 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006BrE: Charles told me not to jump out, but I would ...
Hello: Any point in using "but I would" and not "but I did" here? Just to point out her own stubborness, her "will" to jump? ------- [Margaret had just jumped from a car and hurt herself] "Oh, Henry," she exclaimed, "I have been so naughty," for she had decided to take up this line. "We ran over a cat. Charles told me not to jump out, but I would, and look!" She held out her bandaged hand. "Your poor Meg went such a flop." Howards End, by E.M. Forster, p. 245 http://www.litrix.com/howards/howar025.htm ------- Thanks. Marius Hancu > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > http://www.litrix.com/howards/howar025.htm > ------- Yes, it's different. We use "will" and "would" in this sort of context to indicate insisting on doing something we shouldn't. It reflects the "wish" etc meaning of "will". "John's a nice bloke, but he _will smoke_." "I was trying to explain, but he _would_ keep interrupting." That sort of thing.  SignatureMike. > > Any point in using "but I would" and not "but I did" here? > > Just to point out her own stubborness, her "will" to jump? > Yes, it's different. We use "will" and "would" in this sort of context > to indicate insisting on doing something we shouldn't. It reflects the > "wish" etc meaning of "will". "John's a nice bloke, but he _will > smoke_." "I was trying to explain, but he _would_ keep interrupting." > That sort of thing. Glad to know I was close:-) Thanks. Marius Hancu >> Hello: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > he _will smoke_." "I was trying to explain, but he _would_ keep > interrupting." That sort of thing. Note that that is, as far as I know, rare to the point of being unheard of in American English. "Will" and "would" have pretty much lost all conotation of intentionality here, which is part and parcel of "will" displacing "shall". (Indeed, "shall" carries a conotation of resolve here.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> "Oh, Henry," she exclaimed, "I have been so naughty," for she had > >> decided to take up this line. "We ran over a cat. Charles told me [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of "will" displacing "shall". (Indeed, "shall" carries a conotation > of resolve here.) Thanks for your point. Marius Hancu >>> Any point in using "but I would" and not "but I did" here? Just to >>> point out her own stubborness, her "will" to jump? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>> Howards End, by E.M. Forster, p. 245 >>> http://www.litrix.com/howards/howar025.htm >> Yes, it's different. We use "will" and "would" in this sort of >> context to indicate insisting on doing something we shouldn't. It >> reflects the "wish" etc meaning of "will". "John's a nice bloke, but >> he _will smoke_." "I was trying to explain, but he _would_ keep >> interrupting." That sort of thing. > Note that that is, as far as I know, rare to the point of being > unheard of in American English. "Will" and "would" have pretty much > lost all conotation of intentionality here, which is part and parcel > of "will" displacing "shall". (Indeed, "shall" carries a conotation > of resolve here.) The book was published in 1910. That's plenty of time for language usage to change. Is this really an AmE/BrE difference or a time difference? I can't imagine a modern British person using "would" in this way. I think one would have to be a literary person, familiar with the usage of several decades ago even to understand what was intended here. Also the usage of "for" in the first line is an indicator that we're using dated language - it's still understood, but modern BrE would always use "as". Matthew Huntbach >>>> Any point in using "but I would" and not "but I did" here? Just to >>>> point out her own stubborness, her "will" to jump? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >indicator that we're using dated language - it's still understood, >but modern BrE would always use "as". It's these little details that make so much period dialogue in fiction so hopelessly wrong. Novelists and screenwriters seldom take into account that the language -- in all registers -- has changed a lot over the last 75-150 years. And these snippets of Forster that Marius has been posting make that very clear. So why are so many people so unaware of the changes? I'm anything but an expert on Victorian English, but even I only had to read 200 words or so of the alleged "Diary of Jack the Ripper" a few years ago to be convinced that it was a crude fake by someone who didn't have the first idea about how people actually thought, spoke and wrote in the 1880s. SignatureMillicent Tendency (TEFKATHE) >> The book was published in 1910. That's plenty of time for language >> usage to change. Is this really an AmE/BrE difference or a time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> indicator that we're using dated language - it's still understood, >> but modern BrE would always use "as". > It's these little details that make so much period dialogue in fiction > so hopelessly wrong. Novelists and screenwriters seldom take into > account that the language -- in all registers -- has changed a lot > over the last 75-150 years. And these snippets of Forster that Marius > has been posting make that very clear. What interested me was the readiness with which Marius assumed the unfamiliar usage must be "British English" rather than now archaic English. Was he unaware that the date of publication of the novel, and the general material in the novel might mean it's not an accurate reflection of current early 21st century Britain? Matthew Huntbach > >> The book was published in 1910. That's plenty of time for language > >> usage to change. Is this really an AmE/BrE difference or a time [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and the general material in the novel might mean it's not an accurate > reflection of current early 21st century Britain? What do you mean? That "British English" means only "that which is spoken in 2006," and something that was spoken in 1910 cannot be called "British English?" I don't see such a time modifier in the two words. I think Marius is perfectly well aware of the passing of time, but what he can't tell until he asks is which of these uses are still encountered and which are not. I also think he marks his questions BrE to try to fend off some of the frequent "We don't say that at all -- I mean, at least not in the US" posts. What's more, Mike Lyle's response said nothing about the use being vanished or archaic. Maybe it's not as gone as you think. But as I said elsewhere, it looks un-Google-able and so we can't rely on facts to prevent squabbling. SignatureDonna Richoux > [...] > What's more, Mike Lyle's response said nothing about the use being > vanished or archaic. Maybe it's not as gone as you think. I'm quite certain that it's current. That use of "for" _is_ indeed a lot less common than it was, though; it feels rather literary to me. > But as I said elsewhere, it looks un-Google-able and so we can't rely on > facts to prevent squabbling. Well, "squabbling" is putting it a bit strong! SignatureMike. >> What's more, Mike Lyle's response said nothing about the use being >> vanished or archaic. Maybe it's not as gone as you think. > I'm quite certain that it's current. That use of "for" _is_ indeed a > lot less common than it was, though; it feels rather literary to me. The use of "I would" for an emphatic "I did" strikes me as even more archaic than the use of "for" for "as". I struggled to get the sense at all, and it was only by putting up a mental image of this happening in times past and so switching mentally to a sort of archaic English that I could. I'm astonished that Mike thinks it's current. Matthew Huntbach >>> What's more, Mike Lyle's response said nothing about the use being >>> vanished or archaic. Maybe it's not as gone as you think. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >times past and so switching mentally to a sort of archaic English >that I could. I'm astonished that Mike thinks it's current. I'm with Mike. You might not meet it on its own very often, but it criops up in sentences like "I told you it wouldn't work, but no, you *would* go and do it anyway, and look what's happened!" SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>> What's more, Mike Lyle's response said nothing about the use being >>>> vanished or archaic. Maybe it's not as gone as you think. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > criops up in sentences like "I told you it wouldn't work, but no, you > *would* go and do it anyway, and look what's happened!" Certainly. Leading to a recent comedic catchphrase - "You wouldn't let it lie!" Common taunt to people who come a cropper after rejecting good advice - "You wouldn't be told, would you?" And leave us not forget the fragrant Mandy Shaul (née Rice Davies and "Well he would, wouldn't he?" which IIRC has been discussed here before. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:24:46 +0000, Matthew Huntbach > >> The use of "I would" for an emphatic "I did" strikes me as even more > >> archaic than the use of "for" for "as". I struggled to get the sense > >> at all, and it was only by putting up a mental image of this > >> happening in times past and so switching mentally to a sort of > >> archaic English that I could. I'm astonished that Mike thinks it's current. > > I'm with Mike. You might not meet it on its own very often, but it > > criops up in sentences like "I told you it wouldn't work, but no, you > > *would* go and do it anyway, and look what's happened!" > Certainly. Leading to a recent comedic catchphrase - "You wouldn't let it > lie!" Again, here it is not a plain unadorned "would". > Common taunt to people who come a cropper after rejecting good advice - "You > wouldn't be told, would you?" > And leave us not forget the fragrant Mandy Shaul (née Rice Davies and "Well > he would, wouldn't he?" which IIRC has been discussed here before. Not at all the same thing, it means "It's the sort of thing he'd do" not "He most definitely did it once". Matthew Huntbach >>>> What's more, Mike Lyle's response said nothing about the use being >>>> vanished or archaic. Maybe it's not as gone as you think. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > criops up in sentences like "I told you it wouldn't work, but no, you > *would* go and do it anyway, and look what's happened!" We do use something like that, and fairly often, too. Someone makes a comment (these are usually fairly negative, but not always so), and the response "Oh, he (she) would!" means that the responder agrees that the cited action is typical, given the person and the situation. As a matter of fact, "Oh, that is (so) typical!" is another frequent statement. Oh! Oh! Look who was found drunk and disorderly in my neighbor's front yard! Oh, he would! I'll bet you can't guess who was found speeding and who lied to his wife about it. . .again! Oh, he would! (Oh, isn't that just typical! or "Who'da thunk it!" or "No, tell me again!") Now is this the usage discussed or have I missed the mark (as if I would [do that])? >>>>> What's more, Mike Lyle's response said nothing about the use being >>>>> vanished or archaic. Maybe it's not as gone as you think. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >responder agrees that the cited action is typical, given the person and >the situation. If we are heading in that general direction we should perhaps recall Mandy Rice Davies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies While giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward, Rice-Davies made the quip for which she is most remembered and which is frequently used by politicians in Britain[1]. When the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied having an affair or having even met her, she replied, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?". [1] This quote later became a common saying in British politics, often altered to "He would say that, wouldn't he?" >As a matter of fact, "Oh, that is (so) typical!" is >another frequent statement. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >[do that])? > SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Oh! Oh! Look who was found drunk and disorderly in my neighbor's front > yard! > Oh, he would! Yes, I think it means: "Oh, he (typically) would (do something like that)!" Marius Hancu > >The use of "I would" for an emphatic "I did" strikes me as even more > >archaic than the use of "for" for "as". I struggled to get the sense > >at all, and it was only by putting up a mental image of this happening in > >times past and so switching mentally to a sort of archaic English > >that I could. I'm astonished that Mike thinks it's current. > I'm with Mike. You might not meet it on its own very often, but it > criops up in sentences like "I told you it wouldn't work, but no, you > *would* go and do it anyway, and look what's happened!" No, I don't think this is the same as the unadorned "would" in the example - here it is again: "Charles told me not to jump out, but I would," If it was: "Charles told me not to jump out, but I would go and do it" that would be a different matter. Matthew Huntbach > >> What's more, Mike Lyle's response said nothing about the use being > >> vanished or archaic. Maybe it's not as gone as you think. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Matthew Huntbach In my experience this use of "would" in the original quoted context ("Charles told me not to jump out, but I would, and look!") is obsolete, or at the very least very rare, in mainstream British English (excluding dialects that I may not be familiar with). However, similar uses - when "would" means doing something that one probably shouldn't - are still current. For example, to someone who has said something objectionable: "You would have to say that, wouldn't you". Or even to oneself: "I would have to go and do something stupid like that!". >>> What's more, Mike Lyle's response said nothing about the use being >>> vanished or archaic. Maybe it's not as gone as you think. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > times past and so switching mentally to a sort of archaic English > that I could. I'm astonished that Mike thinks it's current. I can't recall the exact post, but I think Mike did give some valid examples of modern usage. However, they are rather different from the usage in the book, which is, as you say, archaic. SignatureRob Bannister >> What interested me was the readiness with which Marius assumed the >> unfamiliar usage must be "British English" rather than now archaic >> English. Was he unaware that the date of publication of the novel, >> and the general material in the novel might mean it's not an accurate >> reflection of current early 21st century Britain? > What do you mean? That "British English" means only "that which is > spoken in 2006," and something that was spoken in 1910 cannot be called [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fend off some of the frequent "We don't say that at all -- I mean, at > least not in the US" posts. I think you covered what I was getting at yourself when you mentioned "BBC costume dramas". Since dramatisations of old novels and history are a notable feature of British media productions, it may be the case that people's image of what Britain is like is over-influenced by these things. Wer are told, for example, of cases where people coming to London are astonished to find that we don't have the thick fog which features so prominently in the works of Dickens, Conan Doyle etc. When "BrE" is used without any other qualifier, yes, I think we must assume that what is meant is the English currently spoken in Britain. But I think it would be reasonable when encountering an unfamiliar form in a novel written a hundred years ago to consider first whether it's just a usage that has since dropped out. It may be a usage which was once in AmE and BrE and has dropped out of both. In the case Marius quoted, even the brief lines he gave had several features which marked it as dated text. These were far more dominant than any features which were peculiarly British. I felt therefore that it might be a useful tip for Marius, if he reads text like this, to remember it's an old fashioned sort of English, so old fashioned that (almost) all the people who spoke it would now be dead. It's inmteresting to see how fast language changes, even when it's held in place by written form, that this is so apparent. Matthew Huntbach >I think you covered what I was getting at yourself when you mentioned >"BBC costume dramas". Since dramatisations of old novels and history [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >thick fog which features so prominently in the works of Dickens, >Conan Doyle etc. Damn. Another tourist myth debunked. Next, I suppose, you'll be telling us that the Clapham Omnibus no longer runs. I might as well go to Disney's Epcot Center where the *real* London still exists. l SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>I think you covered what I was getting at yourself when you mentioned >>"BBC costume dramas". Since dramatisations of old novels and history [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >telling us that the Clapham Omnibus no longer runs. I might as well >go to Disney's Epcot Center where the *real* London still exists. Rest easy, Tony. http://static.flickr.com/55/183772460_cf2d9c8390_m.jpg SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> had it: > >I think you covered what I was getting at yourself when you mentioned > >"BBC costume dramas". Since dramatisations of old novels and history [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Damn. Another tourist myth debunked. Next, I suppose, you'll be > telling us that the Clapham Omnibus no longer runs. Not very likely - how would the common people get home to Clapham? It seems to be the Number 88. > I might as well go to Disney's Epcot Center where the *real* > London still exists. I was there in 2000. I chatted for a while to an actual English waitress in the real British Restaurant, but we decided to eat in the real Mexican Restaurant instead. SignatureDavid ===== > Damn. Another tourist myth debunked. Next, I suppose, you'll be > telling us that the Clapham Omnibus no longer runs. I might as well > go to Disney's Epcot Center where the *real* London still exists. On issues of conservation, you may want to read "England, England" by Julian Barnes (all fictional):-) Marius Hancu > [We] are told, for example, of cases where people > coming to London are astonished to find that we don't have the > thick fog which features so prominently in the works of Dickens, > Conan Doyle etc. The fact that the word used in those days was "fog" rather than "smog" probably leads people to think it was a purely natural phenomenon, and therefore not likely to change over time. Now, about those buses with conductors... SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Domine, defende nos msb@vex.net | Contra hos motores bos!" -- A. D. Godley On 12 Nov 2006, Mark Brader wrote >> [We] are told, for example, of cases where people >> coming to London are astonished to find that we don't have the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Now, about those buses with conductors... Alas, yes. Couple of "heritage" routes left, but otherwise now related to the dodo. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > > What interested me was the readiness with which Marius assumed the > > unfamiliar usage must be "British English" rather than now archaic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fend off some of the frequent "We don't say that at all -- I mean, at > least not in the US" posts. Thank you, Donna, those were/are indeed my intentions. I feel myself many of the changes, but in many cases can't tell for sure until they are confirmed by someone who's in Britain today. Marius Hancu > What do you mean? That "British English" means only "that which is > spoken in 2006," and something that was spoken in 1910 cannot be called > "British English?" This is a real problem, since few of us can be really certain about the differences between American and British English 100 years ago. Most of us have read, for example, Dickens and Twain, but we mostly notice is that the language is, for want of a better word, old-fashioned rather than specifically American or British. There were undoubtedly differences between written American and British English even 150 years ago, but I doubt they were very great except in dialogue. Sorry if I'm a bit confusing this morning: I've got a very bad tooth and, to tide me over the weekend, my dentist has given me some knockout pain killers, so I'm a bit woozy. SignatureRob Bannister > Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrought: [about the insistent "would," as in "Charles told me not to jump out, but I would, and look!" -- Howards End, by E.M. Forster] > >The book was published in 1910. That's plenty of time for language > >usage to change. Is this really an AmE/BrE difference or a time [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >indicator that we're using dated language - it's still understood, > >but modern BrE would always use "as". I've heard it, and my mind says I've heard it said in a British accent. But it strikes me as being impossible to Google for, "would" being such a common word. (My memory might be taken from BBC costume dramas, too.) > It's these little details that make so much period dialogue in fiction > so hopelessly wrong. Novelists and screenwriters seldom take into [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > first idea about how people actually thought, spoke and wrote in the > 1880s. It would be interesting for us to look at those same two hundred words and see why. On-line? Typable? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > [about the insistent "would," as in "Charles told me not to jump out, > but I would, and look!" -- Howards End, by E.M. Forster] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> indicator that we're using dated language - it's still understood, >>> but modern BrE would always use "as". I see the "for" as being more "because" than "as" or "since". I hope Marius will not be put off: these are interesting and entertaining posts. Regards Jonathan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.