• Tenses... 1.

    From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Anton Shepelev on Tue Jun 2 22:52:43 2020
    Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

    I should fear to hear it -- what if the inheritance
    turns out to have another magickal item?

    Nah. Just a few ordinary household items made of xxx,
    yyy, and zzz... none with magic(k)al powers, but all
    of which we are still using. :-)

    Then I won't pursue this quotidian matter any futher.
    But may I make so bold as to question the grammar in
    the quoted sentence?


    Of course. You may be sure that whatever I say in the E_T echo has been edited & proofread thoroughly; however, I do miss things sometimes. :-)



    1. Is it correct to use "but.. which" without a prior
    occurence of "which" in the sentence?


    If I hadn't thought so, I wouldn't have done it. Perhaps it is an error... or perhaps it's one of those stunts one shouldn't try at home. :-))

    I could have written "... none of which has [blah blah] but all of which we are still using." Although it would have made a nicer parallelism I felt it might be unnecessarily wordy.

    IIRC I've seen a few constructions like "... most, but by no means all, of which [i.e. covid-related deaths in this country] are associated with long term care facilities". In such cases the logic is more obvious.... :-)



    2. Is it correct to express the continued use of these
    items in the present progressive tense?


    As a native speaker I depend heavily on my Russian modem buddies & foreign language textbooks to identify the names of verb tenses. It seems to me, however, that this tense is appropriate in situations where the action is ongoing. I could have typed, in a separate sentence, "None of them has [blah blah]... but all of them are still in use." IMHO the original sounds better.



    This distinction causes me serious doubts in my own
    writing, but in your case I should without
    vaccilation say: "and we still use all of them."


    In general the present tense would work too, but in this example I figure it would change the emphasis as well as the rhythm I had in mind. :-)



    In a moment, his wife looked up at him and said, "I'm
    sorry. I'd not thought she was capable of a thing like
    that."

    Mark the last sentece, which, again, is uttered by an
    apparently educted person.


    It strikes me as unusual, but not incorrect. If the person you're referring to lives in the Southern States I'd cut her a bit of slack.... :-)



    How about this:

    a. I forgot he was vegetarian. (he still is)


    That's what I'd probably say.



    b. I forgot he had been vegetarian. (he has reverted)


    If I knew he'd reverted but my brain slipped a cog, I might say "I forgot he'd been vegetarian as an impecunious student but modified his stance after he began doing hard physical work in the construction industry.... :-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to Ardith Hinton on Thu Jun 4 01:55:12 2020
    Ardith Hinton to Anton Shepelev:

    Nah. Just a few ordinary household items made of xxx,
    yyy, and zzz... none with magic(k)al powers, but all
    of which we are still using. :-)

    Then I won't pursue this quotidian matter any futher.
    But may I make so bold as to question the grammar in
    the quoted sentence?

    Of course. You may be sure that whatever I say in the
    E_T echo has been edited & proofread thoroughly; however, I do
    miss things sometimes. :-)

    Thank you for this most commendable commission to quality in the
    echo.

    1. Is it correct to use "but.. which" without a prior
    occurence of "which" in the sentence?

    If I hadn't thought so, I wouldn't have done it.
    Perhaps it is an error... or perhaps it's one of those stunts one
    shouldn't try at home. :-))

    It may be that...

    I could have written "... none of which has [blah
    blah] but all of which we are still using." Although it would
    have made a nicer parallelism I felt it might be unnecessarily
    wordy.

    Indeed. The amendment I had in mind (but withheld) was the
    following: "none with magic(k)al powers, but all of them still in
    use".

    My other misdoublt about it (withheld, too) was that "but" does not
    seem to introduce any kind of contradtion! On the other hand,
    magical items, being rarer, are likely to be used longer.

    IIRC I've seen a few constructions like "... most, but
    by no means all, of which [i.e. covid-related deaths in this
    country] are associated with long term care facilities". In such
    cases the logic is more obvious.... :-)

    A perfectly reasonable construction to me, too.

    2. Is it correct to express the continued use of these
    items in the present progressive tense?

    As a native speaker I depend heavily on my Russian
    modem buddies & foreign language textbooks to identify the names
    of verb tenses.

    I think the terminology is largely the same in English Grammars
    written in English, by the English, and for the English.

    (English \Eng"lish\, n. Collectively, the people of England;
    English people or persons.)

    In general the present tense would work too, but in
    this example I figure it would change the emphasis as well as the
    rhythm I had in mind. :-)

    If I grasp this distinction corretly, then I should say that a busy
    and professional photographer may say: "I am using a Horizon
    camera," whereas a time-to-time amateur like me who shoots several
    film rolls a season may say: "I use a Horizon camera"?

    That the sound of your original version is better is "fixed with the
    golden nails to the walls of inevitable necessity".

    In a moment, his wife looked up at him and said, "I'm
    sorry. I'd not thought she was capable of a thing like
    that."

    Mark the last sentece, which, again, is uttered by an
    apparently educted person.

    It strikes me as unusual, but not incorrect. If the
    person you're referring to lives in the Southern States I'd cut
    her a bit of slack.... :-)

    And she sure does.

    How about this:

    a. I forgot he was vegetarian. (he still is)

    That's what I'd probably say.

    b. I forgot he had been vegetarian. (he has reverted)

    If I knew he'd reverted but my brain slipped a cog, I
    might say "I forgot he'd been vegetarian as an impecunious
    student but modified his stance after he began doing hard
    physical work in the construction industry.... :-)

    Your extrapolation has given new life to my example, but I see no
    cogs slipping...

    ---
    * Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Anton Shepelev on Thu Jun 4 21:42:50 2020
    Hi again, Anton! This is a continuation of my previous message to you:

    Addison in a psalm of his addresses God:

    I knew thou wert not slow to hear,
    Nor impotent to save.

    I don't think that substituting `art' for `wert' would
    harm the sound and rythm so much as to justify `wert',
    were it ungrammatical...


    No. But I think you're referring to Joseph Addison, who lived from 1672-1719 & who wrote at least two hymns based on a rewording of Old Testament psalms. Bishop R. Heber said "... which wert, and art, and evermore shalt be" WRT God in 1827. I'm not sure how much to attribute to liturgical anachronism ... as Fowler puts it... or how much weight to assign to the idea that when we speak of an immutable truth the verb tenses should still be in agreement. :-)



    We've often had people say to us, in casual conversation,
    "I didn't know you're a teacher." I doubt they are the
    only people who do this.... :-)

    Hardly so, but such is the nature of causual conversation
    that one has little time, and even less desire, to ensure
    grammatical accuracy.


    Agreed. When folks are speaking extemporaneously they tend to make grammatical errors they probably wouldn't have made if they'd had more time to think about the wording. In an otherwise fruitless search of my own reference books, however, I found this description of something else: "well established but controversial". I think the same might also be said of the above.... ;-)




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to Anton Shepelev on Sat Jun 6 15:15:54 2020
    I wrote Ardith Hinton:

    Thank you for this most commendable commission to quality in the
    echo.

    commitment.

    ---
    * Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to Ardith Hinton on Sat Jun 6 16:55:16 2020
    Ardith Hinton to Anton Shepelev:

    Addison in a psalm of his addresses God:

    I knew thou wert not slow to hear,
    Nor impotent to save.

    I don't think that substituting `art' for `wert' would
    harm the sound and rythm so much as to justify `wert',
    were it ungrammatical...

    No. But I think you're referring to Joseph Addison,
    who lived from 1672-1719 & who wrote at least two hymns based on
    a rewording of Old Testament psalms.

    Yes.

    Bishop R. Heber said "...which wert, and art, and evermore shalt
    be" WRT God in 1827. I'm not sure how much to attribute to
    liturgical anachronism ..

    I see no fault with bishop Heber's usage, for with these words he
    addresses God (rather than saying it WRT Him), and therefore uses
    the second-person verbs. Why he wrote "which" instead of `who' is
    another question. It is probably permissible because `which' is
    more general than "who", and, together with `that', used be employed
    to personal and impersonal objects alike, but Cf. another address:
    "Our Father, Who art in Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
    person too, but the prounoun is personal.

    as Fowler puts it... or how much weight to assign to the idea
    that when we speak of an immutable truth the verb tenses should
    still be in agreement. :-)

    Well, even these days the prevailing tendency is to have them
    agree, as a quick search for "knew the Earth was round" in
    Boogle Gooks shows .

    We've often had people say to us, in casual conversation,
    "I didn't know you're a teacher." I doubt they are the
    only people who do this.... :-)

    Hardly so, but such is the nature of causual conversation
    that one has little time, and even less desire, to ensure
    grammatical accuracy.

    Agreed. When folks are speaking extemporaneously they
    tend to make grammatical errors they probably wouldn't have made
    if they'd had more time to think about the wording. In an
    otherwise fruitless search of my own reference books, however, I
    found this description of something else: "well established but controversial". I think the same might also be said of the
    above.... ;-)

    If the alternative is uncontrovesional yet unestablished, then I
    prefer the former :-) I have failed to what the esteemed Goold
    Brown has to say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of
    his magnum opus.

    ---
    * Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Anton Shepelev on Mon Jun 8 23:33:17 2020
    Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

    I could have written "... none of which has [blah blah]
    but all of which we are still using." Although it would
    have made a nicer parallelism I felt it might be
    unnecessarily wordy.

    Indeed. The amendment I had in mind (but withheld) was
    the following: "none with magic(k)al powers, but all
    of them still in use".


    I consider it a reasonable alternative.... :-)



    My other misdoublt about it (withheld, too) was that "but"
    does not seem to introduce any kind of contradtion! On the
    other hand, magical items, being rarer, are likely to be
    used longer.


    The latter is +/- what I had in mind. Once I am dead & gone my heirs
    & executors may not see any further need to keep various household items. If I
    owned a magic ring they might feel differently about it. But if I'd never told
    them this ring had magical powers, or if they preferred to believe the old lady
    was delusional, you might see it offerred for sale as "antique jewellery". ;-)



    As a native speaker I depend heavily on my Russian modem
    buddies & foreign language textbooks to identify the names
    of verb tenses.

    I think the terminology is largely the same in English
    Grammars written in English, by the English, and for the
    English.


    Exactly. One of the reasons I like traditional grammar is that I can
    communicate with people of all ages... from all over the world... knowing their
    dictionaries & grammar books will employ +/- the same terminology mine do. :-)



    In general the present tense would work too, but in this
    example I figure it would change the emphasis as well as
    the rhythm I had in mind. :-)

    If I grasp this distinction corretly, then I should say
    that a busy and professional photographer may say: "I am
    using a Horizon camera,"


    Such a person might say "I am using [blah blah], as we speak... but I
    use different equipment under different conditions." :-)



    whereas a time-to-time amateur like me who shoots several
    film rolls a season may say: "I use a Horizon camera"?


    If that is the only camera you have, yes. Although I continue to use
    the cutlery I inherited from various people I have other cutlery as well... and
    I won't bore you by explaining in detail which item I use for which purpose(s).



    That the sound of your original version is better is "fixed
    with the golden nails to the walls of inevitable necessity".


    "Necessity is the mother of invention", or so I am told. While I can
    hardly compare myself to Mozart I can see now why I understood intuitively what
    he meant when I did sight reading. It simply wouldn't work any other way. Yet
    my writing area, like Beethoven's manuscripts, is littered with revisions. :-Q



    If I knew he'd reverted but my brain slipped a cog, I
    might say "I forgot he'd been vegetarian as an impecunious
    student but modified his stance after he began doing hard
    physical work in the construction industry.... :-)

    Your extrapolation has given new life to my example, but I
    see no cogs slipping...


    Upon reading your reply I see I forgot the end quotation marks there.
    Even English teachers make misteaks, but I appreciate the compliment... [grin].




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Anton Shepelev on Wed Jun 10 23:32:54 2020
    Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

    Bishop R. Heber said "... which wert, and art, and
    evermore shalt be" WRT God in 1827. I'm not sure
    how much to attribute to liturgical anachronism...

    I see no fault with bishop Heber's usage,


    Nor do I.



    for with these words he addresses God (rather than
    saying it WRT Him), and therefore uses the second-
    person verbs.


    Yes. But these days we'd say "(you) were, and are, and forever will/
    shall be" in ordinary speech. While I have seen some attempts to modernize the
    language in old hymns & whatnot I tend to prefer the original version.... :-))



    Why he wrote "which" instead of `who' is another
    question.


    IMHO the most likely explanation is that... as you commented below...
    usage has changed over the years. But "thee" and "thou", "thy" and "thine" may
    be retained in certain circumstances.... :-)



    It is probably permissible because `which' is more
    general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
    employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,


    Hmm... I think you've made another important point there. I like the
    idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor, BTW.... :-)



    but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
    Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
    person too, but the prounoun is personal.


    Except when it's not. The Lord's Prayer is a translation & there are
    many different versions. The KJV says "which".... :-)



    ... or how much weight to assign to the idea that when
    we speak of an immutable truth the verb tenses should
    still be in agreement. :-)

    Well, even these days the prevailing tendency is to have
    them agree, as a quick search for "knew the Earth was
    round" in Boogle Gooks shows .


    That's what I'd expect of an historian... [chuckle].



    If the alternative is uncontrovesional yet unestablished,
    then I prefer the former :-)


    I think it's probably the safest, in formal English at least.... :-)



    I have failed to what the esteemed Goold Brown has to
    say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of
    his magnum opus.


    Uh-huh. When I try looking up some issues, if I can find anything at
    all, I get one of two answers: "there are so many possible uses of [blah blah]
    I won't attempt an exhaustive list" or "my favourite dictionary includes thirty
    pages of xxx in detail, but I feel overwhelmed with too much information". I'm
    reminded here of my adventures with French & Latin... where the examples in the
    textbook make sense until question #4, when added wrinkles are introduced. :-Q




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
  • From Anton Shepelev@2:221/6 to Ardith Hinton on Mon Jun 15 01:39:36 2020
    Ardith Hinton - Anton Shepelev:

    It is probably permissible because `which' is more
    general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
    employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,

    Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.

    Note to self: "employed with" or "applied to".

    I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,
    BTW.... :-)

    I did not have that idea in mind while commenting on the hymn. Nor
    do Christians think of God that way.

    but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
    Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
    person too, but the prounoun is personal.

    Except when it's not. The Lord's Prayer is a
    translation & there are many different versions. The KJV says
    "which".... :-)

    Well spotted! That explains Heber's "which"--it is truer to
    Jacobian English.

    I have failed to what the esteemed Goold Brown has to
    say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of
    his magnum opus.

    Uh-huh. When I try looking up some issues, if I can
    find anything at all, I get one of two answers: "there are so
    many possible uses of [blah blah] I won't attempt an exhaustive
    list" or "my favourite dictionary includes thirty pages of xxx in
    detail, but I feel overwhelmed with too much information". I'm
    reminded here of my adventures with French & Latin... where the
    examples in the textbook make sense until question #4, when added
    wrinkles are introduced. :-Q

    That has happened to me, too, but not in case of Brown. It took me
    three attemts to understand Fowler's exposition on Will and Shall
    in a chapter of "King's English":

    https://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html

    But in the end I did it and now can read Agatha Christie, Anthony
    Hope, and Bram Stoker without stumbling at every second `should'.

    ---
    * Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From Ardith Hinton@1:153/716 to Anton Shepelev on Thu Jun 18 22:26:36 2020
    Hi, Anton! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:

    It is probably permissible because `which' is more
    general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
    employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,

    Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.

    Note to self: "employed with" or "applied to".


    Yes, that's better.... :-)



    I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,
    BTW.... :-)

    I did not have that idea in mind while commenting on the
    hymn.


    I didn't think you would. That's why I said "BTW"... [grin].



    Nor do Christians think of God that way.


    In this part of the world there are many differences of opinion, even
    among Christians, as to the exact nature of God. YMMV. :-)



    but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
    Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
    person too, but the prounoun is personal.

    Except when it's not. The Lord's Prayer is a
    translation & there are many different versions.
    The KJV says "which".... :-)

    Well spotted! That explains Heber's "which"--it
    is truer to Jacobian English.


    That's my take on it. The "King James" version of the Bible... first
    published in the early 17th century... is beloved by many people because of the
    beauty of the language. I can well understand why it's still widely read today
    & why authors like Bishop Heber might follow suit if they were writing hymns or
    poetry. I'm not sure, however, when popular usage changed WRT "which".... :-)



    It took me three attemts to understand Fowler's
    exposition on Will and Shall in a chapter of
    "King's English":

    https://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html


    I imagine it will take me as many. I was quite amused by his comment
    that while this stuff comes naturally to folks from southern England it remains
    a mystery to almost everyone else. I recall some fragments from my school days
    & I found some brief usage notes in my GAGE CANADIAN DICTIONARY, but both leave
    out a lot. This is the most detailed explanation I've seen.... :-)



    But in the end I did it


    I would say you deserve a box of gold stars... [chuckle].



    and now can read Agatha Christie, Anthony Hope, and
    Bram Stoker without stumbling at every second `should'.


    Great! I am reminded here of the adventures Dallas & I had trying to
    explain an Agatha Christie novel to Canadian kids in grade nine. :-Q

    Although many shall/will distinctions are no longer in common use, it
    is important to understand that even nowadays a legal document saying "teachers
    shall do xxx" carries about the same weight as the Ten Commandments in the eyes
    of the school board. And it's important to understand that when I say I should
    like to meet you & other folks here in person, I'm not speaking of a duty or an
    obligation as in "I really should tidy up the kitchen one of these days". :-))




    --- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
    * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)