 |
 | 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 / May 2009Conditional sentences
Hi to all, I have posted again here a question regarding the validity of the following phrase: "If Einstein did not have any talent then he would not have become as famous as he was." The feedback I got from this newsgroup was that it should have been written as: "If Einstein had not had any talent, then he would not have become as famous as he was." I paid a proofreading company to edit my essay since I am not a native English speaker. The person who edited my essay (who is a professional American English language editor) insists that the former phrase (...did not have) is correct while the latter (...had not had) is not. I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion. Thanks in advance Thanasis > Hi to all, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion. Certainly. Don't pay him. >Hi to all, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion. Your editor is entitled to say that he (or she) thinks the "did not have" alternative is acceptable or preferable or just "sounds better", if that is his opinion. However, if the editor has really said that "had not had" is incorrect, it is a preposterous statement. Being prescriptive and wrong at the same time is a dreadful combination.  SignatureJames > Hi to all, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion. Well, I'm actually doing this - proofreading an academic text written by a non-native speaker of English - at this very moment (AUE provides me with a diversion activity). My rule when proofreading/editing is to change as little as possible within the parameters of improving grammar and readability. As such, and with all respect to the earlier posters, I'd probably have initially changed your sentence to "If Einstein did not have any talent then he would not have become as famous as he _did_ ." I think that that 'did' is essential here because 'becoming' is an action, not a state. On a second readthrough I *might* have changed it further to the 3C version: "If Einstein had not had any talent then he would not have become as famous as he _did_ ." - which is getting on for the suggestion made by earlier posters... and I suppose, strictly speaking, preserves sequence of tense, but still I think I'd probably have left it as my first change. So, my message here is 'don't sack your proofreaders yet'. Should you chose to, on the other hand, my rates are very reasonable... .... Hang on, I've just reread what your proofreader actually said... > professional American English language editor) insists that the > former phrase (...did not have) is correct while the latter (...had > not had) is not. Oh, no, no way is the 'had not had' version *wrong* ; maybe not necessary - and that's debatable -, but if your proofreader thinks it's actually *wrong* , you should have serious cause for concern. 10GBP per 1000 words. Many international clients. Prompt and personal service our watchword. DC -- > > Hi to all, > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > DC > -- Is it correct as below: If Einstein had no any talent then he would not be as famous as he were. > > > Hi to all, > > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > If Einstein had no any talent then he would not be as famous as he > were. NO! DC -- > > Hi to all, > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > DC > -- Hi and thanks for response, you suggest that the following phrase "If Einstein did not have any talent then he would not have become as famous as he _did_ ." is correct. How is it possible?. According to 2nd and 3rd conditional it holds: if + past simple--> would + bare infinitive (2nd) if + past perfet --> would have + past participle (3rd). The phrase you suggested does not conform to the above. Thanks > > > Hi to all, > > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > The phrase you suggested does not conform to the above. No, it doesn't. In fact it's a mixed conditional - you can read about them here: http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html The 0123 conditional taxonomy is a useful - and simplified - piece of scaffolding that can help students to learn English, and if applied correctly helps them to avoid errors such as * 'If I would see him I would tell him', when what is meant is 'If I saw him I would tell him', but it shouldn't be seen as an absolute set of rules by which all possible examples of conditional structures in English should be judged 'correct' or 'incorrect'. DC -- I much prefer this variation: 'Had Einstein not had any talent, he would not have become as famous as he did'. > I much prefer this variation: > > 'Had Einstein not had any talent, he would not have become as famous > as he did'. As long as we're editing, let's do a write-around: "If Einstein had not had any talent, he would not have become famous." I offer as proof of this axiom my own life. I have no real talent (a knack here and there, perhaps), and I am utterly obscure. SignatureBob Lieblich Well, it keeps the Papparazzi away >> I much prefer this variation: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I offer as proof of this axiom my own life. I have no real talent (a >knack here and there, perhaps), and I am utterly obscure. This thread keeps bothering me. I know that the primary definition of talent is "a special natural ability or aptitude", but I just can't see using it to describe a natural ability to do sums, even if they are extraordinarily complex sums. Some musicians, artists, actors, writers, and such have talent. I don't see intellectual capacity as a talent. However, since I have a talent for being the odd-man-out, I don't expect agreement on this. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> I much prefer this variation: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > don't see intellectual capacity as a talent. However, since I have a > talent for being the odd-man-out, I don't expect agreement on this. Was Einstein especially good at arithmetic (or math in general)? He may have been, but I don't recall hearing so, and it wouldn't have been necessary. What he was apparently good at was designing thought experiments that got you to look at problems in a new way and see solutions that wouldn't otherwise have been obvious. And then designing theories that accounted for what you found. I often have trouble explaining to people what I mean when I described programs (usually looked at from the inside) or algorithms as "elegant" or "ugly" or systems as well or poorly architected, but I recognize it when I see it. Like designing scientific theories and experiments, it can be just as much an art form as art, writing, music, or architecture. And doing it well seems to come more naturally to some people than to others. I'd count that as "talent". What bothers me about this thread is that my reading of the original sentence was as a response to an assertion that "Einstein didn't have any talent". To which my response would probably have been phrased "If Einstein didn't have any talen't, he wouldn't have become as famous as he did." (probably not "as he was", but I can't be sure.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little |practice, writing can be an kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog! (650)857-7572 | Calvin http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >may have been, but I don't recall hearing so, and it wouldn't have >been necessary. You're right to question this. He wasn't very good at maths, and needed help with some of the equations that went into his papers. If I remember which book is the source of this information, and find it, I can post details, but my 'library' doubles as a guest suite and it's in that mode right now. SignaturePaul >>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >details, but my 'library' doubles as a guest suite and it's in that mode >right now. It was mentioned, in passing, in one of Steven Weinberg's books on cosmology. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > On Thu, 07 May 2009 19:44:12 -0400, Robert Lieblich > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > see using it to describe a natural ability to do sums, even if they > are extraordinarily complex sums. I believe that his 'talent' was in visualizing or imaging how the universe worked. I believe that he was not all that good a mathematician. John Kane Kingston ON Canada >>> I much prefer this variation: >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I'm bothered by you botherment! The OED says: talent, n. I. An ancient weight, a money of account (L. talentum). .... II. {obsolete senses} III. Mental endowment; natural ability. [From the parable of the talents, Matt. xxv. 14-30, etc.] 5. Power or ability of mind or body viewed as something divinely entrusted to a person for use and improvement: considered either as one organic whole or as consisting of a number of distinct faculties; (with pl.) any one of such faculties. 6. a. A special natural ability or aptitude, usually for something expressed or implied; a natural capacity for success in some department of mental or physical activity; b. pl. Aptitudes or faculties of various kinds; mental powers of a superior order; abilities, parts. c. collective sing. (without a or pl.). Mental power or ability; cleverness. d. Talent as embodied in the talented; sometimes approaching or passing into the sense: Persons of talent or ability collectively; as sing., a person of talent. ... e. Obs. f. The women of a particular locality collectively (as sing.), judged according to attractiveness and sexual promise, esp. as local talent (see LOCAL a. 2d). Also applied occas. to men. slang. 7. Obs. 8. attrib. and Comb., ...talent agency, ... talent scout... talent show... talent-spotter... talent-spotting vbl. n... Consider a piece of music performed by an orchestra (or big band) with a conductor. The composer of the piece may not be able to play any of the instruments of the orchestra but has the skill to use them indirectly by communicating through the musical score she creates. She has the skill to create a wonderful piece of music and to communicate her intentions to the orchestra and its conductor.. The conductor may not be able to play any of the orchestral instruments but he develops in his mind a distinctive interpretation of the piece for the orchestra to perform. He works with the orchestra during rehearsals to get the orchestra to play the piece as he envisages it - his interpretation. The players use their ability to read music, their ability to play their instruments and their ability to follow the guidance and instructions of the conductor. All the people mentioned have something called musical ability, "The quality or character of being musical; accomplishment or aptitude in music; musical sensibility", as well as the specific skills needed for their specialist tasks. I am happy to describe all of these people as "talented". There are "a talent for composition", "a talent for interpretation and conducting" and "a talent for playing an instrument". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> I much prefer this variation: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] >talent for composition", "a talent for interpretation and conducting" >and "a talent for playing an instrument". So am I. My discomfort is in assigning "talented" to those in the hard sciences. I know the definition of "talented". I just don't like it applied to certain people in certain areas. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper filted: >>All the people mentioned have something called musical ability, "The >>quality or character of being musical; accomplishment or aptitude in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >hard sciences. I know the definition of "talented". I just don't >like it applied to certain people in certain areas. So you'd kick at "he has a real talent for factoring cubic polynomials"?...I'm sure I've said almost exactly that at some point in my life....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > tony cooper filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > polynomials"?...I'm sure I've said almost exactly that at some point > in my life....r I have no problem with using the word "talent" in that sense, but I'm fairly certain that I have never actually noted someone's talent for factoring cubic polynomials. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Any programming problem can be 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |solved by adding another layer of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |indirection. Any performance |problem can be solved by removing kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |one. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > I much prefer this variation: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I offer as proof of this axiom my own life. I have no real talent (a > knack here and there, perhaps), and I am utterly obscure. You're a living legend around here, Bob. DC -- >> > I much prefer this variation: >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >You're a living legend around here, Bob. Some say the same about Michael Foot. SignatureJames > > > I much prefer this variation: > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You're a living legend around here, Bob. I'd say that proves my point. SignatureBob the Obscure > I have posted again here a question regarding the validity of the > following phrase: > "If Einstein did not have any talent then he would not have become > as famous as he was." > The feedback I got from this newsgroup was that it should have been > written as: > "If Einstein had not had any talent, then he would not have become > as famous as he was." > I paid a proofreading company to edit my essay since I am not a > native English speaker. The person who edited my essay (who is a > professional American English language editor) insists that the > former phrase (...did not have) is correct while the latter (...had > not had) is not. > I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion. It seems to me that your sentence would be correct if Einstein were still alive. The responses you have had that change "did not have" to "had not had" are following the rule that a dead person is always spoken of in the past tense. This rule would change a normal past-tense verb referring to a living person into a past-perfect verb, as they have suggested. In the second clause, "would have become" will do for either a living or a dead person because of ambiguities in the tense-forms of the auxiliary "would". It's possible that your editor is thinking of Einstein as still alive, as people will sometimes do of great historical figures. Does the rest of the text, which he or she has seen but we have not, refer to Einstein in the present tense? > > I have posted again here a question regarding the validity of the > > following phrase: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > rest of the text, which he or she has seen but we have not, refer to > Einstein in the present tense? No. The rest of the essay is written using present tenses. I mentioned Einstein as an example in order to prove that in famous persons talent usually overshadows diligence. On May 7, 11:29 am, balou...@gmail.com wrote: > The rest of the essay is written using present tenses. I mentioned > Einstein as an example in order to prove that in famous persons talent > usually overshadows diligence. IMO, your editor is plain wrong. This is an imaginary situation (as Einstein in fact HAD the talent), in the past. It's covered well here: ------- Past Unreal Conditional http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/pastconditional.html#pastunreal Examples: * If I had owned a car, I would have driven to work. But I didn't own one, so I took the bus. * She would have traveled around the world if she had had more money. But she didn't have much money, so she never traveled. * I would have read more as a child if I hadn't watched so much TV. Unfortunately, I did watch a lot of TV, so I never read for entertainment. * Mary would have gotten the job and moved to Japan if she had studied Japanese in school instead of French. * If Jack had worked harder, he would have earned more money. Unfortunately, he was lazy and he didn't earn much. ------- Or you can see it described here: ------- With the third conditional we talk about the past. We talk about a condition in the past that did not happen. Third Conditional: no possibility http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-conditional_4.htm ------- The past perfect is recommended here not only based on conditional rules, but also on temporal precedence and causality: his lack of talent had to be previous to his not becoming famous, which is already in the past. Marius Hancu > On May 7, 11:29 am, balou...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Marius Hancu thanks a lot >>> I have posted again here a question regarding the validity of the >>> following phrase: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> (...had not had) is not. >>> I would appreciate it if you could give me your opinion. >> It seems to me that your sentence would be correct if Einstein were >> still alive. The responses you have had that change "did not have" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> become" will do for either a living or a dead person because of >> ambiguities in the tense-forms of the auxiliary "would". >> It's possible that your editor is thinking of Einstein as still >> alive, as people will sometimes do of great historical figures. >> Does the rest of the text, which he or she has seen but we have >> not, refer to Einstein in the present tense? > No. The rest of the essay is written using present tenses. I > mentioned Einstein as an example in order to prove that in famous > persons talent usually overshadows diligence. If there is no reason to think of him as still being alive (and therefore still having or, hypothetically, not having any talent) then you need the past perfect, as people have said. [ ... ] > No. The rest of the essay is written using present tenses. I mentioned > Einstein as an example in order to prove that in famous persons talent > usually overshadows diligence. I realize I'm seriously off-topic here, but I am not at all persuaded that "talent usually overshadows diligence." Tiger Woods would probably be just another hacker today if he hadn't practiced harder than almost all his competitors. Barack Obama would be just another bright young man if he hadn't pushed himself and his talents through college and law school and local politics and state politics and national politics. Most of the great ones start with plenty of talent and polish it to a fine gloss with untold thousands of hours of practice. In fact, there's a book on the market right now that makes just this point: "Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else," available at Amazon: <http://tinyurl.com/o94n7t> and no doubt many other places. Einstein himself was much more than just his talent, although it's hard to deny that he was smart as smart could be. He spent years developing his Special and General Theories and the other concepts that made him world-famous. Without those years of effort he'd have been nothing more than another bright guy spouting what sounded like nonsense to everyone else. Okay, all the diligence in the world won't make me Michael Jordan, but all the talent in the world is wasted if you aren't diligent. It takes both. There's no overshadowing either way. The closest thing I have to a talent is probably my ability to manipulate language to convey ideas and concepts. That's how I wound up a lawyer; I figured if I was good at it I might be able to make a career out of it. I've worked hard at my profession for more than 40 years, and I think I have have reached the ranks of the pretty good. But the talent would be wasted without the diligence. I hope I haven't rained too much on your parade. SignatureBob Lieblich Scared to death of relativity However, the fact is that in quite good newspapers, both versions show up for past time. At the New York Times: 3 from nytimes.com for "hadn't had * wouldn't have had" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22hadn%27t+had+*+wouldn %27t+have+had%22&btnG=Search 6 from nytimes.com for "didn't have * wouldn't have had". http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Anytimes.com+%22didn%27t+have+*+would n%27t+have+had%22&btnG=Search Marius Hancu |
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.