This list is a communication device used by many people for whom English is
a second language. Discussing the subtle aspects of English at this level
seems inappropriate to me. Some may appreciate the grammatical lesson but
others will be reluctant to post if they worry that people will nitpick or
ridicule their use of the language. Comments to clarify wording that cannot
be clearly understood have value. Some of the old archaic rules probably
need to be changed. I'm thankful that people are willing to communicate in
English as my skills in other languages are limited to a very few words.
Just my humble opinion....
/jim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of BA
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 11:14 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] OT - to lie or to lay
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 08:01:12 -0600, you wrote:
>At 10:34 AM 4/5/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>>Dear All
>>
>>In case anyone is still reading, the quote in the NY Observer was: "No one
>>would have believed it if it did not happen ..." since you have already
>>gone the perfect tense with the conditional clause at the start of the
>>sentence, convention has it that the second, dependent clause go into the
>>pluperfect: "No one would have believed it if it had not happened..."
>>Although American convention has diverged from the English, I remain
>>convinced the original makes more sense in terms of consistency of time in
>>written or spoken language - especially in reported speech.
>>
>>If you have reached this far... thank you for "listening" ;-)
>>
>>Chris
>
>Yes, Chris, this sort of usage is very poor and it's on the increase. In
>the papers some of it is prevailing because reporters now tend to quote
>absolutely verbatim rather than correct the grammar silently for print.
>Unfortunately, it would be easier for us just to start another war ...
If it were prevailing in quotes reported in the newspapers, I wouldn't
find it so grating.
IMO, it's prevailing because over here in Leftpondia we haven't been
properly instructed in English since 1776 or so. At the time, there
was some issue of patriotism involved (or was that only the spelling
in the first Webster's. That's some excuse fer a lout who couldn't
spell, innit?). Unfortunately the effects have been allowed to
propagate, so that we now speak a language which is only loosely based
on English.
And lately it seems that we aren't even being properly instructed in
American.
Make grammar, not war!
B
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|