1
   

I have felt great emotion in working at the Hippolytus

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2013 01:37 am
False. Could carries past tense too. Did historically. Does now too.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2013 01:54 am
re JTT
Quote:
could/kʊd; unstressed kəd/ Show Spelled [kood; unstressed kuhd] Show IPA
verb
1. a simple past tense of can1 .
auxiliary verb
2. (used to express possibility): I wonder who that could be at the door. That couldn't be true.
3. (used to express conditional possibility or ability): You could do it if you tried.
4. (used in making polite requests): Could you open the door for me, please?
5. (used in asking for permission): Could I borrow your pen?
6. (used in offering suggestions or advice): You could write and ask for more information. You could at least have called me.

You will notice definition 1. The first definition is usually the most common usage. That "could" can be used in other contexts too does not mean that it is not the past tense of "can", as apparently the entire English-speaking world but you recognizes. You can of course go into one of your rants, whenever a dictionary says something you don't like, the dictionary-makers make mistakes (though yyou, of course, never do). I will be perfectly happy to cite other dictionaries, which apparently are all mistaken,but you are not. I think I'll go with their cdonsensus, rather than your outlier opinion.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2013 12:34 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
False. Could carries past tense too. Did historically. Does now too.


You completely ignored addressing the following, Jack, in favor of stamping your feet and whining.

Quote:
That's right, Jack, and HAVE DONE is the indicator of tense. COULD only carries modal meaning as CAN could (future) also do.


You completely ignore the fact that A2K ENLs would be posting example after example if they could [general future] think of any.

I notice that you are among this group, in that you can't post any.


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2013 01:10 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
You will notice definition 1. The first definition is usually the most common usage.


I did notice definition 1, MJ, and what was immediately "noticeable", which you didn't miss, but chose to ignore - MAJOR DISHONEST, Jack, - was that there was no example sentence for that particular "definition". They had no problem providing examples for the others.

Why do you figure that is?

Quote:
does not mean that it is not the past tense of "can", as apparently the entire English-speaking world but you recognizes.


Why are you being so DISHONEST? The English speaking world, in every second, every minute, every hour and every day, for weeks and months and years and ... recognizes that COULD is not the past tense of CAN because it doesn't ever use it like that, because it can't.

You still haven't provided any examples of WOULD as PT of WILL, SHOULD as PT of SHALL, MIGHT as PT of MAY.

I wonder why that is.

You haven't addressed your obvious confusion between SEMANTIC and SYNTACTIC. Would you like me to define those terms for you?

Which leads us to another thing you haven't addressed. Why would COULD and CAN having tense remain when the other modals lost their tense and became tenseless?

Would you like me to provide you with an example of MIGHT as PT of MAY?

Quote:
whenever a dictionary says something you don't like, the dictionary-makers make mistakes


That's a lie, Jack. It's not a matter of me liking something. Language science doesn't work on "liking" or not. That's the province of prescription, as you are well aware.

Dictionaries aren't infallible, linguists aren't infallible, ... . But what language science does, it eschews "liking" in favor of proof. Why was there no example sentence, Jack?

Quote:
I will be perfectly happy to cite other dictionaries, which apparently are all mistaken,but you are not.


By all means, please do. Do you think you might be able to find a definition with an actual example sentence?


Quote:
I think I'll go with their cdonsensus, rather than your outlier opinion.


What consensus, Jack? Everyone repeating the same mistake. You must consider how long these dictionaries repeated silly prescriptions. OED took until 1998 to retract the split infinitive "rule".
0 Replies
 
WBYeats
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jul, 2013 02:25 am
@MontereyJack,
-It has had surprising and considerable success in all these fields during the first year of its existence. (it/its=an organisation['s])

The first year is obviously in the past; must HAS HAD be changed to HAD?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Drs. = female doctor? - Question by oristarA
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 02:38:32