He was lying, not waiting for the twilight but just keeping quiet until it should

He was lying, not waiting for the twilight but just keeping quiet until it should come.
He was lying, not waiting for the twilight but just keeping quiet for it to come.
He was lying, not waiting for the twilight but just keeping quiet until it came.
What is the difference in meaning between these three sentences? As for the third one, it is obvious: he was lying quiet until the twilight actually came. But is there any between the first and the second, the subjunctive and the infinitive?

Who wrote those sentences? Where was he lying?
I don't think #1 is correct.

It is correct.

The 'correct' sentence is the first one because that's the one you took from somewhere. Please tell us where. Thanks.

Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to make up sentences and then ask us what they mean. It will be more productive to focus only on sentences you find, and ask about those.

jutfrank said:

The 'correct' sentence is the first one because that's the one you took from somewhere. Please tell us where. Thanks.

Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to make up sentences and then ask us what they mean. It will be more productive to focus only on sentences you find, and ask about those.

Click to expand...

Now he only could lie as he was, breathing slowly, almost ready to fall asleep again, paralyzed in the airless room, not waiting for twilight but staying as he was until it should come.

Paul Bowles, The Sheltering Sky

constantinusphilo said:

It is correct.

Click to expand...

No, it's not correct.

If he was lying, he wasn't telling the truth. That's not what Bowles said.

Bowles meant he was lying down.

Charlie Bernstein said:

No, it's not correct.

If he was lying, he wasn't telling the truth. That's not what Bowles said.

Bowles meant he was lying down.

Click to expand...

Thank you, my question was about 'should come' however.

constantinusphilo said:

Thank you, my question was about 'should come' however.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. That was clear.

But that doesn't mean you don't want to know about other mistakes, right? Of course you do.

(And I'm not lying!)

Charlie Bernstein said:

No, it's not correct.

If he was lying, he wasn't telling the truth. That's not what Bowles said.

Bowles meant he was lying down.

Click to expand...

To lie is a stative verb and this is what is meant here, to lie down is an action verb and it does not fit the context.

Right. There was no implication in any post in this thread that "lying" meant "telling untruths" in any of the sample sentences.

My sense here is that should is used to give some idea of eventuality. In other words, it means something like 'in the event that'. I believe the effect of such extrinsic possibility creates some doubt that the twilight will ever come. In his mind, there is a faint idea that he may be lying there forever.

I'm not confident my sense is right, however. If not, I have no other way of understanding it.

I think that 'should' here is calquing the Latin subjunctive in similar grammar patterns (Bowles must have had his share of it as most of his generation). Thus, in Latin It would be something like Cubebat exspectans donec adveniat diluculum/ i.e. he was lying until twilight should come.

Lying in wait? For what?

constantinusphilo said:

I think that 'should' here is calquing the Latin subjunctive in similar grammar patterns (Bowles must have had his share of it as most of his generation). Thus, in Latin It would be something like Cubebat exspectans donec adveniat diluculum/ i.e. he was lying until twilight should come.

Click to expand...

Yes, you might be right. I was thinking something similar.

jutfrank said:

My sense here is that should is used to give some idea of eventuality. In other words, it means something like 'in the event that'. I believe the effect of such extrinsic possibility creates some doubt that the twilight will ever come. In his mind, there is a faint idea that he may be lying there forever.

I'm not confident my sense is right, however. If not, I have no other way of understanding it.

Click to expand...

I agree that that's usually the case, and I wouldn't use it the way Bowles does. But the way he used it there seems to serve his purpose.

Go figure.