Page 2 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 5 Last
Results 11 to 20 of 46
  1. VIP Member
    Retired English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • Europe
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Jul 2015
    • Posts: 15,472
    #11

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by it-is-niaz View Post
    Also, I found definition #5 in the link below, does it make sense in what Ross used?
    https://www.macmillandictionary.com/...american/would

    There is no criticism implied in Ross's words.

  2. Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Great Britain
      • Current Location:
      • Great Britain

    • Join Date: Mar 2016
    • Posts: 306
    #12

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by it-is-niaz View Post
    In the link below, in 2:51, what does the following mean and why Ross used "Would"?

    Ross: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    This is my conclusion:

    I think he used would to make the statement less polite. Also can we rephrase as the following?
    "If your father couldn't understand that metaphor, then you can see he would have trouble understanding you."


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh0I...o7JxLJgqC4ODfK
    You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Syntactically, the underlined element is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question),.

    The meaning is:

    "You can see the answer to the question 'Where would he have trouble?"'

    Semantically, it may well be expressing tentativeness in a remote conditional.
    Last edited by PaulMatthews; 03-Jun-2019 at 07:08.

  3. Senior Member
    Student or Learner
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Tamil
      • Home Country:
      • Singapore
      • Current Location:
      • Singapore

    • Join Date: Jun 2017
    • Posts: 538
    #13

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Semantically, it may well be expressing tentativeness in a remote conditional.
    Thank you teacher. You meant the sentence "where he'd have trouble!" is conditional, right?

  4. Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Great Britain
      • Current Location:
      • Great Britain

    • Join Date: Mar 2016
    • Posts: 306
    #14

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    That is a distinct possibility, yes.

  5. VIP Member
    Interested in Language
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Dec 2015
    • Posts: 14,701
    #15

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by yi-ing View Post
    Thank you teacher. You meant the sentence "where he'd have trouble!" is conditional, right?
    "Where he'd have trouble!" is not a sentence.
    I am not a teacher.

  6. VIP Member
    Retired English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • Europe
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Jul 2015
    • Posts: 15,472
    #16

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulMatthews View Post
    You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Syntactically, the underlined element is a subordinate interrogative clause (embedded question),.

    The meaning is:

    "You can see the answer to the question 'Where would he have trouble?"'
    I don't see the point in making this a subordinate interrogative clause with the whole sentence meaning "You can see the answer to the question 'Where would he have trouble?"' I would think it was less convoluted to say that it was a subordinate fused relative clause. The meaning is You can see the situation in which he would have trouble.

  7. jutfrank's Avatar
    VIP Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England

    • Join Date: Mar 2014
    • Posts: 8,630
    #17

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by Piscean View Post
    I don't see the point in making this a subordinate interrogative clause with the whole sentence meaning "You can see the answer to the question 'Where would he have trouble?"
    I agree. I'm not a fan of this way of looking at it. It seems to me that the approach taken by describing this as an 'embedded question' is to express the meaning (that a question is being elicited) in terms of the grammar (the analysis that there is a subordinate interrogative clause). It seems to me a too grammar-centric approach to be of much value to non-grammarians. I can't see how or why Ross would be attempting to raise a question here.
    Last edited by jutfrank; 05-Jun-2019 at 18:17.

  8. VIP Member
    Retired English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • Europe
      • Current Location:
      • Czech Republic

    • Join Date: Jul 2015
    • Posts: 15,472
    #18

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by jutfrank View Post
    I agree.


    I wonder if that school of linguistics would see 'embedded questions' in both the following:

    Sally asked me where John lived.
    Sally told me where John lived.

  9. jutfrank's Avatar
    VIP Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England

    • Join Date: Mar 2014
    • Posts: 8,630
    #19

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by Piscean View Post
    I wonder if that school of linguistics would see 'embedded questions' in both the following:

    Sally asked me where John lived.
    Sally told me where John lived.
    Right. I don't want to speak for others but yes, probably.

    Like I said, I think the term 'embedded question' is a term a grammarian might use when analysing structure, rather than one a semanticist might use to analyse meaning, or one a teacher might use to describe use.

  10. Member
    English Teacher
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Great Britain
      • Current Location:
      • Great Britain

    • Join Date: Mar 2016
    • Posts: 306
    #20

    Re: You can see where he'd have trouble!

    Quote Originally Posted by Piscean View Post


    I wonder if that school of linguistics would see 'embedded questions' in both the following:

    Sally asked me where John lived.
    Sally told me where John lived.

    [1] Sally asked me where John lived.
    [2] Sally told me where John lived

    Yes, the underlined elements are embedded questions; what else could they be?

    [1] reports an act of asking a question,while [2] reports an act of stating, giving the answer to a question that may or may not have been asked.

Page 2 of 5 First 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •