HAVEN'T VS. DIDN'T—A SPAN OF TIME VS.
A MOMENT IN TIME—AND
WAS
vs.
COUNTERFACTUAL PAST
HAD BEEN AND
PRESENT WERE
PLUS A FEW OTHER PROBLEMS WITH ENGLISH
© 2008 Orchid
Land Publications
[20080414; most recently updated 20080430, 20080701]
On the American media, the distinction between have done and did has been pretty well lost. For any who are interested in prior correct usage, consider these contrasting examples:
|
TIME SPAN WITH SPECIFIED END-POINT |
TIME VIEWED AS A SINGLE MOMENT |
|
Since they had(n't) done it by/before ten, . . . Since they have(n't) done it by/before now, . . . |
Since they did that yesterday, . . |
|
Many are dying because they have eaten that stuff. |
Many are dying because they ate that poisoned meat. |
|
That has developed over the past twenty years. |
That developed during the twentieth century. |
| If they have(n/t) done it by/before tomorrow, . . . | If they (don't) do it by/before tomorrow, . . . |
| They've jumped into that project in the last few weeks. | They jumped into that project during the Depression. |
A time designated with by or before can go either way; e.g. Since it (had) opened for business before yesterday, . . . , ; but replacing before with by weights the example in favor of had: Since it had opened for business by yesterday, . . . If the relevant adverb is always, there is a perceptible difference between
√ We've lunched at noon for years (cf. always)!
and
√ We always lunched at noon.
The implication is that we don't lunch at noon now; one could add "in those days" to the foregoing example. Further examples, spoken at the end of a broadcast, are:
√ This program has been made possible by a grant from XXX.
√ This program *was made possible by a grant from XXX.
Already generally takes have or had, not
did.
Still evolving is the usage with just: They have just
done it : They just did it. This can be explained as
treating just as referred exactly to now (when have is used)
or to a definite moment an instant before now. The following example is not
acceptable if this precedes year
√ . . the election fight that took place this year.
In this example, one needs has taken place; but if some other year than the one in which the example is said replaces "this year," took place is unexceptionable..
For an occurrence is mentioned in connection with a future limit, a past modality is unsuitable, though some speakers seem unaware of this; the usage is even worse if the occurrence in question is known to have not yet occurred:
Wrong: If it turns out tomorrow that they *did it earlier, . . .
Right: If it turns out tomorrow that they have done it earlier, . . .
One should enhance one's native-speaker instinct for the difference between:
√ Information has been kept from us
and
√ Information was kept from us (for many months).
The grammar (not sounds and most formatives; not much in the way of inflections) came from Old French. (See C.-J. N. Bailey, Essays on time based linguistic analysis (Oxford University Press, 1996), Ch. 2, §ii; this is normal when a new language comes into being with and the creole grammar takes its grammar from the overclass of the conquerrors (the French Normans in Britain) and its sounds from the subdued people's language. (Middle English took its few inflections from Anglo-Saxon [there never was an Old English!] and, despite exceptions like -ness, most of its productive formatives from Old French; cf. -ity, -tion, etc.). The earlier examples with lunched at noon correspond to the French antérieur indéfini and the antérieur défini. The French origins of (Middle) English syntax are evidemt in It's me, Him and me did it, Who (not *Whom) did you meet? and the double negative of former times.
That behaves is not a present tense (or a tense at all, since its uses correspond to older subjunctive and other uses) is evident in My pet mongoose is NOT behaving, though she usually behaves. This is the exochronous modality, some of whose uses replace the defunct subjunctive mode. Note further the use of whose form is that of the infinitive (it is not, however, an infinitive).
|
She asked that he ARRIVE on time. He asked that she BE on time. |
They'll guarantee that that it ARRIVES on time; I too will guarantee that it DOES arrive on time! |
|
The forms on the left look like the infinitive. The form on the right, the EXOCHRONOUS MODALITY, is so marked that it is inflected (with -(e)s)--something that would be a violation of linguistic principles if it were the unmarked subcategory (third-person singular) of an unmarked category−a putative present tense; see Bailey, Essays on time-based linguistic analysis (Oxford University Press, 1996), Chh. 5-6. |
|
|
Until the school grammar books get these things right, chaos will continue to prevail. In general, main verbs expressing desire (insist, etc.), request, or command take forms that look link the infinitive in the dependent clause. Current British usage prefers the exochronous modality here. By contrast, the exochronous modality (with third-person singular ending in -(e)s has several uses: Besides teaching things like "That's I" (contrast French "C'est moi") and "Whom do you favor?" (cf. French "Qui favorisez-vouw?") that are incompatible with real English, many teach un-English usages like "put that into the bottle" because the Latin rule they invoke for English doesn't often distinguish a change of place ("placed it in the can") from a change of condition (e.g. "turned into a dragon"). |
|
| One might consider looking at French, the source of English syntax (see above)--not only on this point but on the uses of in and into (see below). | |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
COUNTERFACTUAL statements move the real time back one step:
Also without if and with inverted order: Had she waited longer, etc.
A past-posterior is If she was going to do that, . . .
or, IF COUNTERFACTUAL, If he NOTE: Posteriority is unreal; it may depend on a wish (request, etc.) or command (as in the example with should); or it may not (as in the example with might).
See below on the uninflected desiderative modality, which looks like the infinitive. |
|
We put something IN a box or a folder but INTO production or effect. Contrast:
Compare examples with fall or stumble, which do NOT indicate exclusively FORWARD motiion; these take into when metaphorical or literal
But the transition from one place to another may have into with fall: Another example:
Money seems to be ambiguous
I recently heard on the media:
I judge this to be quite deviant. Contrasts for practice: fit in/to, tricked in/to and Come into danger. On the latter, see on the use of come for become HERE. |
Many speakers say proven for proved. These should be used like rotten : rotted:
Technically, the forms of these examples ending in -en are attributive (adjectival), while those ending in -ed are predicative (verbal):
Verb: It has rotted/proved
Attributive adjective: a rotten apple / a proven theory
Predicate adjective: It is roteen/proven
Note that various varieties of English unconsciously change //v// to [b] in haven't. Further, //d// becomes [b] in had been, as (less often, i.e. in faster tempos) does //v// in I've been; in normal speaking tempos, the long [b:] that results in had been shortens to [b]. These are normal assimilations. Cf. goob-bye or goo'-bye for good-bye.
The infinite possibilities of verb temporality are
limited only by practical factors. Basically, we find: the following
temporal modalities:
|
past modalities, including the |
ate, was eating, used to eat |
|
past-anterior modalities |
had eaten, had been eating** |
|
past-posterior modalities |
were going to (be) eat(ing), would eat later |
|
exochronous modality |
eat(s) |
|
exochronous-anterior modalities |
has (always) eaten/been eating at noon*** |
|
exochronous-posterior modalities |
will [typically] eat**** |
|
present modality |
are / am / is eating |
|
present-anterior modalities |
has eaten,† has been eating |
|
present-posterior |
is going to (be) eat(ing) |
|
posterior |
will (be) eat(ing)‡ |
|
posterior-anterior |
will have (been) eat(ing) |
|
posterior-posterior |
will be going to (be) eat(ing) |
|
*Used to is a past consuetudinary modality; would is a characterizing modality. Note that were is used in place of was for a present coutnerfactual expression. **Often with "by" before a time. This past-anterior is also a counterfactual past. ***A specific time is allowed if it is recurrent.
****A time span is allowed as in "My Dalmatian will
do that whenever you . . ." Used to and would are
also used for habitual and chanracterizing pasts, respectively. |
|
Futher possibilities are had been going to have eaten, will be going to have eaten, etc.
Since pronouns are discussed at L9 and elsewhere on this website, comments here will be limited to
The most natural cultivated usage is to use whom(ever)
only directly following a preposition THAT IT IS
THE OBJECT
OF in the same clause, not one from a
preceding clause, as in They will vote for whoever they
want, not to
speak of It was for who(ever) deserved it. In
Who did you vote for? who is the object of for,
but for does not precede who, let alone directly.
I, we, s/he, they are used for unconjoined subjects standing before the predicate, while me, us, him, her, them are often (but not exclusively) used in absolute position; cf.:
Me, I don't care for that sort of thing.
Note the difference between operators like my, our, your,
her, their and pronominal
mine, ours, yours, hers, theirs.
Note the use of they/them for "she/her and/or he/him" and
their(s) for "his and/or her(s)"; e.g.
"Nobody does their work any more."
|
COUNTERFACTUAL statements move the real time back one step:
Also without if and with inverted order: Had she waited longer, etc.
A past-posterior is If she was going to do that, . .
. or, IF COUNTERFACTUAL, If he had been NOTE: Some speakers use a past form in desiderative-posterior expressions like the one found in It's time enforcement caught up. The auxiliary verbs should often occur in such expresions. They insist(ed) that it (should) be ready within two weeks. Cf. non-desiderative They wonder(ed) whether it might be too expensive. Posteriority is unreal; it may depend on a wish (request, etc.) or command (as in the example with should); or it may not (as in the example with might).
A doubtful present-posterior:
Most doubtful:
In the following, would is a contingent posterior in the main clause but can be either that in the subordinate clause or have the sense of "would be willing" there:
|
|
We put something IN a box or a folder but INTO production or effect. Contrast:
Compare examples with fall or stumble, which do NOT indicate exclusively FORWARD motiion; these take into when metaphorical or literal
But the transition from one place to another may have INTO with fall:
Another example:
Money seems to be ambiguous
I recently heard on the media:
I judge this to be quite deviant. |
Many speakers say proven for proved. These should be used like rotten : rotted:
Technically, the forms of these examples ending in -en are attributive (adjectival), while those ending in -ed are predicative (verbal):
Verb: It has rotted/proved
Attributive adjective: a rotten apple / a proven theory
Predicate adjective: It is roteen/proven
Note that various varieties of English unconsciously change //v// to [b] in haven't. Further, //d// becomes [b] in had been, as (less often, i.e. in faster tempos) does //v// in I've been; in normal speaking tempos, the long [b:] that results in had been shortens to [b]. These are normal assimilations. Cf. goob-bye or goo'-bye for good-bye.
The infinite possibilities of verb temporality are limited only by
practical factors. Basically, we find: the following temporal
modalities:
|
past
modalities, including the |
ate, was eating, used to eat |
|
past-anterior modalities |
had eaten, had been eating** |
|
past-posterior modalities |
were going to (be) eat(ing), would eat later |
|
exochronous modality |
eat(s) |
|
exochronous-anterior modalities |
has (always) eaten/been eating at noon*** |
|
exochronous-posterior modalities |
will [typically] eat**** |
|
present modality |
are / am / is eating |
|
present-anterior modalities |
has eaten,† has been eating |
|
present-posterior |
is going to (be) eat(ing) |
|
posterior |
will (be) eat(ing)‡ |
|
posterior-anterior |
will have (been) eat(ing) |
|
posterior-posterior |
will be going to (be) eat(ing) |
|
*Used to is a past consuetudinary modality; would is a characterizing modality. Note that were is used in place of was for a present coutnerfactual expression. **Often with "by" before a time. This past-anterior is also a counterfactual past. ***A specific time is allowed if it is recurrent.
****A time span is allowed as in "My
Dalmatian will do that whenever you . . ." Used to
and would are also used for habitual and
chanracterizing pasts, respectively. |
|
Further possibilities are had been going to have eaten, will be going to have eaten, etc.
Since pronouns are discussed at L9 and elsewhere on this website, comments here will be limited to
The most natural cultivated usage is to use whom(ever) only
directly following a preposition in the same clause, not one from a
preceding clause, as in It was for who deserved it and Who did
you choose it for?
I, we, s/he, they are used for ubjects standing before the predicate provided they are not conjoined with and or with or; while me, us, him, her, them are used, when not conjoined with and or with or and directly following a preposition. Both sets of pronouns are used in absolute position,as in these examples:
Me, I don't care for that sort of thing
She, I don't think she fits that rôle.
I know of no principle that decides which set of person pronouns is used in absolute position.
A reversal occurs for many speakers when personal pronouns are conjoined with and or with or, at least WHEN THEY ARE NOT THE SUBJECT of a predicator, where the usage is vulgar. Contrast
It's for she and I.
an example that recalls French usage of reversing the two sets of personal pronoun forms. Still considered vulgar in English are French-like reversals in subject position:
*Him and me did that.
Reversals of the default object forms take place when they are directly followed by an appositive word, adjective, (relative) clause, or qualifying prepositional phrase−where many users of the language prefer the first group, as in for we British, for we in Europe (examples actually heard by people high in the government). When personal pronouns are conjoined−linked with and or with or−and not followed by an appositive word, phrase, or clause, forms commonly used as objects are often switched to look like the default object forms, as in the example for she and I above. One can predict a future in which Him and me did that will have become acceptable.
| First Group | Second Group | Possessive |
|
I, we you, yall (vulgar yous) it, she, he, they |
me, us you, yall (vulgar yous) it, her, him, them |
my/mine & our/ours |
Note they use of they for "he and/or she" and of their(s) for "his or her[s]." An example recently heard is:
Nobody does their work any more.
(Some varieties of English do not pronounce any of the following alike: there, their, they're.)
Note that the pronoun THAT can often is often, even generally, substituted for forms of who that are not interrogative or, if relative, not objects of a preposition in the same clause and not possessive. Most users of English prefer to postpose (strand) a preposition to the end of the subordinate clausal interrogative or relative structure, as in:
I spoke with the person that the people who knew the answer had heard it
from.
Who was the one out of the many possiblities that you gave it to?
Note that French has pronoun equivalents of English to who, for who, from who, etc. French also had lequel, which was calqued in earlier English (cf. the 1611 Bible) as the which.
The writer's own usage is to use whom only directly after (i.e. not after a stranded) preposition
That's the person [who/that] I was thinking about.
(The relative pronoun can be omitted here!)
Whose (cf. French dont) is unproblematic in always beginning it's own relative clause. A question may araise
when it is embedded in a prepositional phrase, a place where it is often fixed, although the following is very acceptable n conversational styles::
That's the person whose benefit it was collected for.
Whoever is treated similarly; but in the following example it is the object of met, not of the preposition to in the preceding clause:
I talked to whoever I met at the meeting.
There is a class of forms found in many languages that functions as a quasi-adjective or pronominally. this class includes quantifiers like all, a lot, much, many, (a) few, some, any, none, more, most, and the like. Quantifiers are one kind of nominal operator;* determiners or demonstrative like the, this, and that as well as possessive nominals.
To see why the adverb sure and the adverb surely don't have the same import, CLICK HERE!
−−−−−−−
*Operators specify the function of a construct. To (or zero) does this for an infinitive, as do endings like -ing for participles. Prepositions do this for prepositional phrases, as conjunctions (including deleted that) do for clauses. Sentences have operators like ? (interrogation) or ! (exclamation) as well as the period or semicolon. Most precede a given clause in the linguistic analysis of a language like English. Quantifiers may be negated, as in no few, not many. and ; sometimes we find very and other modifiers. English quantifiers may be modified by no(t), only, and the like; cf. no few, not many. Some adverbial expressions that or how operating on many or few can be taken to be susperoperators. Auxiliary verbs are operators, as are the endings -er and -est and the -s attached to goes or the -ed of loved. Negation (not or only but not seldom nor of course few) has an interesting aspect in that it can be raised to seem to operate on think in a higher clause, as in I didn't think that many had attended. MODIFIERS that are not DETERMINERS include adjectives and adverbs--whether words, phrases, or clauses.
−−−−−−−
constitute the other Some of them may be followed by a demonstrative directly and/or with of intervening; cf. all (of) that trouble and much (of) the trouble. Contrast more (*of/*the). Notice the more the merrier and that much trouble. This is fairly complicated in English.
Please send any typographical errors or problematic examples that you think may have been misprints or errors to:
orlapubs@orlapubs.com
