|
 |
English: Random Question (Double Perfect) | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Questions About Your Target Languages |  | |
| Gemuse Senior Member Germany Joined 4083 days ago 818 posts - 1189 votes  Speaks: English Studies: German | Message 9 of 35 14 March 2014 at 1:46pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
I have no clue what most of the terms in your post mean. I have not studied English grammar (apart from some very basic stuff in school which I have all forgotten). I have no clue what auxiliary verbs, particle, modifiers are. At such an advanced stage of ignorance, perhaps it is best if you just give the right way to write those sentences. Preferably with minimal change to my incorrect constructs. 16 tenses?! Something like this is what I have to look forward to in German? FML.
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4708 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 10 of 35 14 March 2014 at 2:03pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
We could give you a fish, but we could also teach you how to fish! And then you have a skill for life ;)
There are less tenses in German (German doesn't have continuous tenses), but, yes, you will have to learn several verb forms. Isn't that big a deal, though, German verbs work much like English verbs anyway. You just need to tack on a few extra endings, and you don't have to worry about I am sitting/I sit because it's all one and the same. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| michaelyus Diglot Groupie United Kingdom Joined 4566 days ago 53 posts - 87 votes Speaks: Mandarin, English* Studies: Italian, French, Cantonese, Korean, Catalan, Vietnamese, Lingala, Spanish Studies: Hokkien | Message 11 of 35 14 March 2014 at 2:45pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
This is a simple case of English conditionals gone wrong: English is quite strict on
the tenses used in if-clauses paired with main clauses.
This is fine. The main clause is present of would + infinitive ("present conditional"); the if-clause is the negative of the past tense of "need" ("I needed to" becomes "I didn't need to"). The structure generally implies a non-zero but probably unlikely possibility of fulfilment. E.g. if someone retorted "but you haven't corrected **** ever..." then the condition would be fulfilled ("... then that means they must be C1!"). Now to go through 2-6:
We have the perfect conditional ("would have thought") paired supposedly with the negative of the past perfect of "to have to" ( > "I had had to"). We seem to be trying to form the irrealis conditional structure ("it's too late for me to think they were C1"). But the negative is formed incorrectly: the negative of the auxiliary "have" in the past tense "had" is not "didn't have", but "hadn't".
Perfect conditional in main clause + apparent negative of past perfect of "to need to" > "had needed to" > ????. Again, the negative of the auxiliary is incorrect: it should be "hadn't needed to".
Perfect conditional in main clause + negative of the double perfect of "to have to". Present perfect = "I have had to" / "I've had to", past perfect = "I had had to / I'd had to", double perfect = "I had have had to" = "I'd have had to", often spelled [incorrectly] "I'd *of had to". The usual negative of this double perfect is "I'd not have had to". But because the double perfect is a non-standard construction, and is not acceptable to very many native English speakers, it is not acceptable in formal English. It may also be difficult to understand in conditional sentences as it is not one of the accepted forms; this would depend on whether the listener is exposed to the double perfect regularly or not.
In this if clause, we seem to be aiming for the negative of the double perfect of "need to". Present perfect = "I have needed to" / "I've needed to", past perfect = "I had needed to / I'd needed to", double perfect = "I had have needed to" = "I'd have needed to", often spelled [incorrectly] "I'd *of needed to". But the negative form as shown above would probably be rejected as malformed. "I'd not have needed to" is the usual negative of the double perfect, and even the rare form "I hadn't have needed to" would be preferred over *"didn't have had needed to".
In the if clause here, we seem to be negating the double perfect of "need" in a way that speakers that use the double perfect would agree with. Written down, it does strike me as quite odd, as the double perfect isn't really accepted in writing. Also, because of the close tie of the double perfect to speech, there really needs to be contraction. This presents a problem (which I've mentioned above): the "had" can contract to the left or the right. I have heard contraction to the left a lot more: "I'd have thought they were C1, if I'd not have had needed to correct them occasionally". But it must be mentioned (as I have done above) that the double perfect is not used frequently in conditional constructions: it is still the past perfect that dominates. Hence the most correct rendition for an irrealis situation, with no hope of change, would be: "I'd have thought they were C1, if I hadn't needed to correct them occasionally" or "I'd have thought they were C1, if I hadn't had to correct them occasionally" . For more information, see this About.com page. Note that "double perfect" refers to two related but distinct phenomena (both of which are considered non-standard). Edited by michaelyus on 14 March 2014 at 2:48pm 6 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6598 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 12 of 35 14 March 2014 at 6:21pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
Great post!
Auxiliaries are basically "helping" verbs, like do in "Does he correct you often?" or "He didn't correct you". See this wiki article for a lot of examples. Some of the forms are quite obscure, but if you don't want to learn them, you should either avoid them or accept that English merges some things that seem to be different for you. You've hinted previously that your native language is a rather obscure one - would the original sentences for 2-6 all be different? Or not? Assuming it exists, it's a good idea to read a descriptive grammar of your native language in English. This should help you understand particles and modifiers. And aw, I remember how I wanted to learn German and got to know a girl who was learning it at school. I asked immediately how many tenses German has. I didn't realize that it could have its own difficulties, and that the gender could be difficult for a Russian native speaker. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Gemuse Senior Member Germany Joined 4083 days ago 818 posts - 1189 votes Speaks: English Studies: German | Message 13 of 35 15 March 2014 at 11:04pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
michaelyus, many many thanks! I spent quite a lot of time on your post yesterday.
I am also glad to know that I got sentences 4 and 6 right (non-standard English, but still legit English. Take that previous English native posters :D ) A couple more questions. Q(i) Suppose I take out the conditionals, are the following sentences correct? 7. I did not have had to correct them. 8. I did not have needed to correct them. 9. I did not have had needed to correct. 8 seems a bit wrong to me. Q(ii) 10. I'd have thought they were C1, if I hadn't had to correct them. 11. I'd have thought they were C1, if I hadn't have had to correct them. 10 and 11 have different connotations for me: 10 says to me I had perhaps corrected them once, or more than once in the past. It gives no indication of frequency. 11 says to me, I have had to correct them in the past, and that those corrections were more frequent. Am I wrong here? Do 10 and 11 mean exactly the same, with the same connotation?
At this point I know English way better than I have know any other language. Topic for another thread. PS: battle.html">http://www.itchyfeetcomic.com/2013/10/grammar-b attle.html One day I will come to the present imperfect perpendicular, but not now. I do not understand that yet. "I won't have had to have been having...." Edited by Gemuse on 15 March 2014 at 11:11pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Serpent Octoglot Senior Member Russian Federation serpent-849.livejour Joined 6598 days ago 9753 posts - 15779 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Russian*, English, FinnishC1, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese Studies: Danish, Romanian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Croatian, Slovenian, Catalan, Czech, Galician, Dutch, Swedish | Message 14 of 35 16 March 2014 at 12:16pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
|
That may be legit English, but especially in writing it makes most people cringe. And coming from a non-native this generally sounds like a mistake. Besides, the things you want to convey are generally outside the scope of what the double perfect is used for.
You basically don't seem to believe that "He had had" is really the past tense of "He has had". In some cases you also seem to use "*had have done" when you really mean "had been doing". With "had had", the frequency is only indicated by the context. To indicate an increased frequency you're theoretically supposed to say "had been correcting them all the time" etc, but even this form is generally replaced by "had corrected" (or "had not corrected" etc, but not something with "didn't"). Those double perfect forms are even more obscure and not what an educated person would use here. Edited by Serpent on 16 March 2014 at 12:36pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 7157 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 15 of 35 16 March 2014 at 2:50pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
Just because it's not standard or obscure, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily "legitimate". I find your sense of vindication or validation rather misplaced. You're bound to leave some strange if not negative reactions among your audience of native speakers when you insist on using such forms. If I were your teacher, I'd mark your sentences 2-6 as wrong (or non-standard), and put down corrections, or even ask you what you meant so that I can offer alternatives after having understood which tense and mood you were trying to convey. Things such as *"had have done" again strike me as the kind of mistake made by an ESL student who's struggling with using "have" as an auxillary verb or a modal one. 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||||||||
| Gemuse Senior Member Germany Joined 4083 days ago 818 posts - 1189 votes Speaks: English Studies: German | Message 16 of 35 16 March 2014 at 5:05pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||||||||
"*had have done" sounds wrong to me, so at least I'm not committing that particular mistake. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
