English Language Learners

F.E.

05:46

. . . yawn . . .

F.E.

06:01

2

Q: If : second conditional or third conditional

PEU. 256 and 426 says that In most subordinate clauses, we use past tenses to express 'unreal' or conditional ideas: If you asked me nicely, I might get you a drink. But why not "If you had asked me nicely, I would have got you a drink."? It seems like one asked the other in ...

if-clause

Sounds like a similar sort of question that's often asked. . . .

Damkerng T.

It's something not very intuitive for learners from my neighborhood.

F.E.

Using a past-tense verb for a purely modal use. Even native English speakers aren't aware that that is what they are doing. :)

skullpatrol

agree^

F.E.

I'm sorta been interested in this topic:

> "Could there be hidden in one of those space saucers sitting down there in the field his long lost sister?"

The question is: Is that a passive existential?

Supposedly, the grammatical answer is: There is no such thing as a passive existential.

But, the more I'm thinking and looking at this topic, the more I'm not so sure about that. :)

Damkerng T.

@F.E. I kinda struggle to understand that!

F.E.

06:10

Tiger go and parse it for Robot (and hoomins):

Damkerng T.

"It's about space saucers... hmm, wait, no, it's down there in the field, ... now I'm confused."

F.E.

> "Could there be hidden [A: in one of those space saucers sitting down there in the field] [B: his long lost sister]?"

Damkerng T.

A-ha! That helps!

F.E.

Same as: "There could be [B] hidden [A]." <== supposedly the grammatical parse. Supposedly.

Tiger intentionally made PP ("A") be very, very heavy -- compared to the NP ("B").

Damkerng T.

I was thinking that his sister was sitting down there in the field for a while.

F.E.

06:14

Tiger could shorten the PP, to make it more acceptable:

> 3. "Could there be hidden [A: in one of those space saucers] [B: his long lost sister]?"

Damkerng T.

Now that's easy to read. :-)

F.E.

But if the PP becomes too light, then that would weaken one of Tiger's grammatical arguments.

Compare to:

> 4. "Could there be [B: his long lost sister] hidden [A: in one of those space saucers sitting down there in the field]?"

That version #4 seems to sound okay . . .

Damkerng T.

nods

F.E.

One question would be if the following would also be acceptable:

> 5. "Could there be hidden [B: his long lost sister] [A: in one of those space saucers sitting down there in the field]?"

Not sure how that version #5 would actually affect Tiger's devious grammatical rationale on this topic. :D

Damkerng T.

I think it's possible because B is getting heavier. I guess if B is really heavy, shifting B to the end of the sentence might be more likely.

F.E.

06:21

But version #5 sure does have the appearance of being a passive existential, if such creatures didd exist.

@DamkerngT. Yes, that is one of CGEL's arguments, as to why a (heavy) NP ends up at the end (as in some earlier versions).

But, it's kinda, somewhat, unusual for an element to jump over a much heavier element when it's getting postposed (I think).

Usually, the manipulations end up shoving the real heavy stuff at the end of the sentence.

That's why I wanted to use "good" examples where the PP was much heavier than the NP which is getting postposed.

Damkerng T.

And it threw me off a bit.

F.E.

That's probably because robots haven't seen many space saucers.

Damkerng T.

Maybe I really do expect the heaviest phrase at the end of the sentence, not in the middle.

@F.E. Hah!

That's true, though. :D

F.E.

@DamkerngT. Yes, what I kinda was thinking of trying to do was to create an example where having the NP at the very end would be natural, and yet, at the same time, the PP in front of it would have been too heavy for any NP to have jumped over in order to get to that end spot.

But I think a sentence like version #5 might be good enough for Tiger's devious grammatical plan.

That is, I'll be the devil's advocate for arguing the position of the existence of a passive existential. :D

Then Tiger gets to win everyone's tray of lasagna!

Damkerng T.

Hah! :D

F.E.

06:31

. . . anyhow . . .

Wow, I'm no longer logged in to ELL. (I am now just a visitor?) But I'm still logged in on ELU. . . .

I'm assuming that's from their ongoing buggy stuff on STACK Exchange code . . .

skullpatrol

yep

Damkerng T.

I found that sometimes, and I was sure that I hadn't logged out of any sites.

F.E.

Did you have to log back in, or was there another way? (I don't have the password handy.)

Damkerng T.

I had to re-log in.

F.E.

Ouch.

. . . . searching . . . .

Damkerng T.

06:36

Hmm... But sometimes clicking on the sign-in button just worked.

F.E.

I had to re-login, but then I got an error message -- BUT it worked! . . . Weirdness . . .

0

Q: Looking for a formal word has the same meaning of "well done"

I once heard a friend said a word to a friend who just had a new born baby, as i looked it up in the dictionary, i found its meaning equals "well done, nice job or praise someone for their nicely done job", but it's a formal word, like Congratulations, or my Condolences Unfortunately, now i've f...

formal

That belongs on ELU!

It's a SWR!

Them get pushed "up" to ELU. Grammar questions get "lowered" to ELL. :)

Tiger on page 256 now. Learning about PCs.

2

Q: If : second conditional or third conditional

PEU. 256 and 426 says that In most subordinate clauses, we use past tenses to express 'unreal' or conditional ideas: If you asked me nicely, I might get you a drink.(second conditional) But why not "If you had asked me nicely, I would have got you a drink."?(third conditional...

if-clause

I'm almost bored enough to answer that . . . :(

Damkerng T.

06:54

Hooray! :)

Oh, the site just kicked me out too.

skullpatrol

The whole network is kicking people out left and right.

Damkerng T.

I almost forgot my password. :)

F.E.

@skullpatrol Have hoomins been getting problems? So far, it's been a tiger and a robot . . . :D

user116848

So who is bugging the SE site?

user116848

Is there a person or is it some technical problem?

skullpatrol

07:10

11 hours ago, by skullpatrol

in Mathematics, 9 mins ago, by robjohn

A minor firewall change had some very ill effects, we have reverted and are digging into the issue.

Tweeted by StackStatus on August 25, 2014 at 7:36 PM

F.E.

(cont.) I was writing up an answer for that conditional question, got the answering half done, but when I tried to explain it by start with the open conditional versions, then I found myself getting myself all confused . . . so, not sure if I should even try in this condition of mine.

But if they had "reverted", then there shouldn't be these problems . . .

user116848

@skullpatrol Oh, I see

F.E.

Me thinks they ain't telling the whole story.

Perhaps they tried to re-introduce some of the new code . . .

skullpatrol

@F.E. Me too.

user116848

@F.E. Whatever it is, they must be doing it for our benefit I bet.

F.E.

07:14

(cont.) For the conditional question: maybe I'll just put my stuff into comments. . . .

Okay, wrote up two comments instead. (Too tired to attempt to write up a rationale grammatical full-answer.)

> PEU. 256 and 426 says that <== @DamkerngT. isn't that the grammar book you're using?

Damkerng T.

07:30

@F.E. Ah, yes. PEU is my main grammar book.

F.E.

@DamkerngT. Then you probably are more vested in answering that conditional question. :)

Tiger be getting himself sleepy . . .

Damkerng T.

I think your two comments already make a good answer. :)

Have a good sleep!

Nico

11:35

@StoneyB I would've written:

> (2) I told you then that if you had asked me nicely, I might have got you a drink.

Well, at least, that's how I was taught to do reported speech.

0

A: If : second conditional or third conditional

Start by dismissing the ‘first / second / third conditional’ notion from consideration—that is a ‘baby rule’ for introducing beginners to conditional constructions. The sentence given in your quote may mean two different things: it may be (1) a tentative (hypothetical) conditional in the presen...

skullpatrol

@nico how about "have gotten"?

Nico

@skullpatrol BrE here! :)

skullpatrol

icic

Martin Sleziak

12:14

"I have answered one the question before looking for duplicates. Maybe I should have searched first - it is a kind of question which is very likely to have been asked before."

Is that gramatically correct? I am not sure about the phrase "likely to have been asked before". I wanted to express that something (=posting of the same question) very probably happened before another event in the past (=posting a new, duplicate question).

(I am not sure this room is the correct place to ask questions like this. I hope they are allowed.)

Nico

It sounds fine to me

Martin Sleziak

Thanks Nico!

Nico

@MartinSleziak I'd say: "one question"

Martin Sleziak

You're right

Nico

or just "a question"

Martin Sleziak

12:18

In fact, in the place where I used that sentence I wrote "one of them".

I edited it, since it would be missing context when posted here. And I have forgotten to remove the word "one".

It seems that using SE might not only be a pleasant way to procrastinate, but it might help to improve my English as well.

StoneyB

12:38

@Nico ah, but that means something else. That means that the possibility of your giving him a drink had been open at some time prior to the past time when you told him that, but that this had not occurred because in fact he had not, on that prior occasion, asked you nicely.

Nico

...Nico's thinking and re reading StoneyB's answer...

> I told you then that if you asked me nicely, I might get you a drink.

It feels like a case of backshift

I would say:

> If you ask me nicely, I may get you a drink. (said in the past)

> I told you then that if you asked me nicely, I might get you a drink. (reported in the present)

... I'm thinking aloud...

StoneyB

14:16

@Nico That's exactly correct: and in fact I believe I said exactly that.

Nico

Thanks. Now I get it.

user116848

14:47

in English Language & Usage, 30 secs ago, by Arrowfar

►

skullpatrol

23:07

@MartinSleziak this room is the most enjoyable place to learn English :-)

Jolenealaska

23:43

@skullpatrol it does seem that way. We're largely a pleasant bunch.

StoneyB

23:54

Hi, @Jolenealaska et al

Jolenealaska

Hi Stoney! Long time no talk to.

StoneyB

Been busy getting my wife off to grad school.

Jolenealaska

Exciting!

What's her field?

StoneyB

English lit - primarily Anglo-Saxon.

(She's the smart one in the family)

Exciting, but I miss her.

Jolenealaska

Nice. Guess what's finally coming to Anchorage??

Ah, is school away?

StoneyB

23:58

ummm ... Les Miz?

Jolenealaska

YES!!! :)

StoneyB

Yes, Tennessee.

It had to be - I can't imagine anything that would excite you more.

Transcript for

English Language Learners