They look like perfectly good examples to me!Originally Posted by hela
MrP
Hela, sans additional context,
1) By the time he arrives, we will have a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward. Do you know why?
2) ............................ , we are going to have a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward.
3) ............................ , we are having a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward.
4) ............................ , we will be having a meeting.
=> It's works but it's marginal. Do you know why?
5) ............................ , we have had a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward.
6) ............................ , we will have had a meeting.
=> It's marginal. "a meeting" doesn't connect.
7) By the time he arrived, we would have a meeting.
=> I agree.
8) ............................ , we were going to have a meeting.
=> I agree.
9) ............................ , we were having a meeting.
=> I agree.
10) .......................... , we would be having a meeting.
=> I agree.
11) .......................... , we had had a meeting.
=> I agree, with additional context; i.e., a meeting with the client.
12) .......................... , we would have had a meeting.or
?
=> Not possible. Conditional.
Hela[/quote]
Dear Cas, (May I call you Cas ?)
4) ............................ , we will be having a meeting.
=> It's works but it's marginal. Do you know why?
Doesn't this mean that he will arrive in the middle of the meeting
6) ............................ , we will have had a meeting.
=> It's marginal. "a meeting" doesn't connect.
Should I say "we will have had the meeting about the language class curriculum" ?
But even though we cannot say:
1) By the time he arrives, we will have a meeting.
=> Agreed. It's awkward. Do you know why?
May be because when we use "by the time" we generally want to say that the action that is /was supposed to be performed can or couldn't be because it is /was too late.
Is that correct?
If I say "By the time he arrived I would be dead", would that express an unlikely situation in the future?
Kind regards,
Hela
Last edited by hela; 02-May-2006 at 16:58.
That's quite interesting. With a slight change, these would be my ticks:
3) By the time he arrives, we are having breakfast.
only in a narrative, with the historic present for "vividness".
4) ............................ , we will be having breakfast.
prediction.
5) ............................ , we have had breakfast.
as #3.
6) ............................ , we will have had breakfast.
prediction.
8) By the time he arrived, we were going to have breakfast.
I'm not sure I can stomach this as it stands; but with clauses reversed, and a faint tone of reproach, it seems to work, e.g.
8a) But we were going to have breakfast by the time he arrived!
i.e. they didn't manage to have breakfast by the time he arrived, and the speaker is quite cross with the addressee about the fact.
9) ............................ , we were having breakfast.
one past action during another.
10) .......................... , we would be having breakfast.
two possible meanings:
a) raising an objection to a future possibility: "No, don't tell him to get here for 9 o'clock. By the time he arrived, we would be having breakfast."
b) a recurrent action in the past.
11) .......................... , we had had breakfast.
breakfast preceded arrival.
12) .......................... , we would have had breakfast.
raising an objection to a future possibility: "No, don't tell him to come at 10 o'clock, if he wants to get here in time for breakfast. By the time he arrived, we would have had breakfast! Tell him to come at 9 instead."
Suddenly I feel a little hungry...
MrP
Right. The meeting started before his arrival. Though take a look at Mr P's interpretation for 3).Originally Posted by hela
[COLOR=black]
In other words - and I know see what Mr P was after - having breakfast will start before his arrival.Originally Posted by MrP
Sounds better - to me; e.g. ... we will have [already] had our/the meeting.Originally Posted by hela
His arrival takes place during another event. The two events are connected in time much like the way the past perfect works. "will have", 1), signals a future event, one that will happen after his arrival. What we want is a verb that signals the past, like "will have had" - a verb that places the event before, or during (see Mr P's interpretations) the other event, not after.Originally Posted by hela
ex: By the time he arrives, we'll be having dinner. <during>
ex: By the time he arrives, we're having dinner. <during; future>
ex: By the time he arrives, we'll have had dinner. <before>
ex: By the time he arrives, we'll have dinner. <*after, unless 'By the time' is meant to be synonymous with "When", then the events occur one after the other, not one before the other>![]()
Not "unlikely", no. More like a predication based on present evidence.Originally Posted by hela
For example,
Max: Did you hear the news?
Sam: Nope.
Max: Pat's just been signed on with Mercy Hospital as an ambulance driver.
Sam: What? Pat is an overly cautious driver. If I needed an ambulance, and Pat got the call, I'd be dead by the time s/he arrived.![]()
![]()
Thank you very much, Casiopea and MrP! Thank you for the comments and explanations!
I don't know why but I don't feel "comfortable" with MrP's sentences #3, 5 & 8. When I translate them into French (sthg I shouldn't do, I know) they sound very odd to me.
See you for more![]()
Hela
You're most welcome, Hela. Thank you for the great questions.![]()
Oh, I agree ... well, I can see your point, but if you take into consideration that language is contextual, that sentences like the one's Mr P expands on require additional context, you'll gain a better understanding of why it is that speakers do use language in unpredicatable or unexpected ways.Originally Posted by hela
Psst. Look at where the sentence is being used.