Witryna w przebudowie
(Website under refurbishment)
We need some “ground in time” to use the Past Simple. In conversations, people naturally seek a ground in common. We can name it a cognitive ground. We can use the concept of a time frame, to find cognitive grounds.
We may care to think about language information, to be effective.
If we put two or more time references with one sentence or clause head, our time frame will be broken. We could say we lose our logical potential for time then.
Isolated word form, whether auditory or visual, is not enough to convey language information. Our use of the Past Simple or the Present Perfect will depend on what we know about the context.
Human brains do not have fixed connotations. A “squid” can be a marine animal. It may be a bird toy. “A bit of cosmos” may be a garden stretch grown with cosmos flowers to attract birds. Let us try our grammars with word practice. We mind the time frame.
1. The motmot had completely befallen for a piece of fresh stollen.
2. The skylark found nothing to outbid the bit of cosmos with a squid.
We can be very serious about grammar and keep a sense of humor: when we humans learn, we happen to be very formal, and this may burden our learning and language styles.
„He sold his vintage Chevy and nearly bought a Jeep when he thought that his vehicle approximated an expression of his ego. A Jeep almost portended a personality change.”
„After some study of a number of concepts on the cosmos, she pictured the humanity as an odd kind of fish in a series of still larger fish tanks. Some point in the series, there was not any sense to try bringing another fish tank to imagination. It required adding one more imagined fish tank.”
We may want to get hold of the Perfect and the Simple with reference to the PAST, before we learn deciding on the PRESENT. We have our time frames for our guidance.
We continue our word practice. Chantelle’s first book told about a girl’s language of the heart. Art Veltall was thinking about a job change. Contending his mother-in-law yet was suggestive of trying verbally to captivate a moving rock . . .
Many grammar books will tell there are “stative” or “static verbs”. The books give lists of such verbs to memorize and never to use with the Progressive.
Before we decide if we follow, we can refer to the Corpus of Contemporary American English, for the language as it is. We also can think about speaking and writing in real time. Could it be that people have lists of words in their minds?
Real-time talk happens to bring ambiguity. We can learn to keep our time reference even against unusual wording.
„Rare sounds felt heroic, the Lesser Yellowlegs observed. Education meant both unpopularity and wisdom, whichever imported worse individually …”
We can view the Perfect Progressive as a merger of the Perfect and the Progressive. As a Perfect tense, the Perfect Progressive has an open time frame. We can have it for our mapping value AT. We may begin to think if there would be a basic value, one to work as our earthling basic variable.
For all tenses, this is always the first element in the verb pattern to change with reference to the Time, the PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE. First elements change the same in our Fields of Time, and for our value ON.
We have only part our cues to put verbs into the PAST, and then in the PRESENT form. We mind our Expression, the Affirmative, Negative, or Interrogative, and we do not give up on a mild sense of humor.
„The grain of sand could think about wisdom. What was wisdom? It might be a grain of wit and manhood well resolved, but the grain of sand did not consider going into a drama like that of Samson the Agonist really necessary.
Thinking about own format as potentiality by another, it deliberated whether it was, as a grain of sand, a fruit of ability or mere industriousness.”
Madame Règle has the potential to have lunch at Latimer Sauf’s restaurant every day. He always has a table for his friends and she has enough money. However, her work with Paris haute couture designers often keeps her over the lunchtime. Her coming to lunch is probable, but not certain.
CERTAINTY requires both potentiality and probability. Let us think about Monsieur Sauf’s birthday. Madame Règle will come to meet him. It is certain.
Let us focus on the auxiliary HAVE. Would it make antecedent time extents altogether? Antecedent time extents would be relative to the head time.
It can take real time to make theory, but theoretical time could never be the same as real time.
Our syntactic HAVE does not bring assertion about real time, when we attach it to a Modal and make a hypothesis. We can see it for closed-frame hypothetical time and a syntactic anchor, then.
Unless we ask a question for no reason or purpose and expect no answer at all, we make our questions thinking about some PROBABILITY at least. Language information pools do not require repeated information. This is why we would ask, „didn’t you have to …”, rather than „mustn’t you have had to …”
Our use of the word „relativity” is not about physics or families. It is linguistic.
Modal PAST forms can tell about the PAST or the PRESENT.
PRESENT Modal forms can tell about the PRESENT or the FUTURE.
It is not only with Modal forms we can observe regular relativity.
PRESENT verb forms can tell about the FUTURE.
PAST verb forms can tell about the PRESENT.
ANTECEDENT PAST verb forms can tell about the PAST.
We can pool the language features we need for real-time talk and manage Modal, Conditional, as well as Unreal Past patterns. Visualization is just to help.
In our feature pool, features can be transferred. Language history knows such processes. They are natural. Let us think how our syntax could develop.
Time to practice. We can exercise Form Relativity with the Progressive and real verbs. We can use stories.
“I’d be reading horoscopes”, says Ms. Seges.
“That is . . . ?” (Mr. Seges does not believe Ms. Seges would ever read horoscopes.)
“This looks like a calligraphic copy of Vespucci’s letters. It was slipping out of our backyard hedge, no covers or front matter.”
We can be selective on our language information pools. We can focus on features of our choice.
Part Three of the language voyage can bring
Jill’s library in plain canvas ― the speech part and the determiner manner and matter,
Chantelle’s travel to the Book Cliffs ― verbal nouns and other ways of syntax to the notional time,
as well as many, many more components of our language landscape . . .
Feel welcome to continue with the journey (!)