LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 23.AUG.2000 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 22.AUG.2000 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: Ted Harding <Ted.Harding at nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
Subject: LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 23.AUG.2000 (04) [E]

> From: Ian James Parsley [parsley at highbury.fsnet.co.uk]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language varieties" LOWLANDS-L, 22.AUG.2000 (10)
[E/LS]

I'm not sure about these new syntactical theories (below).

> John Feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk] wrote:
>
>> I've just heard a couple more abbreviated US past tenses:
>>
>> "By the powers vest in me ..."

This example strikes me as plain wrong: "vest" in this context can only
be passive, but "vest" is not a passive form (unless deviant). However,
I can make the next example plausible without straining anything:

>> "The police knew they need to know ..."

The police knew they need to know how to safely restrain a
prisoner [but the officers in this case had ignored the need,
and did not know, and so were negligent, for example]

I.e. At the time in question the police in question knew that,
as police, they need [always needed, needed then, need now, and always
will need] to know ...

So it depends what the "..." really was ...

> I wonder if this latter one might be part of a new syntactical theory
> I've heard some people come up with. The "logical" argument is that
> the main clause ("The police knew") is already in the past tense, so
> some people argue that the following subordinate should be present
> (because at the time the police knew, "they need" was actually
> present, if you see what I mean). The most obvious example of this
> debate is "I'd have loved to have been there" versus "I'd have loved
> to be there" - the latter is favoured by most modern grammarians on
> the basis that tense is already indicated by "I'd have".

Ted.

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================