[Grammar] I wouldn’t have hit you.

[kadioguy]

(In the novel Jonathan Livingston Seagull: The New Complete Edition)

The gull pitched immediately up on one wing, moving at tremendous speed, blazed back toward him. Anthony in level flight, pulled hard into a vertical bank, and stopped suddenly in the air, as a racing-skier stops at the end of a downhill run.

“Hey!” Anthony was all out of breath. “What . . . what are you doing?” It was a silly question, but he didn’t know what else to say.

“I’m sorry if I startled you,” the stranger said in a voice as clear and friendly as the wind. “I had you in sight all the time. Just playing . . . I wouldn’t have hit you.”

“No! No, that’s not it.” Anthony was awake and alive for the first time in his life, inspired. “What was that?”

“Oh, some fun-flying, I guess. A dive and a pullup to a slow roll with a rolling loop off the top. Just messing around. If you really want to do it well it takes a bit of practice, but it’s a nice-looking thing, don’t you think?”

“It’s, it’s . . . beautiful, is what it is! But you haven’t been around the Flock at all. Who are you, anyway?”

“You can call me Jon.”
--------------

1. The blue part uses the structure of "wouldn't have". Does that mean that Jonathan thinks that he has already hit Anthony?

2. What does the red part mean? Does it mean the following?

It’s beautiful. It is what it is! (Anthony is surprised.)

 

[Tarheel]

I wouldn't have hit you - I knew what I was doing. I was in control, and there wouldn't have been any accidental contact.

It's beautiful is what it is - It's very beautiful. I was blown away.

 

[GoesStation]

1. The blue part uses the structure of "wouldn't have". Does that mean that Jonathan thinks that he has already hit Anthony?

2. What does the red part mean? Does it mean the following?

It’s beautiful. It is what it is! (Anthony is surprised.)

1. No. He means he was not going to collide with him.
2. It means "There's nothing else to say about it."

 

[kadioguy]

Thank you both.

For question 1, I don't understand why the perfect aspect is used. Why not "Just playing . . . I wouldn’t hit you"?

For question 2, how can I understand the structure?

"It’s, it’s . . . beautiful, is what it is!"

How can I rephrase it as a grammatical sentence (or grammatical sentences)?

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you both.

For question 1, I don't understand why the perfect aspect is used. Why not "Just playing . . . I wouldn’t hit you"?

For question 2, how can I understand the structure?

"It’s, it’s . . . beautiful, is what it is!"

How can I rephrase it as a grammatical sentence (or grammatical sentences)?

"I wouldn't hit you" works as a general statement. It means "I would never hit you". That's not expressed by "I wouldn't have hit you". That refers just to that one instance, meaning "I had no intention of hitting you".

You don't need to reword "It's, it's ... beautiful is what it is". It's already grammatical.

 

[kadioguy]

"I wouldn't hit you" works as a general statement. It means "I would never hit you". That's not expressed by "I wouldn't have hit you". That refers just to that one instance, meaning "I had no intention of hitting you".

You don't need to reword "It's, it's ... beautiful is what it is". It's already grammatical.

Thank you for your help.

1. So "I wouldn't have hit you" is not the same usage as this one:

If she hadn't gone back for the letter, she wouldn't have missed the bus. (Oxford learner's dictionary)

Am I right?

2. “It’s, it’s . . . beautiful, is what it is!“

Does "it's" mean "it is"? If so, the sentence is like this:

“It is . . . beautiful, is what it is!“

This is a strange and ungrammatical sentence to me. :-?

 

[kadioguy]

2. “It’s, it’s . . . beautiful, is what it is!“

Does "it's" mean "it is"? If so, the sentence is like this:

“It is . . . beautiful, is what it is!“

This is a strange and ungrammatical sentence to me.

Can I take it to mean:

“It’s, it’s . . . beautiful, (its beauty) is what it is!“

 

[GoesStation]

Can I take it to mean:

“It’s, it’s . . . beautiful, (its beauty) is what it is!“

No. It's beautiful; it's simply beautiful. Don't try to analyze the sentence.

 

[kadioguy]

No. It's beautiful; it's simply beautiful. Don't try to analyze the sentence.

But this sentence has two subjects and three verbs without an appropriate conjunction. :-?

“It’s, it’s . . . beautiful, is what it is!“

 

[GoesStation]

But this sentence has two subjects and three verbs without an appropriate conjunction. :-?

“It’s, it’s . . . beautiful, is what it is!“

So what? It's idiomatic English.

 

[kadioguy]

So what? It's idiomatic English.

If you don't mind, how about this?

It’s, it’s . . . beautiful. It is what it is! It is that beautiful!

 

[jutfrank]

You're absolutely right that It's beautiful, is what it is is an odd structure.

This is a very particular semi-fixed expression so you shouldn't try to generalise from it. Think of it structurally like this:

It is + [predicate], + is what it is

The predicate slot may be filled by an adjective or noun phrase. Note that the initial It is should be contracted to It's (I've expanded it purely for clarity).

In terms of use, it's a way to express a speaker's evaluative impression of something. In this case, it's like saying "The word 'beautiful' is exactly the right word to describe it." Usually too, as in this context, it also has the job of correcting a previously mentioned evaluation made by another speaker—the predicate nice-looking is corrected to beautiful.

 

[emsr2d2]

You can ignore the second "It's". That's just an example of someone hesitating at the start of a sentence and simply repeating the first word.

 

[kadioguy]

(In the novel Jonathan Livingston Seagull: The New Complete Edition)

The gull pitched immediately up on one wing, moving at tremendous speed, blazed back toward him. Anthony in level flight, pulled hard into a vertical bank, and stopped suddenly in the air, as a racing-skier stops at the end of a downhill run.

Thank you all.

If you don't mind, there is one more question:

Why are there two verbs? (the blue parts)

 

[GoesStation]

If you don't mind, there is one more question:

Why are there two verbs? (the blue parts)

First he pitched up on one wing. Then he blazed back. The comma makes these a list of things "he" did, so the subject pronoun isn't needed (and would be incorrect) after the comma.

 

[kadioguy]

First he pitched up on one wing. Then he blazed back. The comma makes these a list of things "he" did, so the subject pronoun isn't needed (and would be incorrect) after the comma.

So can I say it either way?

a. The gull pitched immediately up on one wing, moving at tremendous speed; he blazed back toward him.

b. The gull pitched immediately up on one wing; moving at tremendous speed, he blazed back toward him.

 

[jutfrank]

So can I say it either way?

I don't quite understand what you're asking. You don't need to say anything. The sentence is already there—you just have to understand it.

There are two distinct actions described that the bird takes, so two verb phrases are used. Both of these actions can be seen as a single movement, which happened at tremendous speed.

I wonder if you're wondering why there's no conjunction (and/then) before the mention of the second action (blazed). Is that right?

 

[kadioguy]

I wonder if you're wondering why there's no conjunction (and/then) before the mention of the second action (blazed). Is that right?

Yes, could you tell me why?

It seems to me that that is a comma splice. So I tried to grammatically rephrase it in post #18 in two ways.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, could you tell me why?

It seems to me that that is a comma splice. So I tried to grammatically rephrase it in post #18 in two ways.

Don't worry about this. Remember that this is literary English.