who is online

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Note, 'would' (habitual) or 'would' #2: 'tense' or 'pastness'?

EX: She would take the bus every day. (habitual)

'would' expreses "known" information with a factual meaning; i.e., Cf. I drive every day. But it also expresses a habit, which 'drive' cannot, so I'd say it lacks "tense", but that it expresses pastness, in the sense of relative knowledge. If 'would' #2 carried "tense", we'd have a lot of explaining to do. Notably, the assumption that 'would' functions as a predicate. On to 'will' #2, now:

EX: She will take the bus every day.

'will' seems to be more like a form of command than a 'habitual' act. It's similar to causative verbs, you know? She will do this! on her on accord, or course, but it's not her will. Someone makes her do it. willingness is ever present, so 'will' (habitual) #2 is a misnomer.

Hello Cas

If I may join the queue behind Roro with my question...

Now I have to disagree with this analysis of this particular "will". I know the form of "will" (call it "will¹") you mean: the emphasis expresses it perfectly. There is however another (relatively rare) form of habitual "will" (call it "will²). Will¹ has a slight air of exasperation; will² needn't have. And with will¹, the full form is required, to permit the emphasis; but with will², you can contract:

9. "He'll get up in the morning, go to Mass, do all the housework – and all before 7 o'clock!"

It's very similar in meaning to the present tense version:

10. "He gets up in the morning, goes to Mass, does all the housework – and all before 7 o'clock!"

The slight difference is that will² imparts a sense which is exactly parallel, for a present habitual action, to the flavour I've tried to suggest for the Flaubertian "would".

Moreover, once the person is dead, it translates perfectly into the "obituary" use of the Flaubertian "would".

And...as if that weren't enough...it too deals with "the familiar" (not the "unknown")...

Can we ask more of a usage, I ask myself? I can only wonder that it isn't more common...

MrP
PS: At a tangent: "Someone makes her do it. willingness is ever present". Is that what you meant? It seems to self-contradict.

[Casiopea]

Good evening. (I've had some sleep; I'm wide awake now. )

Originally Posted by Roro

Can I understand your oppisitions in the explanation on modal,
familar/known vs. unfamilar/unknown as (more or less) direct vs.remote?

They're similar, but different. (How are you using them?) The terms I'm searching for describe what the speaker is familar with (e.g., habitual: She would wait for the bus every day), and isn't familiar with (e.g., possibility) or chooses (hence, one's will) not to be too familiar with (e.g., polite speech: Would you pass me the salt).

Originally Posted by Roro

And do you consider 'habituality' as one of modal meanings? (Sorry if I've misunderstood your explanation.) Simply I've learned another point of view, so I think MrP's proposal would be fairly possible (or exists already?).

What's the other point of view?

Originally Posted by Roro

I couldn't find the term 'diectics' in my dictionary, maybe it's a variant/typo of 'deictic'?

Typo. My fingers type faster than the time it takes the information to leave my brain. Click on the link. Deictic: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/cleary/deictic.html Note, I'm using the term 'deictic' in a new way; roughly, to describe speaker knowledge relative to the event.

. . . how (or to what extent) we can apply this classification to another languages.

Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_tense

[Casiopea]

Good evening.

EX: She will take the bus every day. (emphatic; habitual will¹)

Originally Posted by MrPedantic

There is however another (relatively rare) form of habitual "will" (call it "will²). Will¹ has a slight air of exasperation; will² needn't have. And with will¹, the full form is required, to permit the emphasis; but with will², you can contract

So, he'llget up (will²)and he will get up (will¹) differ. Could he'll be emphasized? (I'm having trouble figuring out how they differ semantically. Could you walk me through it? ) Teach me more.

Would will² (habitual) be a variant of will¹ (habitual) or a new addition?

Originally Posted by MrP

The slight difference is that will² imparts a sense which is exactly parallel, for a present habitual action, to the flavour I've tried to suggest for the Flaubertian "would".

Excellent. Mind you, will²
is 'relatively rare'. That's a problem.

Originally Posted by MrP

And...as if that weren't enough...[Flaubertian "would"] too deals with "the familiar" (not the "unknown")...

Life is good.

Originally Posted by MrP

At a tangent: "Someone makes her do it. willingness is ever present". Is that what you meant? It seems to self-contradict.

Again, I apologize. Chalk it up to lack of sleep. I know better.

Teach me more about Flaubertian "would". Be gentle with me, please.

[Roro]

[/COLOR]

Good evening. (I've had some sleep; I'm wide awake now. )

Good evening to you, too, Casiopea.
Thank you for your answers. As to the difference between familiar/unfamiliar and direct/remote, I'd better go back to your and others' previous posts and re-read them all.

As to

What's the other point of view?

I have in mind, in particular, Comrie, Dahl, Bybee et al. They take a typological standpoint. Their schema might differ with your's, in details.

(One of the reason why I'd be inclined to take 'habitual' meaning not as a modal meaning is that it makes the analysis of the Present Simple more complicated. This is my most humble opinion, though.)

Hope it's not too late.. Have a sweet Sunday,

[Casiopea]

, all.

Originally Posted by Roro

I have in mind, in particular, Comrie, Dahl, Bybee et al. They take a typological standpoint. Their schema might differ with your's, in details.

Yes, yes. Could you refresh my memory? A bit of the gist wouldn't be asking for much, would it?

(One of the reason why I'd be inclined to take 'habitual' meaning not as a modal meaning is that it makes the analysis of the Present Simple more complicated.)

Please go on. I'm interested in hearing more.

Originally Posted by Roro

Have a sweet Sunday,

I will, and I did.

[Roro]

Hello Casiopea,
Of course, with pleasure.

It would be easier to copy some meaning classifications from their books, but please let me see if I can add something more from their theoretical framework. So it would take some time. I'll be back.

See you,

[MrPedantic]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

EX: She will take the bus every day. (emphatic; habitual will¹)

So, he'llget up (will²)and he will get up (will¹) differ. Could he'll be emphasized? (I'm having trouble figuring out how they differ semantically.

Well, no, not really...In fact, will² can't carry emphasis. And it doesn't have will¹'s sense of "wilfulness".

It may be a BrE-only flavour; and even then, as I say, it's quite rare. (And maybe the "will have been killed" usage is another Old World oddity. Our modal software is set up a little differently over here.)

But I'll see if I can find a better way of explaining it. Though I do feel a little like someone faced with the task of describing how, um, yes, in fact, he did see a unicorn in his back yard.

MrP

[Casiopea]

Roro, I await your synopsis with bated breath. In the meantime, I'll do a bit off reading on my own. MrP, I'm also going to check out F-would. (Psst. If I'm mad (crazy) enough to think I can discuss modality while on 1 hour's worth of sleep, I am certain you can tame that unicorn. I'm very interested in the "obituary" tense (?) and how compares or contrasts with my idea that 'would' is deictic.
Athapaskan languages (like Navajo) have a 4th person singular subject pronoun, roughly, "the person who's not participating in the conversation." It's decitic. That person is far from the speaker, either space or time, and therefore not in the speech act. If 'would' works that way, say, knowledge about the person or the event is known (close) to the speaker, then 'would', and if unfamilar (far from) the speaker, then 'will'. And that's definitely not how "tense" works.

[Roro]

I await your synopsis with bated breath .

Hello Casiopea, bated breath.... sounds beautiful.
I've been feeling unwell for a few day, I'm not ready yet . Give me a few more time, talk to you soon !

If a 4th person singular subject pronoun was in English (or Japanese), what kind of object would it refer... It would be a good mental gymnastics . I've heard that Navajo is one of the toughest languages. Seems .. it was true !

By the way I've read recently (in another site, though) an interesting thread on 'copula' verbs. The discussion was namely focused on the difference between the two meanings of 'be.' When I read that I had a vague feeling, as if I know these styles. Were you there, too? Anyway it was very interesting topic. (sorry for my off-topic comment.)

I'm looking forward to talking to you,

PS. I have to add that, as far as I understand, the usage of 'will' in obituary and the usage of 'would' which corresponds to French imparfait have nothing to do with each other. Sorry for my confusing comment, I shouldn't have quoted about that 'will.'

[MrPedantic]

"I have to add that, as far as I understand, the usage of 'will' in obituary and the usage of 'would' which corresponds to French imparfait have nothing to do with each other."

Sorry, Roro, I think that was my fault, not yours! I appropriated your thought...

Here's a random example from Google of "obituary would":

"So great was Speaker's ability at covering ground in center that for years before the lively ball came into play he would anchor himself for many batsmen not more than forty feet behind second base. It is almost legend[ary] how he would come in and cover the bag on infield plays. Many times he would slip behind a runner watching the shortstop and second baseman, take the throw from the pitcher or catcher, and tag the amazed victim."

From the Obituary of Tris Speaker, baseball player: <http://www.baseball-almanac.com/deaths/tris_speaker_obituary.shtml>

It's very close to "used to".

<more soon>

MrP