 |
 | 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 2009We ought to be getting back too
Hello: Is 'We ought to be getting back, too' thus the progressive form, more polite, in this case, than 'We ought to get back, too'? If not, what are the differences you perceive between them? ---- [They need to get back to the city] 'We ought to be getting back, too,' said Duport, freeing himself, apparently dissatisfied, from Ena's long embrace. A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 135 ----  SignatureThanks. Marius Hancu > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If not, what are the differences you perceive between them? (...) Your former example is easier to play with, because I can intone it like an East Indian. It also goes easier into a drawl. Your latter is more terse, as though time is more essential. _______ http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/wish.ogg Destroy That Machine which calls itself Michael. On May 10, 2:56 pm, Marius Hancu <NOS...@videotron.ca> wrote: > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If not, what are the differences you perceive between them? (...) Your former example is easier to play with, because I can intone it like an East Indian. It also goes easier into a drawl. Your latter is more terse, as though time is more essential. Why the comma anyway? You could just say 'We ought to be getting back too'. And if you're simply making that statement there's no need for the question mark. If you are looking for agreement you could say 'Should we be getting back too?" > On May 10, 2:56 pm, Marius Hancu <NOS...@videotron.ca> wrote: >> Hello: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > mark. If you are looking for agreement you could say 'Should we be getting > back too?" Traditionally, a comma would precede "too." Marius was asking "Is X more polite than Y?," that's why he needed a question mark. --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >> On May 10, 2:56 pm, Marius Hancu <NOS...@videotron.ca> wrote: >>> Hello: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Traditionally, a comma would precede "too." Marius was asking "Is X > more polite than Y?," that's why he needed a question mark. Sorry about the question mark comment. I think I must have been either fully or maybe just half-asleep. I don't know why a comma would be 'traditionally' required before too. > I don't know why a comma would be 'traditionally' > required before too. Because. Hey, it's tradition. Well, maybe it's because "too" is not part of the rest of the grammar of the sentence, or is a sentence adverb, if you prefer. Sentence adverbs and other appended words and phrases at the end of sentences are, in traditional grammar, preceded by commas. "We'll be there soon, thank goodness." "That's not what I want, however." "She died yesterday, sadly." I was there, too." The rule was never a firm one, especially as to "too," and it's much honored in the breach these days, but it's the traditional rule. If your "why" goes any deeper than that, I surrender. Note, also, that there's a slight pause in speech before a sentence-ending "too." Another reason for the comma. SignatureBob Lieblich Selling commas at a discount this week only >> I don't know why a comma would be 'traditionally' >> required before too. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Note, also, that there's a slight pause in speech before a > sentence-ending "too." Another reason for the comma. Hmm. No pause for me. I omit the comma before "too" when it stands for "also", as it does in "I was there too". I see absolutely no reason for a comma there -- it's a silly tradition. Anyway, there is no comma in M-W Online's example for "too": Main Entry: too [...] Function: adverb Etymology: Middle English, from Old English to to, too - more at to Date: before 12th century 1: besides, also <sell the house and furniture too> SignatureSkitt (AmE) > [stuff about sentence-adverb "too"] >Anyway, there is no comma in M-W Online's example for "too": > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >1: besides, also <sell the house and furniture too> That's because their example isn't an example of what Counsellor Lieblich was describing. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >> [stuff about sentence-adverb "too"] Actually, in most cases it isn't a sentence adverb, and there was no distinction made, except for mentioning tradition. >> Anyway, there is no comma in M-W Online's example for "too": >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's because their example isn't an example of what Counsellor > Lieblich was describing. OK, what's the difference between that and Bob's "I was there, too." It means "also" in both cases, and it is not a sentence adverb in either. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> 1: besides, also <sell the house and furniture too> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >OK, what's the difference between that and Bob's "I was there, too." It >means "also" in both cases, and it is not a sentence adverb in either. "I was there too" means that various people were there and you can add me to the list of those who were there. Or possibly that I was, or have been, in a number of places, and "there" is one of the places. "I was there, too" could mean that - for example - someone said something insulting about me, and it was made worse by the fact that I was actually present. So without the comma the "too" attaches to a single word within the phrase, and with the comma it attaches to the whole phrase. That's how it works for me, anyway. Katy >> I don't know why a comma would be 'traditionally' >> required before too. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > especially as to "too," and it's much honored in the breach these > days, but it's the traditional rule. Yes, and it's a good rule, IMO. > If your "why" goes any deeper than that, I surrender. > > Note, also, that there's a slight pause in speech before a > sentence-ending "too." Another reason for the comma. I'm not sure about the pause in all cases, but that unsureness of mine is immaterial. The point is that the comma-before-too (and before "also," and before "as well" and maybe before some other words or phrases I can't think of at the moment) _is_ required in writing. (No one has to say the comma aloud, as in: "I went there comma too" or the like.) It's been said that people who know -- and yet flout -- the rules and traditions of grammar and punctuation /in serious writing/ are simply trying to call attention to themselves because they think they are more important than any rules and more intelligent than any rule-makers or rule-followers. (If that hasn't been said before, then it's been said now, by me. Whether it's true or not I leave to the reader.) Exercise: Define "serious writing." (I think "serious writing" can and does include humor and colloquialisms.) SignatureMaria Conlon, resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee. > I'm not sure about the pause in all cases, but that unsureness of mine > is immaterial. The point is that the comma-before-too (and before > "also," and before "as well" and maybe before some other words or > phrases I can't think of at the moment) _is_ required in writing. (No > one has to say the comma aloud, as in: "I went there comma too" or the > like.) For clarification, are you saying that you write things like Are you coming, as well? and that you find that comma to be required? >> I'm not sure about the pause in all cases, but that unsureness of >> mine [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > and that you find that comma to be required? Yes, but that's just me (and my generation?). The practice is fading, it seems. SignatureMaria Conlon >>> I'm not sure about the pause in all cases, but that unsureness of >>> mine [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Yes, but that's just me (and my generation?). The practice is fading, > it seems. Well, I like it, too, Maria. >>>> I'm not sure about the pause in all cases, but that unsureness of >>>> mine [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Well, I like it, too, Maria. Thanks. I feel less alone now. (Of course, you and I are from the same generation -- or close enough.) SignatureMaria Conlon Unrelated quote, seen in a newspaper a while back: "....Every citizen is afforded an attorney if you need one." > Is > 'We ought to be getting back, too' > thus the progressive form, more polite, in this case, than > 'We ought to get back, too' >? So, no differences in terms of politeness? I've heard the progressive is more polite in some circumstances and I wondered if this is one of them. > 'We ought to be getting back, too,' said Duport, freeing himself, > apparently dissatisfied, from Ena's long embrace. > > A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 135 > ---- Thanks. Marius Hancu >> Is >> 'We ought to be getting back, too' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've heard the progressive is more polite in some circumstances and I > wondered if this is one of them. I can't discern any difference in politeness. The only difference I can hear is a little more urgency in the second form, although "urgency" is perhaps too strong. I suppose you could call that less polite if you are addressing somebody to whom you don't have the normal right to give orders. But it's a very fine point. SignatureDavid > >> Is > >> 'We ought to be getting back, too' [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > are addressing somebody to whom you don't have the normal right to give > orders. But it's a very fine point. It's exactly what I am talking about. Thanks for confirmation. Marius Hancu >On May 10, 4:56 pm, Marius Hancu <NOS...@videotron.ca> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 135 >> ---- By using the progressive, the suggestion is made more diffident and less urgent. SignaturePaul On May 11, 5:45 am, Marius.Ha...@gmail.com wrote: > > Is > > 'We ought to be getting back, too' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've heard the progressive is more polite in some circumstances and I > wondered if this is one of them. My AmE take on this is that "We ought to get back, too" means an immediate action is necessary. This is something you would say to your companion if those around you are backing away from a burning building, and danger is immanent. "We ought to be getting back, too" is talking about future action, with more emphasis on "ought" as a social convention rather than an immediate necessity. It's more laid-back. Even though you "ought to", you may not, at least not right away. Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- 'But that's not "for all intents and purposes", that's only "for the vast majority of empirical cetaceans".' - Wayne Throop > Hello: > > Is > 'We ought to be getting back, too' > thus the progressive form, more polite, in this case, than > 'We ought to get back, too'? > If not, what are the differences you perceive between them? The difference for me is that "be getting back" connotes something like "start the process of returning", and is less final than "get back", which has the end-point, the arrival at home, more in its focus. In that sense, it demonstrates less readiness to leave, and could be considered more polite. The contrast is not stark. The polite Chinese host may beg the departing guest to take his time: "Manman zou," go (only) slowly. > ---- > [They need to get back to the city] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 135 > ---- |
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.