DamkerngT. I don't read it that way

Damkerng T.

6:00 AM

I think it comes down to the progressive aspect.

Anonymous

The progressive aspect only lends that meaning in certain constructions. I don't think this is one of them.

Damkerng T.

No, I mean the difference between I won't be seeing Judy until ... and I won't see Judy until ...

Anonymous

Oh, I see

Anonymous

Yes, that is the only syntactic difference I see between those

Damkerng T.

The OP specifically asked about it.

Though they didn't think about it in term of the progressive aspect.

Anonymous

6:05 AM

I can't really think of a difference in meaning, myself

Damkerng T.

It caused me to spend a bit of time reading about the progressive.

Anonymous

My intuition says they're not quite the same, but I can't come up with anything concrete

Anonymous

So if I'm right, you can come up with a difference--I just haven't been able to think of what it is myself yet

Damkerng T.

Another example of the OP's was: I will be working until 8 a.m.

vs., I think, I will work until 8 a.m.

Anonymous

There, I think perhaps the latter is more volitional.

Damkerng T.

6:10 AM

Agree.

The latter sounds like "I decide to work until ..."

The former sounds like "I can see myself working (here) until ..."

Anonymous

Yeah. When you put it in the negative, that difference in volition disappears, but maybe the aspectual difference remains and puts an emphasis on the current state with the progressive

Anonymous

Hmm.

Anonymous

No, it's not quite parallel with the other example.

Anonymous

There's still a volitional reading in the negative: "I won't work until 8 a.m." = "I refuse to work until 8 a.m."

Damkerng T.

I think the verbs the OP chose are tricky (work and see).

Anonymous

6:13 AM

I suppose there's a volitional reading with "I won't see Judy until 8 a.m." but without further context I wouldn't normally think of it

Anonymous

There, see could mean something like "admit Judy into my office to discuss something" for example

Anonymous

But when I first saw the sentence, this reading of the sentence didn't occur to me

Damkerng T.

The OP's complete sentence was: I won't be seeing Judy until/before Tuesday.

(with slash)

Anonymous

Hmm. With until, it sounds like the speaker will see Judy on Tuesday. With before, it sounds uncertain when the speaker will see Judy, but it won't be on Monday or earlier

Damkerng T.

nods

Anonymous

6:16 AM

Actually, before doesn't sound as good with the progressive:

Anonymous

"I won't see Judy before Tuesday."
"I won't be seeing Judy before Tuesday." ← Hmm, I guess it's okay.

Anonymous

"I won't be seeing Judy before Tuesday at the earliest."

Anonymous

Ahh, this stuff is hard.

Damkerng T.

I think the sense of progressive has keep changing maybe since the last few decades.

I'm not very sure, but one of the papers I found yesterday suggests so.

It presents strange sentences and asks, "if this is acceptable".

I found that my sense of progressive allowance are somewhat different from the norm (those who answered the questions in the survey).

One example,

> Is she still liking England?

9 said acceptable, 16 said unacceptable

Anonymous

Yeah, so-called "progressive statives"? That example's fine to me.

Anonymous

6:21 AM

When? Who?

Damkerng T.

In the survey.

Anonymous

Yes, but when? Who? :-)

Damkerng T.

(I answered unacceptable before I checked out the results.)

The paper was from around 2002.

Anonymous

I would, however, mark that as informal.

Damkerng T.

Stative Verbs and the Progressive Aspect in English.

finding the link...

Anonymous

6:23 AM

Hmm, I may have read that. It's been a while.

Damkerng T.

ifa.amu.edu.pl/psicl/files/38/10Smiecinska.pdf

Anonymous

I wrote an answer mentioning this as an example of language change once, and it didn't get any upvotes IIRC. And StoneyB's comment saying it was bad got five upvotes :-)

Anonymous

Let's see if I can find it.

Anonymous

Ah, I misremembered.

Anonymous

I think you're mostly right, but I want to point out that there's a long-term trend toward using so-called "stative verbs" with the progressive aspect, and it's difficult to pin down when exactly it's natural to do so. See for example the McDonald's slogan "I'm lovin' it". — snailplane Feb 27 '13 at 12:44

Anonymous

6:26 AM

There you can see my comment has no upvotes, and StoneyB's has six :-)

Anonymous

Excellent point; but @omid and other Learners should also know that this is not Standard English and should not be employed in any but casual use. The slogan is only effective because it violates ordinary expectations. I think, moreover, that what we are seeing here is less a 'trend' than invention of new uses for old words, which happens continually - as in my use of are seeing, which represents a common extension of see to mean observe. — StoneyB Feb 27 '13 at 13:23

Anonymous

But it doesn't violate my expectations!

Anonymous

I get confused when people say that slogan is ungrammatical. To me, there's nothing weird about it, only informal.

Anonymous

This is upvoted too:

Anonymous

I agree with StoneyB, and tend to resist the trend snailplane noted, especially the McDonald's slogan. Using love and think (the latter in the sense of believe) in present continuous tense is only acceptable IMHO to describe a temporary stance - I am loving the novel so far, but I haven't finished reading it yet; I am thinking that she may be the right woman for me, but I may change my mind. Even in such temporary contexts, the simple present tense would be preferred for standard, correct grammaticality. — Shawn Mooney Feb 27 '13 at 14:14

Anonymous

6:28 AM

Ahh, ages 19 to 26

Anonymous

So that would be roughly ages 31 to 38 now.

Damkerng T.

That sounds like your age-group!

Anonymous

Yes! :-)

Anonymous

I turn 33 in August.

Damkerng T.

I don't like to type my age, but my birthday is next month. :-)

Anonymous

6:31 AM

So in December, I'll be a third of a century old.

Anonymous

All my life, all of my friends have been older than me.

Damkerng T.

Oh, one-third of a century!

Anonymous

I've always felt that if I act like my age is "too old" or "embarrassing" that it would be unkind to, well, all of my friends!

Damkerng T.

50 is the new young.

Anonymous

And besides, it's a bit stereotypical behavior, you know? "Oh, I've been 22 for the last ten years!" That sort of thing ;-)

Anonymous

6:33 AM

Because if I'm embarrassed to be 32, what does that say to my friends in their 40s? Or older?

Anonymous

So I'm 32. And next year, I'll be 33.

Anonymous

Well, this year, even ;-)

Anonymous

Also, it's all the same to kids.

Anonymous

To an eighteen-year-old, I'm simply "old"

Anonymous

You too. We're both "old".

Anonymous

6:35 AM

But we're also both "young", to some other people :-)

Anonymous

It's surprising to me how relative these concepts are.

Damkerng T.

It was funny that I thought that too, until I met a guy (a very nice guy) in Frankfurt 6-7 years ago.

He was in his late 50s.

And he called me "very young". :-)

So by his standard, we are still young. :-)

Like many people say, it's just a number, I think. :D

Maulik seems to ask about a definition of an "accent": ell.stackexchange.com/q/21847/3281

I don't know if I can find an official one for him. I'm sure it must be documented somewhere on the web.

> Handsome, stubby-legged pup has only until tomorrow

I'm not familiar with this usage of have, though I think it's easy to guess.

Anonymous

7:12 AM

I grabbed a definition from CEL.

Anonymous

(Note: CEL and CGEL are two very different books :-)

Damkerng T.

Yay!

You also mentioned Thai! :-)

Oh, maybe you, not CEL, mentioned it. :-)

Anonymous

Yeah, I did

Anonymous

I only included their definitions for accent and dialect

Damkerng T.

Phew! Edited in the last 6 seconds. I barely made it.

Anonymous

7:26 AM

Yay!

Anonymous

I left that answer GATA wanted.

Anonymous

I was too lazy to answer the other question along those lines a few weeks ago.

Anonymous

The one where J.R. said open was an adverb.

Damkerng T.

I've seen it. Now I'm not sure if I should remove the adverbial-phrase tag.

Anonymous

Eh.

Damkerng T.

7:27 AM

I think I will leave it there for a while; it might be useful in other questions.

Anonymous

It's got an answer that says it's an adverbial phrase, so why not?

Anonymous

That answer is just as upvoted as mine.

Damkerng T.

That's true. However, after our discussion yesterday, I think it's better to simply avoid the term "adverbial" in GATA's question.

What really surprised me was that nobody ever used this tag before.

We have lots of questions about grammar, but no adverbial-phrase tag!

I also kinda have homework requested by TJY.

Anonymous

Oh yeah?

Damkerng T.

Yup.

Anonymous

7:32 AM

Ah, I know who he is! :-)

Anonymous

But I don't know what the homework is.

Anonymous

Oh, you clicked a little bit to the left.

Anonymous

I do that all the time.

Damkerng T.

I always miscopy the links. :-)

Yeah!

@DamkerngT. I think you should write that up as an answer. — Tyler James Young 18 hours ago

Anonymous

Yes, it looks like TJY's comment agrees with yours.

Damkerng T.

7:34 AM

And I pasted a wrong comment, at that. :D

Anonymous

Because X, so therefore consequently Y (as a result).

Damkerng T.

Yes. I wanted to hint nkm a bit. That was all.

Now I'm not sure how to compose my answer carefully.

For one thing, I don't quite like the OP's sentence:

> Ducks, geese, and swans are different types of waterfowl, but because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, so they comprise a single bird

Saying this sounds a bit awkward to me: Because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, they comprise a single bird.

The so alternative doesn't sound much better: They are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, so they comprise a single bird.

However, I think as (as Maulik suggested) can salvage it: As they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, they comprise a single bird.

And, imo, I like this better: Being similar in behavior and physical characteristics, they comprise a single bird.

skullpatrol

Don't biologists have a word that classifies them?

Just a suggestion :-)

Damkerng T.

I guess the sentence was from some biology textbook.

It was put into a grammar test, to point out that we shouldn't have both because and so in the same sentence.

skullpatrol

Ic ic

Damkerng T.

7:46 AM

Maybe I thought too much. :D

Ah, now I see why I don't like the sentence. It's because I couldn't see it as cause-consequence or reason-result.

It's more like X has two properties: X has property Y and X has property Z.

It sounds awkward when we say: Because X has the property Y, X has the property Z.

If we allowed that, we could turn the sentence around by saying: X has the property Y because X has the property Z.

Anonymous

8:30 AM

@DamkerngT. "They comprise a single bird" doesn't sound right to me.

Anonymous

For one thing, it sounds false.

Damkerng T.

Perhaps that's why I feel the sentence is awkward.

Anonymous

Together they do make up the single family Anatidae

Anonymous

But the reasoning given isn't sufficient to justify that

Damkerng T.

I think I have a clue why it sounds awkward. (I finally decided to search for it on the web.)

It was probably written by a Thai.

Oh, and the OP probably dropped some part of it!

> Ducks, geese and swans comprise a single bird family, Anatidae.

I think this sounds better.

Anonymous

8:38 AM

That is a little better.

Anonymous

But if it's part of the sentence with because . . . so, that still needs to be fixed

Damkerng T.

nods

I don't like the way it was used as a reason-and-result pattern.

But I don't know how to explain it (not even to myself).

Dropping either because or so might fix it.

Though I'm not sure if I will like it.

> Ducks, geese, and swans are different types of waterfowl, but because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, they comprise a single bird family.

> Ducks, geese, and swans are different types of waterfowl, but they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, so they comprise a single bird family.

Both of them sound better than the original. They look grammatical. I don't know why I don't like them. And I hate it when I don't know why.

Maybe it's sort of like that "deeply upholstered chairs and banquettes" for you. :-)

Anonymous

@DamkerngT. Because introduces an adjunct. It can be placed in more than one spot:

Anonymous

> They comprise a single family [ because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics ].

Anonymous

> "[ Because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, ] they comprise a family.

Anonymous

8:51 AM

> They comprise a family. 　　← adjunct removed

Damkerng T.

Yes, traditionally, I think because is used in complex sentences, whereas so (as a conj.) is used in coordinating sentences.

Anonymous

So has lots of uses. But if you said [ Because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, ] so they comprise a family

Anonymous

And you remove the adjunct:

Anonymous

So they comprise a family.

Anonymous

Now you have a different so.

Damkerng T.

8:53 AM

nods

Anonymous

What it looks like you've got in the original sentence is a coordinator putting two clauses together. Coordinators put together two things on equal terms.

Anonymous

But the adjunct has a subordinate clause. Subordinate clauses are not on equal terms.

Anonymous

You can't coordinate a main clause with a subordinate clause.

Anonymous

[ Because I like pie, ] and I went to the store. ←　Whuh?

Damkerng T.

> I like pie, so I went to the store.

Anonymous

8:55 AM

(Although [ Because [ I like pie and I went to the store ] ] would be possible.)

Damkerng T.

> I went to the store, so I like pie. <-- This sounds almost like what I feel for the original sentence (after because being removed).

> Because I went to the store, I like pie.

Anonymous

If you remove because, then you've got two clauses you can coordinate.

Anonymous

If you remove so, then you've got a subordinate clause and a main clause.

Anonymous

If you don't remove either, then it seems like you're marking the because-clause as coordinate and subordinate at the same time.

Damkerng T.

> Ducks, geese, and swans are different types of waterfowl, but [ because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, they comprise a single bird family. ]

Anonymous

8:58 AM

It doesn't work.　←　This was a continuation of my previous line. It wasn't a response to your quote.

Damkerng T.

? <-- I asked myself after I put the brackets around the because clause.

Anonymous

> Ducks, geese, and swans are different types of waterfowl, but [ [ because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, ] they comprise a single bird family. ]

Damkerng T.

I think syntactically it might work, but what about the semantic?

Anonymous

What do you think is semantically wrong with this sentence?

Damkerng T.

> I like pie, and I went to the store.

I think this one is acceptable.

Anonymous

9:01 AM

Sure.

Damkerng T.

> I like pie, so I went to the store.

This one sounds quite natural.

> Because I like pie, I went to the store.

Anonymous

Uh-huh.

Damkerng T.

This one should be fine, too.

> Because I went to the store, I like pie.

What about this one?

Anonymous

That's fine grammatically.

Anonymous

It doesn't really follow that you like pie, so it doesn't sound true, but

Damkerng T.

9:03 AM

That's why I mentioned syntactically and semantically.

Anonymous

I don't follow

Damkerng T.

I think it's fine grammatically in the "fine syntactically" sense.

Anonymous

Yes, but what does this have to do with the sentence we were discussing?

Damkerng T.

> Because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, they comprise a single bird family.

Anonymous

Sure.

Anonymous

9:04 AM

Are you under the impression that it works the other way around?

Damkerng T.

> Because they comprise a single bird family, they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics.

Anonymous

Well, that sounds falser.

Damkerng T.

I would say both are not good logically.

Anonymous

Well, the first one is better.

Anonymous

It's claiming that because they're similar in a couple ways, they're classified as a single family.

Anonymous

9:05 AM

That's not really how biological classification works, but

Damkerng T.

> Because (we observed that) they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, we classify them as a single bird family.

Anonymous

Their behavior and physical characteristics are definitely not a result of how they're classified

Anonymous

So when you turn it around, the sentence is significantly worse.

Damkerng T.

> Because we classified them as a single bird family, (it can be said that) they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics.

Anonymous

Ehhh.

Anonymous

9:07 AM

That doesn't follow.

Anonymous

The observations always come first. The classification is based on them.

Damkerng T.

And the explanation comes after the classification.

A observed the fact.

A classified it.

A is telling this to B.

(It would be different if A were writing this for A himself.)

And in fact, the writer wasn't the one who observed the facts himself.

The writer tried to state it as if the facts were always that way.

Anonymous

I don't think the question of who did the observations or classifications has any bearing on the truth value of the sentence in question

Damkerng T.

Let's recap:

> Ducks, geese, and swans are different types of waterfowl, but because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics, they comprise a single bird family.

There are three clauses in the sentence.

> a) Ducks, geese, and swans are different types of waterfowl.

> b) Ducks, geese, and swans are similar in behavior and physical characteristics.

> c) Ducks, geese, and swans comprise a single bird family.

It might be better to say: From the facts A and B, we conclude that C.

Or Because A and B, C.

I think Because A but B, C. is also possible.

Anonymous

A is not a cause of C.

Damkerng T.

9:14 AM

What the sentence did is this: A, but because B, C.

Anonymous

That's because C is in contrast to A, and B provides the justification for this contrast.

Anonymous

You could leave out B.

Damkerng T.

So you are saying that this is possible: Because B, not A, C.

Anonymous

Ducks, geese, and swans are different types of waterfowl, but ~~because they are similar in behavior and physical characteristics,~~ they comprise a single bird family.

Anonymous

I don't believe I said that, no.

Anonymous

9:36 AM

→ 23 messages moved to Trashcan

Damkerng T.

Eh? What just happened!

Anonymous

His other account is suspended from chat, so I suspended this one, too.

Anonymous

He made a new account to get around the suspension, it seems like.

Damkerng T.

Oh!

Anonymous

I was silent for a bit because I was looking up what he did with his other accounts.

Damkerng T.

9:39 AM

nods

Anonymous

There's no need for me to say anything more than that, I think.

Damkerng T.

I don't know if we should continue our discussion on the A, B, and C. :D

Anonymous

Only if you want to!

Damkerng T.

I read it again, and it looks rather okay. But if I gave it too much thoughts, it could start to look not quite okay. (semantically, I mean.)

I think I have a problem with a third-person observation/conclusion that was made to sound like a permanent fact.

I mean I understand it. Sometimes I might even do it myself. But I would avoid it when I tried to state anything carefully.

Anonymous

Well, I don't think the sentence is perfect.

Anonymous

9:44 AM

It's a lot better (closer to true) than when it said they comprise a single bird :-)

Damkerng T.

Oh, yes, I had a lot of problems with that. "A single bird! Whuh?"

Many questions sent me to dug up old ELL questions. I think the quality of ELL answers this time last year were much better than the recent answers.

Anonymous

Some ELU users were participating on ELL last year at this time, but aren't anymore.

Anonymous

Barry England, for example

Damkerng T.

I found some really good explanations by Cerberus back then too.

Anonymous

Cerberus still answers questions now and then.

Damkerng T.

9:54 AM

In the US, pavement means footpath, right?

Or the road itself (the part where the cars run on)?

Anonymous

Um, pavement here means ground that is paved.

Damkerng T.

So it could mean both, I think.

Anonymous

We don't usually refer to "a pavement" or use the term to describe paths that are paved

Anonymous

We use it to describe a material, and sometimes we refer to the surface of larger open spaces that are paved as "the pavement", most commonly roads and such

skullpatrol

A paved pathway.

Anonymous

9:56 AM

It's possible. But we wouldn't call it "a pavement"

Damkerng T.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Anonymous

In BrE, usage of pavement is different than in AmE. But even in BrE, it varies

Anonymous

I can't recall off the top of my head how to describe that variation, but I once read a description.

Damkerng T.