Page 5 of 6 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 Last
Results 41 to 50 of 52
  1. #41
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: be supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    If you have a point to make about what I said, then you should think of an example, post it, and then make your point or provide an explanation to which I could then reply. The manner in which you are going about making your point, by attempting to enlist my "help", is not suitable to a discussion involving an exchange of views and ideas.
    What am I missing here, Pro? How can I think of an example when I say that there are no possible examples in English to be thought of?

    You are the one who wrote that "[would] only works out to be the past of in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

    Or have I misquoted you?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,036

    Re: be supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by albeit View Post
    What am I missing here, Pro? How can I think of an example when I say that there are no possible examples in English to be thought of?

    You are the one who wrote that "[would] only works out to be the past of in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

    Or have I misquoted you?
    You can write an example of a statement that uses "will" and turn it into reported speech using "would". This is what you would obviously prefer that I do. The best thing to do would be to write your own example, along with the point you wish to make, and then see if I have a reply to the point you want to make involving the use of "would" in reported speech and how it applies to past time.

    I think you know what I mean. So, I'll just leave it at that. Salut!


  3. #43
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: be supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    You can write an example of a statement that uses "will" and turn it into reported speech using "would". This is what you would obviously prefer that I do.

    The best thing to do would be to write your own example, along with the point you wish to make, and then see if I have a reply to the point you want to make involving the use of "would" in reported speech and how it applies to past time.

    I think you know what I mean. So, I'll just leave it at that. Salut!

    I know what you're asking, Pro, but for the life of me I can't understand why you think "the best thing" would be for me to write an example for your premise.

    It's as if I said, sand is the past tense of go and you asked me to provide an example sentence to illustrate my point and I tell you that it's best if you provide the example. [insert many 'confused' emoticons here]

    Having said that, this thread is full of examples that I've either written and wherein I've then refuted the notion that,

    "[would] only works out to be the past of [__] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

    or others have written - Ann, being on - and for those I've also shown that that same idea, your idea, I must remind you,

    that, "[would] only works out to be the past of in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech"

    is, at the least, highly dubious.

  4. #44
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: be supposed to

    Moved from,

    https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/a...-i-had-15.html

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Proesl,

    The two statements of yours that I believe were contradictory were;

    1. "I know how reported speech works" [might not be the actual wording but that's the full gist of it]

    AND

    2. "[would] only works out to be the past of [__] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

    https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...upposed-5.html

    If you know how reported speech works how can you have said what you said in 2.?

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,036

    Re: be supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by albeit View Post
    Moved from,

    https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/a...-i-had-15.html

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Proesl,

    The two statements of yours that I believe were contradictory were;

    1. "I know how reported speech works" [might not be the actual wording but that's the full gist of it]

    AND

    2. "[would] only works out to be the past of [__] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

    https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/as...upposed-5.html

    If you know how reported speech works how can you have said what you said in 2.?
    To each his own. It's obvious that we don't have the same view here.

    No sale - not buyin' it.

  6. #46
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: be supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    To each his own. It's obvious that we don't have the same view here.

    No sale - not buyin' it.
    I afraid it's not a matter of to each his own, Pro. You've been preaching this line [correctly I might add and I commend you for your efforts] for some time now that preferences don't make the rules of language.

    I don't suggest, nor do I demand that we have to have the same view but I think that if you state a premise, you should be able to back it up with examples. That you're so reluctant suggests to me, 1) that you don't actually know how reported speech works, or 2) you're not so sure of your premise.

    Don't you think that if your premise was valid, examples would pour forth?

  7. #47
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: be supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    It could be less confusing for ELLs to say that "would" is used to represent past time.
    Why limit it to 'would', Pro, when every modal verb can be used to discuss things in the past?

    That plane will have already arrived.

    +++++++++++++++++

    A: That can't have been him at the party. I know what he looks like.

    B: Oh, it sure can have been him. Pretty hot disguise, wasn't it?

    +++++++++++++++++

    Matt 18:18 - “Assuredly, I am saying to you, Whatever you forbid on earth, shall have already been forbidden in heaven.

    ++++++++++++++++++

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    And "would" is also used to represent distant possibilities. We also use "would" to express social distance, politeness, and formality.

    In general, "would" is distant: distant in time, distant in possibility, and distant in familiarity and social relations.

    I think this is a more practical and realistic portrayal of "would" than saying it's the past of "will".
    Yes this is how 'would' works in modern English and it works this way because historically it was a past tense form. Nowadays, it isn't a past tense form, it's a tenseless modal, capable of operating in all time situations.


    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    It only works out to be the past of in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech.
    Still waiting for an example sentence that illustrates the position you've laid out here, Pro.
    Last edited by albeit; 25-Sep-2009 at 20:12.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,036

    Re: be supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by albeit View Post
    Why limit it to 'would', Pro, when every modal verb can be used to discuss things in the past?

    That plane will have already arrived.

    +++++++++++++++++

    A: That can't have been him at the party. I know what he looks like.

    B: Oh, it sure can have been him. Pretty hot disguise, wasn't it?

    +++++++++++++++++

    Matt 18:18 - “Assuredly, I am saying to you, Whatever you forbid on earth, shall have already been forbidden in heaven.

    ++++++++++++++++++



    Yes this is how 'would' works in modern English and it works this way because historically it was a past tense form. Nowadays, it isn't a past tense form, it's a tenseless modal, capable of operating in all time situations.




    Still waiting for an example sentence that illustrates the position you've laid out here, Pro.

    What exactly are you looking for? Your method of engagement is illogical.

  9. #49
    albeit is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    422

    Re: be supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by PROESL View Post
    What exactly are you looking for? Your method of engagement is illogical.
    You're being disingenuous, Pro. You know exactly what I'm asking and I can't grasp how you think it "illogical". What's illogical about asking you to provide an example that would offer support for a statement you wrote, to wit,

    "[would] only works out to be the past of [?] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech" ?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,036

    Re: be supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by albeit View Post
    You're being disingenuous, Pro. You know exactly what I'm asking and I can't grasp how you think it "illogical". What's illogical about asking you to provide an example that would offer support for a statement you wrote, to wit,

    "[would] only works out to be the past of [?] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech" ?
    What exactly are you asking? Your method is not logical.

    You know exactly how to provide an example and then make your point. One simply can't be bothered with your worn-out challenges. Off you go now.


Page 5 of 6 First 1 2 3 4 5 6 Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •