Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: David <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 21:23:45 +0100
In article <4645fb4a$0$10736$db0fefd9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Blue Sow
<blue@xxxxxxx> wrote:
David wrote:
In article <4645e3cd$0$19261$da0feed9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Blue Sow
<blue@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Ah, your wife's sister's husband. Or perhaps your sister-in-law's
husband.
My sister-in-law husband could be my brother.
Your sister-in-law's husband could indeed be your brother.
That's what I wrote;,I just used a different form of English. One you
seem not to accept.
Actually, it sounds like gibberish, not to mention irrelevant.
But it's not irrelevant. You might easily say, e.g., "the kitchen
cupboard door handle has broken." What's the difference between the
construct of that and, e.g., "my sister wife husband has gout"?
One would be widely understood to make perfect sense, and one would
not. It is hard to tell from 'my wife sister brother' if you did not
really mean 'my wife, sister, [and] brother' (i.e. all three of
them). No one would imagine you meant 'the kitchen, cupboard, [and
the] door has (sic) broken'.
Okay, a difficult example for you to take in. How about something less
complex? "Was that our Tom Henry cat the dog just ate?"
It's an example of the diversity and use of the English language in
the culture of the UK.
It may well be an example of an idiolect.
Oh, well, if you're going to accuse me of lying.
Non. I appreciate that English can be a difficult language to
learn and I suspect that most here merely wish to help - some
obviously resent assistance. Good luck with your learning anyway.
Ooh! Some folk can be so unkind!
Not at all. One is never too old, or too clever, to learn more about
a subject. Perhaps you think you do not need to learn more about
English. If it were true, then you would be truly unique.
You seem to think you know it all.
Some here wish to discuss and investigate the English language as
it is and has been used in the culture of the UK - at least that's
how it was in its active days.
And it seems, it still is.
I don't know. Seems to me it's nought but trolls and folk who won't
accept any viewpoint but their own.
But with the sort of attitude one seems to get nowadays, I don't
wonder that usenet is dying.
Well yes. But the rest of us are trying to keep it alive.
I was including you among those killing it off. Certainly accusing folk
of lying doesn't do much for its health.
--
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: Einde O'Callaghan
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: Blue Sow
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- References:
- [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: David
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: Ben Shimmin
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: David
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: Tony Mountifield
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: David
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: Blue Sow
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: David
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: Blue Sow
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: David
- Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- From: Blue Sow
- [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- Prev by Date: Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- Next by Date: Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- Previous by thread: Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- Next by thread: Re: [Conjugation/tense] Would have
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|