English: Random Question (Double Perfect) (Questions About Your Target Languages) Language Learning Forum

English: Random Question (Double Perfect)
Tags: Syntax \| English
Share with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
Language Learning Forum : Questions About Your Target Languages

35 messages over 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >>

Gemuse
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 4087 days ago
818 posts - 1189 votes

Speaks: English
Studies: German

Message 1 of 35

12 March 2014 at 9:47pm | IP Logged

Having some trouble with a particular sentence....
Question below the quote.

Fuenf_Katzen wrote:

Not an expert by any means, but I would have said it like this:

"If I didn't have to correct them occasionally, I would think they're C1." Or, more
realistically, it would have been: "I would think they're C1 if I didn't need to
correct them occasionally."

I have no idea why I would prefer to reverse those two statements, but I think either
would be fine. I think the original works for colloquial speech though.

For your examples, I can't think of an occasion where I would use "didn't have had" or
"not have had," but I could be wrong! I suppose you could say: "If I hadn't needed to
correct them occasionally, I would have thought C1."

Whew, that wasn't very easy! I hope it was somewhat helpful though.

Thanks. Yes, I prefer the reverse way too (no idea why). And that makes construction
judgement a bit easier for me.

1. I would think they were C1, if I didn't need to correct them occasionally.
2. I would have thought they were C1, if I did not have had to correct them
occasionally.
3. I would have thought they were C1, if I did not have needed to correct them
occasionally.
4. I would have thought they were C1, if I had not have had to correct them
occasionally.
5. I would have thought they were C1, if I did not have had needed to correct them
occasionally.
6. I would have thought they were C1, if I had not have had needed to correct them
occasionally.

So 1 is correct as it was given by Sechs_Katzen. So, which of 2-6 are wrong?
Bonus points if you can explain why. Out of 2-6, mulling it over, 6 sounds best.
Also, it appears that I cannot substitute "did" in place of "had" to get something
sounding equally good, eg 6->5. Dunno why.

Edited by Gemuse on 15 March 2014 at 11:06pm
2 persons have voted this message useful

napoleon
Tetraglot
Senior Member
India
Joined 5021 days ago
543 posts - 874 votes

Speaks: Bengali*, English, Hindi, Urdu
Studies: French, Arabic (Written)

Message 2 of 35

12 March 2014 at 10:11pm | IP Logged

None of the sentences sound right to my ears. :-)
The 'if' in sentence 1 makes the comma redundant. It would be okay without the comma, I guess.
Sentences 2 to 6 are just plain ugly. ;-)

Then again, I'm no native speaker, so maybe they are all correct. Lol :-)

Edited by napoleon on 12 March 2014 at 10:16pm
1 person has voted this message useful

Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6602 days ago
9753 posts - 15779 votes

4 sounds
Speaks: Russian*, English, Finnish^C1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese
Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish

Message 3 of 35

12 March 2014 at 10:41pm | IP Logged

Well, out of the forms we're discussing, the only word you can use twice is "had". so "had had" or "hadn't had", but without anything else.
Basically, the modal verbs have a smaller range of forms in the conditional and subjunctive.
2 persons have voted this message useful

Chung
Diglot
Senior Member
Joined 7161 days ago
4228 posts - 8259 votes

20 sounds
Speaks: English*, French
Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish

Message 4 of 35

12 March 2014 at 10:54pm | IP Logged

2-6 all sound wrong to me.

Serpent neatly summarizes it anyway. "Had had" and "had not had" are grammatical under certain conditions but something like "did not have had" or "had not have had needed" strike me as ungrammatical and something put up by ESL students who are unsure about using past tenses and the inherent "double-duty" expressable with "to have" when acting as either an auxillary verb or a modal one.
1 person has voted this message useful

Gemuse
Senior Member
Germany
Joined 4087 days ago
818 posts - 1189 votes

Speaks: English
Studies: German

Message 5 of 35

13 March 2014 at 4:50pm | IP Logged

Serpent wrote:

Well, out of the forms we're discussing, the only word you can use
twice is "had". so "had had" or "hadn't had", but without anything else.
Basically,
the modal verbs have a smaller range of forms in the conditional and subjunctive.

So is the problem only that they are in a conditional clause, or are the constructs
wrong even by themselves?

"I had not have had to correct them in the past".
"I have not have had to correct them.

These are wrong?
1 person has voted this message useful

Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6602 days ago
9753 posts - 15779 votes

Message 6 of 35

13 March 2014 at 7:13pm | IP Logged

What's supposed to be the purpose of "have" after not? These particular clauses/sentences sound fine if you remove it (though "had had" can't be used in truly independent sentences).

Also, do you understand how the 16 tenses function with non-modal verbs? Or well the main ones mostly. You seem to be treating auxiliary verbs like particles or modifiers.

Edited by Serpent on 13 March 2014 at 8:03pm
2 persons have voted this message useful

ScottScheule
Diglot
Senior Member
United States
scheule.blogspot.com
Joined 5233 days ago
645 posts - 1176 votes

Speaks: English*, Spanish
Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French

Message 7 of 35

13 March 2014 at 7:52pm | IP Logged

Gemuse wrote:

1. I would think they were C1, if I didn't need to correct them occasionally.
2. I would have thought they were C1, if I did not have had to correct them
occasionally.
3. I would have thought they were C1, if I did not have needed to correct them
occasionally.
4. I would have thought they were C1, if I had not have had to correct them
occasionally.
5. I would have thought they were C1, if I did not have had needed to correct them
occasionally.
6. I would have thought they were C1, if I had not have had needed to correct them
occasionally.

2-6 are all gibberish, but I'm afraid I've never studied English, so I can't tell you why.
1 person has voted this message useful

Serpent
Octoglot
Senior Member
Russian Federation
serpent-849.livejour
Joined 6602 days ago
9753 posts - 15779 votes

Message 8 of 35

13 March 2014 at 8:13pm | IP Logged

Gemuse wrote:

So 1 is correct as it was given by Sechs_Katzen.

Sechs? :)
Native-speaking cats would be confused by this.

2 persons have voted this message useful

This discussion contains 35 messages over 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 4.6406 seconds.