 |
 | 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 / January 2007'Did he anticipate it,he would...'
Hi. Recently in a book about Abe Lincoln, I saw the line: 'Did he anticipate it,he would surely have done everything within his power to avert it'. I thought that 'Had he anticipated it, he would surely have done everything within his power to avert it' was the only way you could express the above. This sounds rather like the 'Did you watch it yet' debate. But in this case, I am quite certain this is the first time I have ever encountered this expression. Is it still current? Or even grammatical? Even if it isn't viable in modern English, I'd like to know, out of academic interest, any information you can provide about the history of the use of this expression, its status in current dialectic speech in various dialects,its status in colloquial speech in AmE and British English,possibly also in Australian English(I haven't had any feedback from anybody claiming to be a native speaker of Australian English yet). Also, in case 'Did he anticipate it,he would surely have done everything within his power to avert it' is all right, is 'Did he anticipate it,he would surely do everything within his power to avert it' also all right.If not, I'd be glad to know why. Thanks in advance for any replies. jinhyunshyam@gmail.com had it: > Hi. Recently in a book about Abe Lincoln, I saw the line: 'Did he > anticipate it,he would surely have done everything within his power to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > right, is 'Did he anticipate it,he would surely do everything within > his power to avert it' also all right.If not, I'd be glad to know why. It's OK but it's extremely old fashioned and no longer in use. There's a form of it still used by some: Did you but read the newspaper, you would have known about the story.  SignatureDavid ===== > jinhyunshyam@gmail.com had it: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Did you but read the newspaper, you would have known about the story. These examples invert the subject and verb as a way of expressing an implied "if". Sometimes I find myself writing things like "Were I to do X", which is just another way of saying "If I were to do X". Thus, I don't entirely agree that this construct is no longer in use. I do, however, agree that it is old-fashioned and not often found in today's English. I'm Australian, but I think you would get roughly the same answer for any dialect of English. If you meet this sort of example, it will either be in old documents or in writing by that small number of people who have the habit of writing in a formal register. Should this be too brief an answer (!), I could probably think of other examples. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > > Did you but read the newspaper, you would have known about the story. > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Hi. Thanks for your post. Nice to hear from an Aussie for a change. You have answered my quesion but I'd still like to hear all the examples of this kind, not only where the verb is 'do' but other verbs as well(where the subject and verb is similarly inverted), you can muster(particularly those that are a little kinky and unusual!). Thanks in advance and hope it isn't too much trouble. > > > Did you but read the newspaper, you would have known about the story. > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > Hi. Thanks for your post. Nice to hear from an Aussie for a change. You have answered my quesion but I'd still like to hear all the examples of this kind, not only where the verb is 'do' but other verbs as well(where the subject and verb is similarly inverted), you can muster(particularly those that are a little kinky and unusual!). Thanks in advance and hope it isn't too much trouble. I think you're right to feel there's something wrong with it, even in the very old-fashioned style. The problem is sequence of tenses in conditional sentences. In the newspaper example (contrast Peter's "If I were to. . ." above) it should indeed be "Had you [past participle]. . .", because it's an impossible condition: just like "If you had [pa.p] . . " If it were a hypothetical condition, "Did you [do something]. . ." would be right, as an equivalent of "If you [did something], then [conditional verb]". But, as others have said, the "did" form is rare and old-fashioned. I would have to interpret "Did you but read the newspaper, you would have known about the story" as "If you were a regular reader of the newspaper. . .", not as "If you had read the newspaper. . ." These inversions can be done only with auxiliary verbs: with "bare" verbs, I think they're found only in a few set phrases such as "Try as I might, [I couldn't get the door open]", or "Come Hell or high water, I'll be there". A skilled writer can use this pattern in new ways without producing a bad effect, but it needs a lot of experience: there's no need for a learner to try. SignatureMike. > > jinhyunshyam@gmail.com had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> surely have done everything within his power to avert it' was the > >> only way you could express the above. The only correct way (with an inversion rather than an "if"). > >> This sounds rather like the > >> 'Did you watch it yet' debate. But in this case, I am quite certain [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> feedback from anybody claiming to be a native speaker of Australian > >> English yet). The trashy fantasy writer Jacqueline Carey (and I've read five of her books, so I know she's trashy) uses it as a pseudo-archaism, as I recall, along with the still less idiomatic "Does he anticipate" for "If he anticipates". > >> Also, in case 'Did he anticipate it,he would surely > >> have done everything within his power to avert it' is all right, is > >> 'Did he anticipate it,he would surely do everything within his > >> power to avert it' also all right.If not, I'd be glad to know why. I think it's better. > > It's OK but it's extremely old fashioned and no longer in use. > > There's a form of it still used by some: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > however, agree that it is old-fashioned and not often found in today's > English. In my experience, this is most common with "had", less with "should" and "were", and very rare with the other possibilities. I don't think I ever say or write it. SignatureJerry Friedman >> jinhyunshyam@gmail.com had it: >> >>> Hi. Recently in a book about Abe Lincoln, I saw the line: 'Did he >>> anticipate it,he would surely have done everything within his power >>> to avert it'. [...] >> It's OK but it's extremely old fashioned and no longer in use. There's a >> form of it still used by some: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > however, agree that it is old-fashioned and not often found in today's > English. For Jinhyun, I think it is worth explaining that the 'did' comes in here as an auxiliary made necessary by the inversion. If you but read the newspaper, .... cannot be inverted directly to: Read you but the newspaper, ... (in those, 'read' is simple past, pronounced 'redd'*) Instead, we need to insert the 'did': If you did but read the newspaper,.. --> Did you but read the newspaper,... ('read' is pronounced 'reed', a kind of infinitive? I think) This inversion-for-a-conditional is very similar to the way a statement is turned into a question. It is still seen, but it is undoubtedly old-fashioned or poetic or literary nowadays. *Hi, Bob. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > jinhyunshyam@gmail.com had it: > >> ['Did he anticipate it, he would surely have done everything within >> his >> power to avert it': can you say that?] > It's OK but it's extremely old fashioned and no longer in use. > There's a form of it still used by some: > > Did you but read the newspaper, you would have known about the > story. But the pattern in that example applies to a specific type of condition in which the verb in the if-clause describes a general condition or habitual action, while the one in the then-clause describes a specific result. Otherwise, Jinhyun is quite right that both clauses must follow either a present or a past sequence of tenses: "If he anticipated it (did he anticipate it), he would do everything," or "If he had anticipated it (had he anticipated it), he would have done everything." You could say "Did he [habitually] anticipate disasters, he would have seen this windstorm coming," or "Were natural disasters not now so frequent, I would have had more to contribute to tsunami relief," for example. >Hi. Recently in a book about Abe Lincoln, I saw the line: 'Did he >anticipate it,he would surely have done everything within his power to >avert it'. I thought that 'Had he anticipated it, he would surely have >done everything within his power to avert it' was the only way you >could express the above. As others have pointed out, using inversion instead of "if" is common in modern English. (I don't do it myself, but I rarely notice when others do.) The odd thing here is the present tense -- as you say, "Had he anticipated it ..." is the expected form. David (snipped) > Recently in a book about Abe Lincoln, I saw the line: > 'Did he anticipate it,he would surely have done everything within his > power to avert it'. > I thought that 'Had he anticipated it, he would surely have > done everything within his power to avert it' was the only way.... Some thoughts to add to comments of others. If your sentence is a direct quote of a speaker or writer, by the book's author, then this is perfectly correct within a quoted context, this is, the grammar may or may not be correct depending on time period, but if a quote of another, your quoted sentence is perfectly correct. Another acceptable format is an author story telling using grammar of a specific time period, or grammar of a specific character, either case, the "incorrect" grammar is perfectly correct. -- Back in nineteen-thirty-two Great Depression Oklahoma, my cousins are arguing, "Will yall done look at them big a.s tits!" This prompts my other cousin to respond, "There ain't no such thing as a.s tits!" Accordingly, I lean back in my front porch rocker then take another sip of fire from my Mason jar, anticipating a right good debate. Little did I anticipate the following year, the onslaught of Dust Bowl Oklahoma, would render debates pointless and render a few sips of Mason jar White Lightning so very refreshing. -- Context rules all within any language. Context allows for blatant language rule violations; perfection through imperfection. Purl Gurl > Hi. Recently in a book about Abe Lincoln, I saw the line: 'Did he > anticipate it,he would surely have done everything within his power to > avert it'. I thought that 'Had he anticipated it, he would surely have > done everything within his power to avert it' was the only way you > could express the above. Old-fashioned English. I'd expect to find it up to at least 1900 as an alternative. As you say, "Had" is normal today. I was going to write "the norm", but that would almost certainly be "If he had anticipated it". I do not think it is the same as the "have you done/ did you do" thing. SignatureRob Bannister > Hi. Recently in a book about Abe Lincoln, I saw the line: 'Did he > anticipate it,he would surely have done everything within his > power to avert it'. One of our American-speaker regulars here, Eric Walker, still uses this structure. It is a decided archaism, but there are those who love archaisms. I am one of them, but this particular archaism is not to my taste, although, as I said, Eric Walker relishes it. Very few American-speakers use this structure. It's quite pretentious (sorry, Eric, but that's the truth), so you will rarely see or hear it in American English. > I thought that 'Had he anticipated it, he > would surely have done everything within his power to avert it' [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > all right, is 'Did he anticipate it,he would surely do everything > within his power to avert it' also all right. It's too rare a structure for me to comment on. Perhaps Eric Walker will contribute to the discussion. He ought to know. > If not, I'd be glad > to know why. Thanks in advance for any replies. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. "If you are still not convinced of the a.s-brain connection, finish this sentence: 'It is easier to think after I … (a) get a haircut (b) take a dump'." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 12 Jan 2007; http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/ teranews now charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Hi. Thanks for all your posts. Based on these, and having thought about it a little myself, it seems to me that this construction has its uses but needs a little care. It seems slightly different from the 'Had he anticipated it,he would have done it' construction in which both clauses are in the past perfect tense.Here the correct form seems to be 'Did he anticipate it,he would do everything in his power to avert it' and not 'Did he anticipate it,he would have done everything in his power to avert it' since it seems necessary that there is agreement of tense between the clauses. Here it seems that the action isn't set so irrevocably in the past as in the 'Had he anticipated it....' construction, but the author is trying to convey the impression that he is telling the story as it unfolds, so that even if it is in the past,the author is trying to pretend, for the sake of the telling of the story, that in some sense the thing is happening now,that it is unfolding before our eyes,that the tension is current; rather than convey the impression that the whole thing happened in the past and that he is merely reporting the unchangeable details of an affair which has already been concluded.The pastness here may even be merely grammatical as in reported speech. Thus, you may turn 'The Prime Minister said 'If I anticipate it,I'll do everything I can to prevent it' ' into indirect speech as 'The Prime Minister said that did he anticipate it he would do everything he could to prevent it' Also, basically the way to get at the meaning of these propositions seems to be to recast them using 'if'. Thus,'Did you read the paper,you would know what I was talking about' would turn into 'If you read the paper,you would know what I was talking about' which most people would interpret as saying that if you read the paper in general (not any particular edition)you would know what I was talking about.The 'Had you..' form seems more appropriate if you mean a particular newspaper. I'd like members to comment on and add to these conclusions. > Hi. Thanks for all your posts. Based on these, and having thought about > it a little myself, it seems to me that this construction has its uses > but needs a little care. It seems slightly different from the 'Had he > anticipated it,he would have done it' construction in which both > clauses are in the past perfect tense.Here the correct form seems to > be 'Did he anticipate it,he would do everything in his power to avert [snip long speculation] > what I was talking about.The 'Had you..' form seems more appropriate if > you mean a particular newspaper. > I'd like members to comment on and add to these conclusions. My comment is that I don't find a single use of the expression on the entire Web, including literature collections, so I think you are jousting with shadows. You didn't say what the original source was -- maybe from 1875 or something? What part of the world? We know that certain constructions are used in Indian English that no longer show up in other regions, so perhaps that has something to do with it. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > Hi. Thanks for all your posts. Based on these, and having thought about > > it a little myself, it seems to me that this construction has its uses [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > are used in Indian English that no longer show up in other regions, so > perhaps that has something to do with it. Hi. No,it is from a book about Abe Lincoln.Actually the book is a sort of pseudo-biogaphy containing articles,letters etc written about Lincoln by people who knew him,some articles by Lincoln himself.This particular construction appears in a newspaper article from those times in which Lincoln appears only incidentally and in fact isn't the person referred to in the sentence. But I do mention this in my original post.But perhaps that end of the thread is no longer accessible.Anyway I have no designs of using the 'did he..' type construction though several of the members mentioned examples.Constructions using 'had he..' or 'if' will suffice for me.But I was speculating,out of academic interest, on what precisely the 'did he ..' construction meant when it was still current and why a careful writer from that generation might use it instead of the more normal-sounding 'had he..' type construction.My speculations are based on all the replies to my query on this thread.So you should read those. |
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.