 |
 | 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 / British English / April 2004About modals
I'm back with one of my favourite topics. From the afterword (1980) by David Lodge to "The British Museum Is Falling Down". "Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that *I would have thought* of writing the novel if we had not, in the early years of our married life, fould (like most of our married Catholic friends) that the only method of family planning sanctioned by the Church, known as Rhythm or the Safe Method, was in practice neither rhythmical nor safe, and therefore a cuase of considerable stress". Ten pages after: "The mistery of the disappearing review copies was never solved. If the incident had occured at a later stage of my literary career I think *I should have made* more fuss; but at the time my dominant emotion was one of relief that I had not, after all, been written off by the reviewing establishment". "I would have thought", "I should have made". I'd have written either "would" or "should" in both cases. Do you think the two cases differ somehow? Bye, FB > I'm back with one of my favourite topics. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "would" or "should" in both cases. > Do you think the two cases differ somehow? I was in the middle of writing a reply to this when I re-read the second quote, and found I have misunderstood it. I thought they differed, but in fact, I would prefer "would" in both cases. To me, "should have done something" connotes "*ought* to have done", but the author of the second quote is not using it in that way. But I should think it is more subtle than that :-) Cheers, Tony  SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org >> "I would have thought", "I should have made". I'd have written either >> "would" or "should" in both cases. >> Do you think the two cases differ somehow? > To me, "should have done something" connotes "*ought* to have done", but > the author of the second quote is not using it in that way. I understand that usage of "should", but I don't see why Lodge used "would" and "should" for the same type of sentence. Bye, FB >>>"I would have thought", "I should have made". I'd have written either >>>"would" or "should" in both cases. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bye, FB In a more formal and old-fashioned form of British english there is a similarity in meaning between between will and would on the one hand and shall and should on teh otehr. In this particular usage "should" doesn't mean the same as "ought to". However, since this form of British english differs from both the Irish form of English I grew up with and my present idiolect I always get confused when I try to explain it. I'm still hoping that somebody else more familiar with this usage will try to explain. If not, I suppose I could look it up ... ;-) Regards, Einde O'Callaghan > In a more formal and old-fashioned form of British english there is a > similarity in meaning between between will and would on the one hand [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm still hoping that somebody else more familiar with this usage will > try to explain. If not, I suppose I could look it up ... ;-) Sorry, that's not what I'm asking. I perfectly (well, 'perfectly'...) understand that usage of 'should', but I thought that if one chooses to use 'should' according to the traditional rules (to express a conditional fact where will is not involved, e.g. 'I should like', 'We should have come, if we had been able', but 'They begged me but I wouldn't come', 'I won't listen to this nonsense!'), he can't use "would" with the same meaning, eight or nine pages before. When I read: "Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that *I would have thought* of writing the novel if we had not [...] fould [...] that the only method of family planning sanctioned by the Church [...] was in practice neither rhythmical nor safe [...]" in which will has nothing to do, I thought: Lodge must be using 'would' as most of the English people seem to do, ignoring the fact that will is not involved (that is, ignoring the traditional difference between 'I will' and 'I shall', which, I'm aware, is no longer even recognized by most of the native speakers, especially Americans). Then I read, eight or nine pages after: 'If the incident had occured at a later stage of my literary career I think *I should have made* more fuss' in which, again, will is not involved. What I wonder is: why did he use 'would' and 'should' for the same type of sentence? He could have used either "would" (as most of the native speakers, including you) or "should" for both. Bye, FB > in which, again, will is not involved. What I wonder is: why did he use > 'would' and 'should' for the same type of sentence? He could have used > either "would" (as most of the native speakers, including you) or "should" > for both. I gave up any hope of understanding such things some years ago when I learnt that the distinction between "will" and "shall" works in opposite directions in England and Scotland, so that "I shall drown and nobody will save me" means totally different things either side of the border. I don't know whether that's true, but it sure confused me! -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.yk Old grammarians never die, they simply parse away. >>In a more formal and old-fashioned form of British english there is a >>similarity in meaning between between will and would on the one hand [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > either "would" (as most of the native speakers, including you) or "should" > for both. I can only suggest that you write to Lodge and ask him. To be quite honest I probably wouldn't have noticed this if I'd been reading the book. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan > I can only suggest that you write to Lodge and ask him. Should I? Why not, he might find me so silly as to create a new character based on me. > To be quite honest I probably wouldn't have noticed this if I'd been reading the book. As a non-native English speaker, a pretty pedant one, I tend notice a lot of irrelevant things. (witty face) Even so, Lodge must have noticed it while *writing* that (you may be absent-minded while you are reading, but when you are writing a book?), then I should think there's a reason. Bye, FB In uk.culture.language.english on Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:46:02 GMT, FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote: }As a non-native English speaker, a pretty pedant one, I tend notice a lot }of irrelevant things. That's a pretty pedantic one. {R} > "Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that *I would have thought* of > writing the novel if we had not [...] fould [...] that the only method of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > most of the English people seem to do, ignoring the fact that will is not > involved Are you sure? I mean, are you sure that will is not involved at all, in that sentence? SignatureEnrico C Do Something Amazing Today Save a Life, Give Blood >> "Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that *I would have thought* of >> writing the novel if we had not [...] fould [...] that the only method of >> family planning sanctioned by the Church [...] was in practice neither >> rhythmical nor safe [...]" > Are you sure? > I mean, are you sure that will is not involved at all, in that > sentence? You can't want to think something, can you? Well, if you use 'would' ignoring the traditional difference between 'should' and 'would', you don't even think of 'will', but if Lodge wrote: 'If the incident had occured at a later stage of my literary career I think *I should have made* more fuss' I should think he wanted to use this difference. 'I should have made more fuss' means 'This is what would have occurred if...' ('if the incident had occurred at a later stage of my literary career, that would have been my reaction'), then: 'Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that *I would have thought* of writing the novel if we had not [...] fould [...] that the only method of family planning sanctioned by the Church [...] was in practice neither rhythmical nor safe [...]' means "Nevertheless [...] I would have wanted to think of [...] if we had not [...]". In both sentences 'will' is certainly not involved. Then I'd have expected 'should' (according to tradition) or 'would' in both cases. I mean, if he used 'should' I suppose he wanted to mark that difference, so why not use it in that other sentence? Or why not use 'would' in both cases, ignoring that difference? Why should I care of this nonsense? Why don't I sleep more? Bye, FB >>> "Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that *I would have thought* of >>> writing the novel if we had not [...] fould [...] that the only method of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I should think he wanted to use this difference. In my opinion, in the first sentence there is a somewhat subjective element, lacking in the second sentence. It seems to me that the meaning of the first sentence is, more or less: I wanted to write this novel because... so and so. If not, I wouldn't want to write it. The second sentence says instead: I believe that... so and so. Therefore: I should think... SignatureEnrico C > In my opinion, in the first sentence "Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that *I would have thought* of writing the novel if we had not, in the early years of our married life, fould (like most of our married Catholic friends) that the only method of family planning sanctioned by the Church, known as Rhythm or the Safe Method, was in practice neither rhythmical nor safe, and therefore a cuase of considerable stress". > there is a somewhat subjective > element, lacking in the second sentence. "The mistery of the disappearing review copies was never solved. If the incident had occured at a later stage of my literary career I think *I should have made* more fuss; but at the time my dominant emotion was one of relief that I had not, after all, been written off by the reviewing establishment". Then, "I would have thought of writing the novel" as "I would have desired to write the novel" or "I would have considered writing the novel", not as "It would have occurred to me to write the novel". I gave it for granted the latter meaning was intended. Henryco, you *must* be right, for I should keep on thinking about this another day otherwise. (witty face). Native speakers? Is Enrico likely to be right? Bye, FB > "Nevertheless it would be idle to pretend that *I would have thought* of > writing the novel if we had not [...] fould [...] that the only method of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > either "would" (as most of the native speakers, including you) or "should" > for both. (beware, non-native English speaker) I think the two sentences aren't the same type. He could have used would in both sentences, but then the second sentence would have had a different meaning. Using the word 'should', gives it the meaning: 'If the incident had occured at a later stage of my literary career I think *I would have been (or felt) obligated to make* more fuss'. If the author would have used the word 'would', the meaning would be like this: 'If the incident had occured at a later stage of my literary career I think *I had made* more fuss' I know the latter isn't grammatically correct, but I don't see how I could explain it without just repeating the word 'would'. And 'had' _not_ with the meaning 'had better'. SignatureEls http://locusmeus.com/ Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito. - Renato Russo - > Using the word 'should', gives it the meaning: 'If the > incident had occured at a later stage of my literary career > I think *I would have been (or felt) obligated to make* more > fuss'. Not at all, in that case. Bye, FB |
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.