until

@JTT,

More patronising, personally abusive and pointless claptrap.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

And yet, on occasion we see you do just that, McTag.

Just not at the moment.

1 Reply

@JTT,

I see that you, self-appointed question master, have not yet answered my questions.

Here they are again:

Are there any threads which have been improved by your presence in them?
Is there anyone you haven't attempted to patronise and insult?
Why do you think you can talk down to people?
Do you realise your posts are almost always about bigging yourself up, and not about helping any questioner?
Who the hell do you think you are?

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

Are there any threads which have been improved by your presence in them?

All the language threads. Certainly the Pet Peeves of English thread which was an abomination sorely in need of help.

Numerous threads that have pointed up the war crimes and terrorism of the US/UK and other evil folk.

Quote:

Is there anyone you haven't attempted to patronise and insult?

There are thousands, McTag. Might not you address this question to Farmerman, Spendi, RobertG, Setanta, yourself, Frank A, OmSigD, Parados, hundreds more?

Quote:

Why do you think you can talk down to people?

Why do you think you can talk down to people and their natural use of language when you are so out to lunch on the facts?

Who do you think you are asking this when you do the same thing yourself, instead of addressing the language issues?

Why do you go to defensive mode instead of addressing the language issues?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Why do you go to defensive mode instead of addressing the language issues?

I think it's amusing when an overtrained colonial lectures to me about the use of my language.

I recognise you have learned a lot about linguistics, but in common with a lot of academics, you seem to have lost your common sense along the way.

Not to mention the common courtesy which most of your countrymen employ as a matter of course.

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

I think it's amusing when an overtrained colonial lectures to me about the use of my language.

Once more, you exhibit your ignorance. I have never lectured you about your use of your language. I do nothing but defend people's natural use of their language.

That was exactly what the whole issue was on the Peeves threads - a bunch of know nothings making fun of natural language use.

I have, on more occasions than I care to remember, schooled you on your frequent introductions of spurious language prescriptions. But that's silly to suggest that that is lecturing you on your language use.

Quote:

I recognise you have learned a lot about linguistics, but in common with a lot of academics, you seem to have lost your common sense along the way.

Here we go again. Why are you trying to blame me for your ignorance? If you want to discuss language, and you do have a deep interest in the subject, get yourself up to speed.

Is it common sense to keep advancing silly notions about language simply because you've memorized them? Common sense would dictate that you defend your positions, not run off on these tangential Miss Manners lessons.

Quote:

Not to mention the common courtesy which most of your countrymen employ as a matter of course.

Consider extending that same courtesy to people who use THEIR language in a perfectly natural fashion instead of attempting to malign them using old wives tales.

0 Replies

To continue the usage of UNTIL. For UNTIL, the present perfect doesn't necessarily mean the event in question continues up to the point of speaking or writing. But when there's no context, is it possible to, or is there anyone who can think of a situation we can, say/write:

-I have been working 20 hours a day until yesterday.

Or must HAD BEEN WORKING be substituted?

2 Replies

@WBYeats,

Quote:

-I have been working 20 hours a day until yesterday.

Or must HAD BEEN WORKING be substituted?

I think both of these are quite okay. The context (what you are trying to say exactly, the surrounding narrative) will help the choice. The first one is rather informal, and referring more to the present situation, I feel. The second one is more "historical"; you are drawing a line over past events. With the second, you are contrasting the past (the fact that you were working) with what is happening now.

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

Quote:

To continue the usage of UNTIL. For UNTIL, the present perfect doesn't necessarily mean the event in question continues up to the point of speaking or writing. But when there's no context, is it possible to, or is there anyone who can think of a situation we can, say/write:

1. I have been working 20 hours a day until yesterday.

2. Or must HAD BEEN WORKING be substituted?

There was just an excellent example of the PP of 1. in a recent thread, WB. I intended to copy it to some posting but I got sidetracked.

ENLs do do this, as per #1. Did I not post Micheal Swan's explanation?

I have been working 20 hours a day until yesterday.

ENLs generally avoid, like the plague, this close contact of the PrP and past time adjuncts. It does happen, but it will virtually always happen something like this;

I have been working 20 hours a day, ... until yesterday.

or this,

I have been working 20 hours a day. Until yesterday, that is.

The PtP is certainly a possibility. But it doesn't have the oooomph of the PrP, it doesn't provide the same degree of IMPORTANCE/CURRENT RELEVANCE.

0 Replies

Thank you, JTT and Mc.

Am I correct in saying

PrP= Present perfect progressive
PtP= Past perfect progressive

1 Reply

@WBYeats,

Quote:

PrP= Present perfect progressive
PtP= Past perfect progressive

PrP = Present Perfect
PrPC = Present perfect progressive/continuous

PtP = Past perfect
PtPC = Past perfect progressive/continuous

0 Replies

@WBYeats,

Here is an interesting thing that will clarify the meaning of Until and will even depict the correct usage of until.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyt-VodH3HI - Using 'By and Until'

Thanks

1 Reply

@vineetsharma,

That contains several Americanisms I'm not comfortable with.

"She won't reach by the evening"? What?

1 Reply

@McTag,

Quote:

That contains several Americanisms I'm not comfortable with.

"She won't reach by the evening"? What?

My guess is that was merely bad production, a speech typo.

They seemed nervous enough that it could have been one of their first tries.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know