tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post3097583349735129576..comments2024-02-28T05:25:12.859-05:00Comments on English, Jack: Grammatically speaking is wrong again (and again, and again)Bretthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02870575277556244419noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-26801772741661802762009-11-07T08:53:07.015-05:002009-11-07T08:53:07.015-05:00@Charlie, I think you're missing the fact that...@Charlie, I think you're missing the fact that different verbs behave differently, even with <i>before</i>, regardless of wether they're stative or dynamic.<br /><br />@Anon, even though you put <i>wanted</i> in the simple past tense, the data shows that to be quite rare.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02870575277556244419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-19139081212060676102009-11-06T22:31:24.008-05:002009-11-06T22:31:24.008-05:00My try, which may amount to another way of talking...My try, which may amount to another way of talking about the difference between "stative" and "dynamic" verbs. <br /><br />If an action was completed before a second action in the past, we use the past perfect. If the action was not completed, then we use the simple past.<br /><br />So:<br />I already knew about / wanted to go to/ was dressed for ....<br /><br />but:<br />I had already heard about / had decided to go to/ had bought a dress for ....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-35631562132143662292009-11-06T22:14:37.459-05:002009-11-06T22:14:37.459-05:00The subordinate conjunction "before" can...The subordinate conjunction "before" can be used for sequential events in the simple past. It's true that "know" is stative but that doesn't suffice.<br /><br />Charlie StephenCharlie Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14981508631723485314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-42871345090032445652009-11-06T22:14:35.650-05:002009-11-06T22:14:35.650-05:00The subordinate conjunction "before" can...The subordinate conjunction "before" can be used for sequential events in the simple past. It's true that "know" is stative but that doesn't suffice.<br /><br />Charlie StephenCharlie Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14981508631723485314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-1050381062376363232009-10-24T09:58:05.046-05:002009-10-24T09:58:05.046-05:00Of past-tense heard about 1% are already heard.Of past-tense <i>heard</i> about 1% are <i>already heard</i>.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02870575277556244419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-66376408675642139552009-10-24T09:55:31.498-05:002009-10-24T09:55:31.498-05:00I was getting kind of wordy in the second paragrap...I was getting kind of wordy in the second paragraph, yes. What I was saying is that if A tells B about something and B doesn't reply with something like "I already knew", A will assume that it's news to B. That's the default assumption of causality I was talking about. If B doesn't correct that assumption, the continued interaction can become confused (e.g. if B doesn't ask for more information, A might incorrectly conclude B is uninterested in the party). So what makes <i>know</i> special is that it's more important for discourse management than <i>want</i> is. Thus it occurs more frequently than other verbs in the "already...even" construction.<br /><br />But looking at it again, <i>know</i> is not unique in this respect. "I already heard about the party, even before you told me" works just as well, with almost exactly the same meaning and, I suspect, similar frequency. (And <i>hear</i> isn't stative, so I guess you're right about the stative/dynamic difference not being the explanation.) What does the COCA say about <i>hear</i>?Rick Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-47490543405207272462009-10-22T20:43:39.958-05:002009-10-22T20:43:39.958-05:00There's no question that you can construct the...There's no question that you can construct them. It just seems as though we rarely do, and you can also construct others that really don't work. I'm not sure I follow everything in the second paragraph, but more analysis I can do. If we look at <i>believe, already believed</i> is only 0.1% of all past tense <i>believed</i> where <i>already knew</i> is over 1%.Bretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02870575277556244419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31830497.post-13023362523638967132009-10-22T20:29:29.582-05:002009-10-22T20:29:29.582-05:00I think your COCA results may be coincidentally mi...I think your COCA results may be coincidentally misleading, because I have no trouble constructing perfectly grammatical parallels using past tense <i>want</i>, e.g. <i>I already wanted a dog, even before you told me you did.</i> Maybe the apparent underrepresentation of <i>want</i> in your analysis has some explanation unrelated to this construction.<br /><br />On the other hand, maybe it's that <i>know</i> is <i>over</i>represented. Consider that the original statement implies a denial of a causal relationship between you telling me about something and me knowing of it, and that <i>already...even</i> in this construction is pragmatically important to expressing this denial. This causal relationship (in the affirmational aspect) is extremely common--probably more common than direct experience, in fact--so it's only natural that it would be a more frequent topic (especially in refutation) compared with other stative verbs such as <i>want</i>, where causal relationship is not strong or common enough to be considered a default assumption.<br /><br />It would be interesting to repeat your COCA analysis with other mental-stative verbs, e.g. <i>believe</i>, <i>feel</i>, <i>think</i>, etc. I find it easy to use any of these in the simple past tense in similar constructions. My guess is that these also have closer causal relationships with being told something than <i>want</i> does.<br /><br />I think the stative explanation makes sense because states don't have point-in-time attributes, so temporally relating them to other past events (by pushing past tense into past perfect) isn't possible, or at least isn't essential.Rick Snoreply@blogger.com