question about English grammar

konbanwa, JTT ! Let me first say that I do appreciate your understanding of the general English educational situation in Japan. It is really a bit of a fight, as you will evidently know, to wean students away from the 'test taking mentality.' For that specific reason, actually, I do focus much more on creative (yet thesis-related) writing and oral presentation (and, of course daily conversation too). That said, I have certain bounds which I will not cross; and one of them is allowing just any ole pattern of formulation--even if it may serve a certain purpose for a certain group of people to replace what I determine to be preferable formulation.

I think we'll find that there may well prove little need to further argue our points--in that it is obvious that we simply, fully disagree in our lines of reasoning. I am very certain that at the end of the day, most technically, we will have to acquiesce that where inflection due to syntax is not involved, a labeled part of speech, will consistently maintain its label. (1) The word never, then, will be found to always be an adverb of frequency--regardless of the word's being used in a situation where that is ignored for emotional reasons alone.

So yes, I do agree that 'what exists in language exists for a reason, and to not accept legitimate examples of usage, especially when there isn't any valid reason to not accept them, is simply, how can I phrase this, unacceptable, counterproductive, ... ,' yet, as I have presented (and not fully, I'll admit...I just ran out of time ... and now reason that further doing so would be of very little positive and productive-in-outcome result) I have determined that my reason for holding this position is not only valid, but pragmatic enough. (also an element of my position is that in this particular point under consideration, the linguistic usage is for a weaker reason)

As somewhat of a side point, I'd like to mention that while I both agree and fully acknowledge that any given word, in any given system of language, can, and usually will, have more than one meaning (or sense), the English word never--even used in the manner which you are taking the affirmative side for--does not change in actual meaning--it will still equal 'not at any time'--but simply the emotional tag will be added. The proof for this is found in the following:

I never heard the bell ring after first period class today will be fully satisfied, meaning wise by I did not hear the bell ring after first period class today at all (as opposed to simply, 'I didn't hear the bell ring after first period class today.'

Therefore while the meaning--the referent--will be no different, and the adverb-of-frequency nature will be intact, the more 'illicitly created' emotional effect will produce a certain result within a certain realm of speakers. If our sentence cannot be logically transposed to a perfect time reference, or cannot be demonstrated to show for unfulfilled intention, or desire, I would strongly urge caution in allowing such to be taught as praxis.

I fully appreciate your joining in the discussion here with me, JTT, ACB, McTag, fresco, and others, and hope to have further such discussions over time (especially when I have more time). I will give you the final post here, then, JTT, arigatou! (nihon ni nan nen imashita ka?; perhaps you may be interested in this thread?)

1. A noun always be a noun (unless forced by syntax to act as a quasi-verb He guitared that lick superbly), a verb, a verb, an adjective, an adjective, and an adverb, an adverb.

1 Reply

Just a thought.
A wonderful thread with thoughtful posts that make A2K a great forum.
Thanks you guys.

0 Replies

@McTag,

Nice to see you out and about again, Sire. How might it not be grammatical?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

How might it not be grammatical?

Well, it depends how it's used.

"I never wash" is grammatical, obviously.

but "I never heard you come in" is not. Correctly written, that would be "I didn't hear you come in".

But colloquially, people say it like that, for that meaning. It's a bit too sloppy for my tastes.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

Quote:

That said, I have certain bounds which I will not cross; and one of them is allowing just any ole pattern of formulation--even if it may serve a certain purpose for a certain group of people to replace what I determine to be preferable formulation.

Good day to you, KJ.

It's really not up to any one individual to determine "preferable formulation". There's been a long history of such endeavor and it has failed miserably. Preferable and factual are immutably incongruous.

[Allowably, there is preferable for a given register or circumstance]

Quote:

I am very certain that at the end of the day, most technically, we will have to acquiesce that where inflection due to syntax is not involved, a labeled part of speech, will consistently maintain its label. (1) The word never, then, will be found to always be an adverb of frequency--regardless of the word's being used in a situation where that is ignored for emotional reasons alone.

A labelled part of speech can't consistently maintain its label, KaiseiJin. What determines what part of speech a part of speech is is how it operates in a sentence. And sentences must operate in the real life world of language. 'never' will be an adverb of frequency when it's an adverb of frequency. When it ain't, it ain't.

Quote:

I never heard the bell ring after first period class today will be fully satisfied, meaning wise by I did not hear the bell ring after first period class today at all (as opposed to simply, 'I didn't hear the bell ring after first period class today.'

Quote:
Therefore while the meaning--the referent--will be no different, and the adverb-of-frequency nature will be intact, the more 'illicitly created' emotional effect will produce a certain result within a certain realm of speakers.

I don't think that the adverb of frequency nature is intact. If it was, we could easily substitute its negative counterpart;

?? I didn't ever hear the bell ring after first period class today. ??

I don't think that didn't ever has made the same leap that "not at all" never has made/made.

That realm is mighty large, being the entire English speaking planet. I note that you put quotes around illicitly created. But there's been nothing illicit about the change at all.

To my mind, it illustrates yet another example of an incredible language nuance; the 'not at any time' to the 'not at all'.

Quote:
If our sentence cannot be logically transposed to a perfect time reference, or cannot be demonstrated to show for unfulfilled intention, or desire, I would strongly urge caution in allowing such to be taught as praxis.

My guess is a BrE background, KJ. NaE uses the present perfect and the simple past in a manner that is somewhat different to that of BrE. Even the present perfect of experience is sometimes dropped in favor of a simple past,

Did you ever ski?

You've not shown any reason, by your own admission, KJ, (and not fully, I'll admit...I just ran out of time ..., that this already common piece of praxis should not be praxis.

0 Replies

@McTag,

I missed the ungrammatical explanation part, McTag.

1 Reply

@JTT,

You're far too laissez-faire about these things.

The rule is: If I like it, then it's grammatical. If not, then not.

Surely you would agree that it's sloppy to substitute "I never" for " I didn't"?

If you wouldn't, then "I never saw him" has two quite different meanings....which it shouldn't have, imho.

2 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

If you wouldn't, then "I never saw him" has two quite different meanings....which it shouldn't have, imho.

But there are several adverbs with two quite different meanings, e.g:

1a. Two quite different meanings (= completely)
1b. Two quite hot days (= moderately)

2a. He should have come sooner (= earlier)
2b. I'd sooner go on my own (= rather)

3a. Then something strange happened (= next)
3b. I was a child then (= at that time)

I expect that the "incorrect" meaning of I never saw him arose from the idea "I'll never admit that I saw him" or "There has never been any possibility that I saw him".

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

You're far too laissez-faire about these things.

The rule is: If I like it, then it's grammatical. If not, then not.

I'm not laissez-faire on it at all, McTag. The test is grammaticality and your inability to show why it's ungrammatical would make the test you've penned, above, describe you, not me.

The rule is, if it's grammatical, then you have to test for idiomatic. This structure passes both tests with flying colors.

Quote:

Surely you would agree that it's sloppy to substitute "I never" for " I didn't"?

If you wouldn't, then "I never saw him" has two quite different meanings....which it shouldn't have, imho.

There are thousands of things in language that can be glossed as having the same meaning. Language has context and that sorts these thing out.

So, of course I don't think it's sloppy in the least. It says something different. As I mentioned, "I didn't ..." is more the normal neutral, "I never ... " is emphatic.

0 Replies

@ACB,

Well okay, agreeing with most of what ACB and JTT say in their latest posts, except for

Quote:

As I mentioned, "I didn't ..." is more the normal neutral, "I never ... " is emphatic.

I was taught, and I still believe, that "I never" is not an acceptable replacement for "I didn't" even if emphasis is required.

So in Scotland, that fount of all academic knowledge, you would fail your English examination, JTT.

You can say "I never did", of course, but not "I never heard... the pin drop."

I never heard such nonsense...that's using never to mean "not ever", which is what it does mean.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

I was taught, and I still believe, that "I never" is not an acceptable replacement for "I didn't" even if emphasis is required.

The peeves threads illustrate for us that there was a lot of drivel taught to a lot of students, McTag.

I just can't imagine how these things get started or how they perpetuate. All one has to do is look around for examples that occur all the time.

It's akin to being taught that the Sun doesn't rise in the east, and simply accepting it at face value.

1 Reply

We seem to be polarised here. I think you are wrong. To me, it is slangy and sloppy to use "I never" in that way.

2 Replies

@McTag,

What do you think about the use of "Never fear" as an emphatic way of saying "Do not fear"?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

It's akin to being taught that the Sun doesn't rise in the east

I didn't never see the sun rise in the east or the world turn on a sixpence yet morning heralds hark the dawn .

0 Replies

@McTag,

Slang is a part of language too. But it certainly isn't slang, McTag, informal, but not slang.

=====================
Oxford Compact English Dictionary

never
• adverb 1 not ever. 2 not at all. 3 Brit. informal (expressing surprise) definitely or surely not.

— PHRASES never a one = not one.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/never?view=uk

======================

What exactly was it that you were taught that made it "ungrammatical"?

1 Reply

@ACB,

Quote:

What do you think about the use of "Never fear" as an emphatic way of saying "Do not fear"?

I think that's a red herring, and not directly relevant here, sorry.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

What do you think about the use of "Never fear" as an emphatic way of saying "Do not fear"?

It seems that this use of 'never' is 'not at any time' in the future. It doesn't seem particularly relevant to tell someone to not fear for the past. It's like the disappearing deontic modal 'must'; an admonition to do what one must do can't be continued past the point of anticipated completion.

But admittedly, the present simple 'do' speaks to a general time.

1 Reply

@JTT,

None of what you have written here allows you to replace "I didn't" with "I never".

Quote:

What exactly was it that you were taught that made it "ungrammatical"?

If you have to ask that, I fear you are beyond redemption.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

None of what you have written here allows you to replace "I didn't" with "I never".

Of course it does, McTag. It's done all the time by native speakers in every dialect of English the world over.

I ask about the grammatical aspect because, like with all these other nonsensical prescriptions, [where do these things come from?] that's been raised as an issue but like all the other nonsensical prescriptions, no one can show that there's anything wrong with the particular collocation under discussion.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
What do you think about the use of "Never fear" as an emphatic way of saying "Do not fear"?

It seems that this use of 'never' is 'not at any time' in the future.

I don't think that is always the case. Take the following quote from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar:

Never fear that: if he be so resolved,
I can o'ersway him.

The speaker is here referring to the fear that Caesar may stay away from the Capitol that day, thus depriving the conspirators of the chance to kill him. It is about a single, imminent event, so it cannot mean 'not at any time in the future'. There are no doubt many other such examples.

I think it is relevant to this thread, because the past-tense use of never in "I never heard you come in just now" likewise refers to a single event. A present-tense example is "That's never a fox!" (= that's certainly not a fox).

1 Reply

question about English grammar

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know