Conversation started Jul 24, 2014 at 5:48.
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 05:48
@F.E. Hi dude!
F.E.
F.E.
@Arrowfar What's up?
user116848
@F.E. Good. You? How are things?
F.E.
F.E.
Got some things done, and now have a little time to procrastinate.
user116848
So I have this question...May I?
F.E.
F.E.
Sure, as long as it's about grammar. :)
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 05:53
@F.E. Will we follow this sentence with past or present (But I think usually present is used)----> "What you were saying was that he was/is going to......."?
user116848
Sorry was typing slow :)
F.E.
F.E.
Try to parse that sentence, by bolding the main verb, and by [xx] the LHS (subject) and the RHS (predicative complement). By doing that, that can help you in seeing stuff.
Also, you could then put that sentence into present tense, sorta, e.g. "[LHS] is [RHS]".
user116848
"He is....." right? What do you think. But I thought why don't we use backshifting in sentences like these.
user116848
Here LHS-> Left hand side? and vice versa?
F.E.
F.E.
1) "[What you were saying] was [that he was/is going to school]."
2) "[What you are saying] is [that he is going to school]."
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 05:58
So here can we use '...was going to school' to mean present?
F.E.
F.E.
Look at #2 carefully.
user116848
yeah
F.E.
F.E.
You could actually say that to him as you are talking to him.
All present tense, right?
user116848
With 'was'?
F.E.
F.E.
#2 version -- with is.
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 05:59
Yeah #2 is all present. Yes
F.E.
F.E.
The preterite can be used for 3 major uses: past time, modal remoteness, backshift.
user116848
yeah you told me that the other day. Yes.
F.E.
F.E.
Your first problem is to figure out whether the LHS and RHS deals with past time or not.
user116848
Mm
user116848
So in #1 what does 'was' say?
F.E.
F.E.
Jul 24, 2014 06:03
For instance: 3) "[What you were saying yesterday] is [that he was going to school later that afternoon]."
Notice the two preterites being used for past time in the LHS and RHS.
Notice that the main verb "is" is present tense.
user116848
That's a good one! Yeah I notice 'is' and LHS, RHS 'past'
F.E.
F.E.
Right, for the "is" is like an equals sign: LHS == RHS.
That is one of the major uses of the present tense.
user116848
I see
F.E.
F.E.
So, we can have all three verbs be present tense -- version #2.
And we can have that mixed stuff in version #3.
Now let's look at a version where all three verbs are past tense -- which will be version #4.
4) "[What you were saying yesterday] was [that he was going to school later that afternoon]."
user116848
So (3 and (4 mean the same?
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 06:10
Right? I think they are same with backshifting in (4
F.E.
F.E.
That main verb "was" in #4 (the middle verb) could probably be thought to have past time meaning (imo).
user116848
Oh, yeah that. I see
user116848
But you didn't explain #1? Were you coming to that?
F.E.
F.E.
By having that middle verb ("is") be a preterite, that will usually allow you to backshift the verbs in the LHS and RHS -- because the LHS and RHS are subordinate to it.
user116848
Nods
F.E.
F.E.
Jul 24, 2014 06:14
Just on that last comment of mine, that basically tells you that you can usually use a preterite ("was") in your RHS -- because of the preterite "was" that's the main verb (the middle one). I'm talking about your original version (#1).
user116848
yes...
F.E.
F.E.
To use a present tense verb in the RHS for version #1, that might be harder to do. And it would probably be unacceptable more times than not.
There seems to be a mismatch for that version:
5) "[What you were saying yesterday] was [that he is (?) going to school later that afternoon]."
user116848
@F.E. But here is is only acceptable if afterrnoon hasn't arrived yet, right?
F.E.
F.E.
There's an extra constraint that must be fulfilled when the present tense (non-backshifted) verb is used in a subordinate clause like that in #5.
@Arrowfar That's the constraint I was thinking about. :)
user116848
:)
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 06:21
I read it in CGEl (those 151-160 pages)
F.E.
F.E.
But for #5, that constraint might not apply in a certain context: a context where the RHS is emphasizing almost exactly what the other guy had said yesterday. (imo)
user116848
@F.E. So FE the only thing unlear to me now is that in 1) "[What you were saying] was [that he was/is going to school]" both was and is could mean the same thing?
F.E.
F.E.
You see, that sentence could be about whether or not the other person had actually mentioned about the other person ("he") going to school later that afternoon. That is why I'm thinking that that could be a context where that extra constraint doesn't apply to it.
@Arrowfar The version with "was" in the RHS is the default version, and would most likely be the expected version. So, that version would have 3 preterites in it.
The version where the first two verbs are preterites, but the 3rd verb (RHS) has a present tense verb would probably be unacceptable in most contexts.
Though, I think I had presented a context where it could work.
CAVEAT: This is late at night, and my head is worn-out, and so, my grammar could be a bit shaky at the moment. :)
user116848
@F.E. But why present here after was. Search (Ctrl+F) this line "what you were saying was that" here--->http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3775585.htm
user116848
abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3775585.htm
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 06:34
@F.E. Bye bye!. I had not read your whole comment about 'night' :D
F.E.
F.E.
> BILL SHORTEN: [Well, what you said (past)] is [that we need to - what you were saying was that you need to explain your story better and I was taking that up invitation to do it on this very popular show.
user116848
So it is very informal I guess...
F.E.
F.E.
Notice that the matrix verb is present tense ("is").
user116848
yeah
user116848
@F.E. Who's CAVEAT? :D
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 06:37
Anyways.....I am listening.
F.E.
F.E.
Even if that matrix verb had been a preterite ("was"), the example basically is similar to what I was talking about earlier as the exception to that extra constraint.
Also, that's a transcript of actual dialogue. People speak "typos" all the time.
If you're looking for grammaticality, you should look at edited text: novels, books, etc.
Not word-for-word transcripts of real dialogue.
user116848
Yeah, I googled for my sentence and got that page. You are right though, it could be full of typos and informal language.
F.E.
F.E.
Notice the sentence in the 2nd half of his dialogue.
user116848
Yeah. Why not needed?
F.E.
F.E.
> [what you were saying] was [that you need to explain your story better]
@Arrowfar He could have. :)
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 06:42
@F.E. okay. Which would have been better, right? I mean 'needed'
F.E.
F.E.
Perhaps the speaker intentionally chose the present tense (for the RHS) to emphasize that the "need" is still ongoing.
user116848
It could be. Yes.
F.E.
F.E.
@Arrowfar For the speaker's intent, the better choice is probably what he actually used--present tense in this case. (imo)
But as for a test, you might rather use a preterite for that RHS . . .
Usually, a backshift preterite is an option. Which means that the speaker/writer doesn't have to use it--the original present tense verb could be retained (often or usually).
user116848
Yeah it is all clear now. Thanks so much FE.
F.E.
F.E.
Though, most often, the backshift is probably the default version.
You're welcome :)
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 06:47
@F.E. Thanks so much FE. (How did you know I was writing 'thanks'??)
user116848
:D
user116848
it's midday here. What time is it where you live?
F.E.
F.E.
Remember that the verb "need" is an unusual one, in that there is a modal and a lexical version of it. The modal "need" supposedly doesn't have a preterite form (if my memory is serving me right).
It is almost 2 AM for me.
user116848
:)
F.E.
F.E.
Maybe those previous examples with "need" in them should be looked at to see if they are using a modal "need" or not.
user116848
Jul 24, 2014 06:52
So you think they are using modal verb?
F.E.
F.E.
I'll let you work on that one. The info is in CGEL, in Chapter 3 "the verb". As for me, I'm going to take a nap . . . Bye. :)
user116848
Bye:)
 
Conversation ended Jul 24, 2014 at 6:54.