We were going to rent a movie and order pizza.

[kadioguy]

LINDA: "Hello?"
STACY: "Hi Linda. This is Stacy. Are you free tomorrow night?"
LINDA: "No, I'm not. Why?"
STACY: "I'm inviting a couple of friends to sleep over."
LINDA: "I wish I could go, but I have to babysit my younger sister."
STACY: "That's too bad. We were going to rent a movie and order pizza."
LINDA: "Now I really wish I could go. That sounds like so much fun."
STACY: "Can your parents find another babysitter?"
LINDA: "No. Our regular babysitter got sick, so they asked me."

STACY: "I see. What time will your parents be back?"
LINDA: "9 o'clock pm."
STACY: "Do you want to come over after you finish babysitting?"
LINDA: "Will you still be awake?"
STACY: "Of course! It's a sleepover party. We're all going to sleep late."
LINDA: "Ok! Please save me some pizza."
STACY: "I will. See you tomorrow night."

[Source]
----
Why is it "We were going to ..." rather than "We are going to ..."?

a. The intention was in the past for an action that has not yet happened. Like "I wanted to do something" or "I had the desire to do (an action in the future)".

b. That implies this: we couldn't go if you don't join us.

I was talking about it with a Chinese speaker. I thought it meant (a), while he insisted on (b).

He said,

"I think you forgot to include the adverb 'tomorrow'.

1. We are going to do something tomorrow.
2. We were going to do something tomorrow.
3. We decided to do something tomorrow.

My first sentence means that we have a plan for tomorrow, and it's highly likely that we'll stick to that plan. The second sentence implies that there may be a change of plan. The third sentence simply states that the decision was made in the past."
-----
What do you think?

[Edit: Changed "but" to "while", and "means" to "meant"]

 

[SoothingDave]

"We are" could also be used.

There is some implied conditional in the "we were." Like "we were going to order pizza, and you could have had some if you came."

On its face, it could mean "we were going to order pizza, but since you are not coming, we won't," but that isn't a realistic understanding of what is being communicated.

 

[jutfrank]

I think your a. describes this use. The speaker is focusing on the intention as it was in the past. Why she did that is another question, but it could be a way of being polite, by saying that there's still at least a slight possibility that the plan could be changed.

 

[kadioguy]

I think your a. describes this use. The speaker is focusing on the intention as it was in the past. Why she did that is another question, but it could be a way of being polite, by saying that there's still at least a slight possibility that the plan could be changed.

Could you tell me which of the following the "as" mean?

1. The speaker is focusing on [the intention as (= when) it was in the past].

2. The speaker is focusing on the intention, as (= because) it was in the past.

3. The speaker is focusing on the intention as (= [in] the way that) it was in the past.

 

[ThatChineseSpeaker]

Hello everyone, it's nice to have found this place.

The link of this thread was posted to that Chinese forum where the original discussion took place, that's how I got here, and yes I'm that Chinese speaker who insisted on deciphering the (maybe nonexistant) hidden messages ^_^

People participated in that discussion all appeared to have B2 or higher English proficiency, it was assumed (by me) that everyone had a firm grip on grammar, and the choice of using "were" instead of "are" of the sentence in question was based not on grammar but on pragmatics.

My point was that Stacy implied the possibility of aborting tomorrow's plan to put a little pressure on Linda into accepting her invitation. It could also be a polite way to avoid hinting "We may still do it even if you don't join us". Either way it wasn't simply stating a plan made in the past.

I argued that it was a common coversational strategy both in English and in Chinese, and we didn't need to peek into the transcript (which of course we wouldn't have in real life) to understand "the implied" or "the hinted" may not always come true later.

Was I reading too much into that sentence?

We do appreciate the input from seasoned native English speakers from time to time, or else it would seem to be bunch of us Chinese speakers messing with ourselves arguing about English usage ^_^

 

[5jj]

Was I reading too much into that sentence?

Perhaps.

It is always difficult to know exactly what was in a speaker's mind when words were uttered; even the speaker themself might have used a different tense/aspect if they had spoken one second earlier or later, and had no idea why. Suggestions made in this thread are interesting, but we can never know if any are spot on.

This is particularly true when we are dealing with constructed dialogues such as this one, in which we are trying to guess if the person who constructed the dialogue (rather than a speaker in real life) had some idea of implication in mind.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[ThatChineseSpeaker]

Welcome to the forum.

Thank you for the reply and the warm welcome.
I'll try not to bother everybody too much ^_^

 

[jutfrank]

Could you tell me which of the following the "as" mean?

The following one:

3. The speaker is focusing on the intention as (= [in] the way that) it was in the past.

 

[jutfrank]

My point was that Stacy implied the possibility of aborting tomorrow's plan to put a little pressure on Linda into accepting her invitation. It could also be a polite way to avoid hinting "We may still do it even if you don't join us". Either way it wasn't simply stating a plan made in the past.

That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[kadioguy]

Hello everyone, it's nice to have found this place.

The link of this thread has been posted to that Chinese forum where the original discussion took place -- that's how I got here, and yes I'm that Chinese speaker who insisted on deciphering the (maybe nonexistant) hidden messages ^_^

People participating in that discussion all appeared to have B2 or higher English proficiency. It is assumed (by me) that everyone had a firm grip on grammar, and the choice of using "were" instead of "are" of the sentence in question was based not on grammar but on pragmatics.

[...]

We do appreciate the input from seasoned native English speakers from time to time [I think that it is unnecessary], or else it would seem to be bunch of us Chinese speakers messing with ourselves arguing about English usage ^_^

How about my corrections?

 

[Rover_KE]

I'll try not to bother everybody too much. ^_^

Please don't use home-made emojis to replace standard punctuation marks.

If you must use a smiley, you should click on the icon and choose one of the hundreds available there.

When replying to threads, please state that you are not a teacher, in accordance with the forum rules.

 

[Tdol]

B) might be a case of trying to hammer grammar's square peg into meaning's round hole.

 

[kadioguy]

How about my corrections?

Hi members,

If you don't mind, I would like to hear your opinions. What do you think about my revision of the post?

 

[Tdol]

Could you tell me which of the following the "as" mean?

1. The speaker is focusing on [the intention as (= when) it was in the past].

2. The speaker is focusing on the intention, as (= because) it was in the past.

3. The speaker is focusing on the intention as (= [in] the way that) it was in the past.

All are possible, though the third is getting less common.