10.3. WORKOUT FOR REAL-TIME TALK

Envisioning language study as travel in a dimension, we could think about our skill as guarding us against steep slopes. Let us warm up, for some workout.

Exercise 60. We do the exercise in our thoughts, as in the MIND PRACTICE. The arrow cues show the target grammatical time. We regard our linguistic Form Relativity.

Example: If you learned, you knew.
The forms “learned” and “knew” together show there is no linguistic relativity here. Our target grammatical time is the FUTURE.

Answer: If you WILL learn, you WILL know.

1. If you learn, you know.

2. If you WERE ABLE TO learn, you WERE ABLE TO know.

3. If you learned, you WOULD know.

4. If you HAD learned, you WOULD have known.

5. If you learn, you WILL know.

6. If you learned, you WOULD know.

7. If you HAD learned, you WOULD have known.

8. If you learn, you WILL know.

Exercise 61. Let us try “jumping” time extents, as in EXERCISE 55. We provide the arrow cues for the target grammatical time. Our “jumping” symbols are:

“One time extent forward”;

“One time extent backward”.

We can present the flow of time as on a symbolic line.

We can place the question mark, for the Interrogative Expression.

Example: If you learned {?}, you knew.

Answer: DO you learn, if you know?

Example: If you learned, you knew {?}

Answer: If you learn, DO you know?

We can place the letter N for our Negative Expression.

Example: If you learned {N}, you knew.

Answer: If you DON’T learn, you know.

Example: If you learned {N}, you knew {N}.

Answer: If you DON’T learn, you DON’T know.

Example: If you learned, you knew {N}.

Answer: If you learn, you DON’T know.

*****
TASK

1. If you learned, you knew {?}

2. If you learn {N}, you know.

3. If you learned, you WOULD know {?}

4. If you HAD learned, you WOULD HAVE known {N}.

5. If you learn, you WILL know {N}.

6. If you learned, you WOULD know {N}.

7. If you HAD learned, you WOULD HAVE known {?}

8. If you learn, you WILL know {?}

9. If you learned {N}, you WOULD know.

10. If you HAD learned {N}, you WOULD HAVE known {?}

Exercise 62. We can be back with someone we met in EXERCISE 37. Ms. Seges appeared already in Part One of our grammar course.

We were learning about personal pronouns, then (CHAPTER 1). Now we may think about our time frames, real-time and Modal. We can think about time frames also when the story is fictional.

It is weekend, late morning. Mr. Seges ― he never appeared in our grammar story before ― returns from a literary meeting.

Example: Ms. Seges is home, in her study. Though she had worked most of the night on her new book, she would be analyzing some old papers, now.

Answer: Ms. Seges is home.

Though she had worked most of the night on her new book,

she would be analyzing some old papers, now.

We can view Modal structures as modified real-time phrases
(SUB-CHAPTER 10.1).
Here, the phrase is not about a theory.
In our story, Ms. Seges is in her study, analyzing some old papers.

Let us compare a theory:
There is something very interesting about the old papers.
Otherwise, she would be sleeping.

*****

TASK

1. MR. SEGES: Honey, I’m back. What are you doing?

2. MS. SEGES: I’d be reading horoscopes.
(Ms. Seges never reads horoscopes.)

3. That is…?
(Mr. Seges does not believe she would ever read horoscopes.)

4. This looks like a calligraphic copy of Vespucci’s letters. It was slipping out of our backyard hedge, no covers or front matter.

5. “Hadn’t it sure taken a lot to make such a book, I’d suspect that Babbitt next door.

6. You remember, Bill wrote the book I was looking for was as likely to be obtained as a calligraphic of Vespucci’s originals.

7. And it was the title the Babbitt gave me. It was completely a fairy-tale, Bill even checked with the Freeman’s.”

8. About legends, my favorite Chicago blend is…

9. Honey, I would have remembered about the coffee; but I was so preoccupied…

10. I’m putting that with my records. The coffee is not a fairy-tale. It continues to exist somewhere in Chicago.

*****

From the key: Let us remember about text rich interpretation, as in EXERCISE 55. Babbitt is a character by Sinclair Lewis, an American writer. The Freeman’s is a famous auction house to specialize also in books.

Amerigo Vespucci described his voyages in letters to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de Medici. Calligraphic copies were still quite a habit for most important documents, in Vespucci’s times.

*****

Skimming can encourage effective learning; feel welcome to have a peek into EXERCISE 64, before doing this one.

Exercise 63. Let us focus on Form Relativity with the Progressive. We remember about the earthling proper egoism (please compare SUB-CHAPTER 8.1).

We have the value {IN} next to the verb to go with the Progressive. However, we can stay {ON} our cognitive grounds for qualities, hearts and minds (CHAPTER 7).

Example: {PAST}, he, N 1. (be) extremely busy, 2. (remember) {IN} to bring that brand coffee.

Answer: If he had not been extremely busy, he would have remembered to bring that brand coffee.

Our symbolics:
A CLOSED MODAL FRAME, AND GRAMMATICAL TARGET PAST.

Please think if to use FORM RELATIVITY in example 2. A non-relative form will show a number of activities different from the relative. We can use Modals other than WILL, too.

*****

1. {PRESENT}, she, N read {IN} the calligraphic, she, sleep {IN}.
(She worked on her new book all night.)

2. {PAST}, he, N write {IN}, he, read or talk {IN}.
(The colloquium was very engaging.)

3. {PAST}, he, N hear {IN} from Bill then, {PRESENT}, he, write {IN} him a letter now.

4. {PRESENT}, it, N be {IN} such a good quality, she, think it a mere prank.

5. {FUTURE}, it, N sustain {IN} the quality throughout, it, compare {IN} with the Bodleian Horace and Francis Crease talent.

6. {FUTURE}, they, look in the library, they, get the Medici print.
(Someone most probably made it from the Medici print.)

7. {PRESENT}, it, N be so conscientious, he, throw it in that Babbitt’s garden next door.

8. {FUTURE}, it, prove necessary, she, have it carbon dated.

9. {PRESENT}, it, be as good as it looks, it, M be of worth even as just a calligraphic.

10. {PAST} it, N deprive of the front matter, {PRESENT}, it, be {IN} easier to find out who made it.

Feel welcome to some more exercise. We are gradually getting independent of cues. Real-time, we people speak without them.
10.4. MORE WORKOUT FOR REAL-TIME TALK

*****

10.1. THE UNREAL PAST OR CONDITIONAL: REAL TIME

Let us try a few more quotes.

More than that, and breaking precedent once more, I do not intend to commence any sentence with these words ― “If George Washington had been alive today”, or “If Thomas Jefferson”, or “If Alexander Hamilton”, or “If Abraham Lincoln had been alive today…”
Theodore Roosevelt, American President

PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Grammar resources might label the quote from Theodore Roosevelt as the 3rd Conditional, Unreal Past, or even the Past Unreal Conditional, dependent on the grammar approach solely.

Some of those resources would tell we build the 3rd Conditional of the Past Perfect and the Future in the Past.

We would have to recognize the Past Perfect for a potentially Unreal form, then.

Worse still, our “Unreal Past Perfect” would be as good as merely a fancy. Please compare a quote from Gerald Ford.

If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave.

PRESIDENT GERALD FORD.

It is not only for our pension plans that we might be unwilling to have the Past Perfect for merely a fancy.

With Perfect tenses overall, our syntactic HAVE helps tell about real time. It has an open, real-time frame. To compare physical space, we might think about paths or routes on real ground.

{TO} is our cognitive variable.
We have the variable to render duration and time spans.

With the Unreal grammatical time or Conditional, HAVE brings hypothetical time. It is not part the real map, then.

It comes with an auxiliary compass for relative time, and closes the frame for the theory. We attach the auxiliary compass to the Modal.

Our cognitive variable is {ON}.

Duration and time span become generalized.
We have called it our Modal Net.

Whether our verb would be to read, to speak, to run, to stop, or to jump, duration becomes non-essential, with a theory closed frame.

The matter is exactly the same with the anchor HAVE in Theodore Roosevelt’s quote. The phrase, “had been alive”, is not concerned with longevity or shortness of life.

The phrase narrates about being alive generally, and we could quote Gerald Ford’s wording, “were alive” for an exact paraphrase.

Naturally, we might note that live people would not be likely staying in their graves, but our thing here is to work grammar for language uses as they are, even if absolutely abstract or humorous.

We may recur to CHAPTER 10. Our example was
“If you HAD eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT HAVE had it (at some later, but still PAST time)”.

Again, the anchor HAVE pays no heed to the length of time it takes to eat a cookie. It helps mind if the cookie remains, or has been consumed in the course of events.

The syntactic role is narrative, not factual.
We may compare SUB-CHAPTER 9.2.
I thought the handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.
(It turned out it was still in place.)

However we know the theory was against fact, we can tell our story with the anchor HAVE.

About stories and their telling, the Conditional or grammatical “unreal time” are often backtrack logic: we look to the consequent, to speculate on the premise.

Let us think if language might transfer features.

We can view the phrase had eaten as a transfer of the syntactic anchor from the consequent.

We may think about a similar transfer for the Passive, where the object becomes the subject and the predicate adapts.

We do not need to view the anchor HAVE as the real-time Past Perfect. For speculation as “had been alive” or “were alive”, the choice is purely stylistic.

Let us try another president quote.

*****

“If I had permitted my failures, or what seemed to me at the time a lack of success, to discourage me, I cannot see any way in which I would ever have made progress.”
Calvin Coolidge, American President

CALVIN COOLIDGE IN 1910, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Grammar resources might label the above as the 2nd Conditional, or view the phrase “I WOULD have made progress” as a Modal modification of a real-time “I HAVE made progress”.

The argument might be, the words definitely refer to a time span, between some time PAST and PRESENT, in which progress has been made.

Let us consider two views to our syntactic structures. We began building our language structures joining the grammatical Person, Time, and Aspect.

Modal verbs have brought form relativity and auxiliary grammatical time. Let us picture these language components.

Let us think where the verb TO HAVE might occur, as an auxiliary or head verb.

For the auxiliary time, we may compare SUB-CHAPTER 9.1.
Modality is not indispensable:
We can have auxiliary time without it, too.
I am happy to have exercised;
I was happy to have exercised;
I will be happy to have exercised.

Let us change the verb “to exercise” into the verb phrase “to make progress”.
I am happy to have made progress;
I was happy to have made progress;
I will be happy to have made progress.

Let us modify our infinitive with the Modal form MAY.
I am happy I may have made progress;
I was happy I might have made progress.
I will be happy I may have made progress.

We can view phrases as modified, as well. Our view is likely to depend on the context and word sense, namely, if a phrase looks a theory, or not.

The progress in Calvin Coolidge quote is not a theory.
I cannot see any way in which I would HAVE made progress.

Our symbolics is to help comprehend.
For Calvin Coolidge quote, we can use
MODAL MEDIATION, REAL-TIME OPEN FRAME.

For a theory, we may compare,
But the obstacles, she WOULD HAVE made progress.
But she has not made any progress.
The symbolics to help see the difference can be
A CLOSED MODAL FRAME.

*****

Let us think how the Modal frame closes. With our modified infinitive above, Modality is attached as a subordinate clause. It does not make the main grammatical time.

Let us compare Modality for our main or head, real time.

If someone asked,
“What HAS she BEEN doing?”
An answer as,
“She MAY HAVE BEEN working”,
would close the hypothetical time on the grammatical and real-time PRESENT, just as the question.

Saying, “She MAY HAVE finished by tomorrow”, or “She WILL HAVE finished by tomorrow”, we would close our hypothetical time on tomorrow.

We can use our auxiliary time extent with all grammatical time, but we need to mind the form of the Modal verb alone, for the main time.

PRESENT Modal forms tend towards the grammatical PRESENT or FUTURE.

If we say we CAN or MAY work, the hypothesis goes into the FUTURE a little. Our Modal frame remains open.

Modal shapes we class as PAST tend towards the PAST or PRESENT. It is only with the open frame that we can use PAST Modal forms for the grammatical FUTURE.

We might say,
“We COULD do this tomorrow,”
but without auxiliary HAVE.

For our main time, we would not produce forms as
*She COULD HAVE / MIGHT HAVE finished by tomorrow.

The only exception would be the Modal WILL itself, but it is our regular mapping word for the FUTURE.
She WOULD HAVE finished by tomorrow.

The form “CAN” is quite special. We use it to tell what we are really able to do; we have the skill, or even mastery and finesse. Many grammar resources discourage closing the frame on it in the Affirmative, whatever the grammatical time.

If we are tentative about a future result, we can say
“Maybe it WILL HAVE ended by tomorrow”.
We may view the structure as the real-time Future Perfect, with an open real-time frame.

*****

Language is not a record or chronicle. It does not require absolute certainty about things coming true, or confirmation in events, for the thought to be real and for the structure to be grammatical.

*****

Do we need to resolve between labels as “Unreal Past” or “Conditional”? Let us mark individual verbs for grammatical form, in these words by Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

“No group and no Government CAN (FORM: PRESENT) properly prescribe precisely what SHOULD (FORM: PAST) constitute the body of knowledge with which true education is (FORM: PRESENT) concerned.”

It is obvious there must be a relative interpretation for grammatical from, and the extent for this relativity embraces the verb phrase.

A verb phrase can be one verb, or a verb structure, as with auxiliary HAVE.

Classing entire stretches of language as Conditional or Unreal Past, we might feel lost for the main time. We can stay by terms as “a relative verb form”, or “verb form relativity”.

Verb forms would be relative to the main grammatical time, the reference we make for the real time.

*****

Well, we may have worked out some logic. If we were lazy, we would have been doing something else for the past hour.

For a competent insight into our syntax, let us consider the Progressive. Feel welcome.
10.2. FORM RELATIVITY: THE PROGRESSIVE

*****

CHAPTER 10. FORM RELATIVITY GALORE

With Modal verbs and patterns as the Conditional or Unreal Past, we may feel about language form more as a reflection.

Let us see if we could apply our MODAL TIME FRAME to guidance on the Unreal Past or the Conditional.

*****

There has been much dispute over the Conditional. Some grammarians reject it altogether.

Let us remember that labeling does not change the objective language reality. It cannot decide on how linguistic forms may work within human discourse.

*****

Let us use Conditional patterns, to compare language forms. We mind our target grammatical time, the PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE.

We can practice with the verb TO HAVE. It can mean keeping, tolerating, or eating something.

As a syntactic verb, HAVE may provide the auxiliary time for Modal verbs. Let us look to the syntax and negotiation of meaning: how do we eat a cookie and have it?

Our cookie is perfectly digestible. To choose on the word sense, we can underline the “HAVE” to mean keeping, tolerating, or eating.

We look to the premise (if you eat the cookie) and the consequent (you do not have it).

In PRACTICE 9.4. we viewed time as on a symbolic line.

ZERO CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PRESENT

83. If you eat the cookie, you DO NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: PRESENT

If you eat {PRESENT}, you DO {PRESENT} NOT have

*****

1ST CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE FUTURE

84. If you eat the cookie, you WILL NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: PRESENT

If you eat {PRESENT}, you WILL {PRESENT} NOT have

We began our journey viewing the verb form “WILL” in the Fields of Time.

We noted there is not really a FUTURE shape for the verb form WILL.
We do not say *will will.

The verb form WILL maps on the FUTURE already in the PRESENT grammatical shape.

We can compare Modal uses of WILL
85. She WILL be reading now.
(I am sure she is reading now.)

*****

2ND CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PRESENT

86. If you ate the cookie, you WOULD NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: PAST

If you ate {PAST}, you WOULD {PAST} NOT have

*****

3RD CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PAST

87. If you had eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT have had it.

LANGUAGE FORM: ANTECEDENT PAST

If you had eaten {ANTECEDENT PAST},
you WOULD NOT have {ANTECEDENT PAST} had

*****

4TH (MIXED) CONDITIONAL

TARGET GRAMMATICAL TIME: THE PAST and PRESENT

88. If you had eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT have it.

LANGUAGE FORM: ANTECEDENT PAST and PAST

If you had eaten {ANTECEDENT PAST},
you WOULD {PAST} NOT have

*****

We have marked our HAVES: If you HAD eaten the cookie, you WOULD NOT HAVE had it then.

The syntactic HAVE is green. The head verb, the notional HAVE is mauve and underlined. It may mean keeping, tolerating, or. . . eating something.

We may compare examples about Chantelle Règle having her extra Larousse, in SUB-CHAPTER 8.1.

Syntax can make us prone to interpret the notional HAVE as keeping something, in examples as 91a―d, though we can eat meals as well as have them.

Do we have to adopt the Conditional, to use Conditional patterns? Let us compare ideas.

Some grammars will say we use the First Conditional when the probability of something is high, and we use the Second for things more probable than those in the Third.

Grammars that reject the Conditional may support structures they name the Unreal Past. Let us consider the probability for saying,

89. If I WERE you, I WOULD . . .
(Please find the comment on the use of WERE also in exercise 62.)

*****

Skimming can be part an effective learning strategy. We can go backward and forward in our study guides, to get a picture of the language itself. The more study guides, the better.

*****

The PROBABILITY to become another human individual literally and ever really is ZERO, for everyone.

90. *I AM you . . . / *You ARE me . . . ?
(There is zero probability, even if someone pretends another person.)

Example 92 could be the Second Conditional or Unreal Past. Regardless of the label, it conveys zero probability, for the PRESENT, PAST, as well as FUTURE.

What would be if he were …

… if he were her … and if she were him …?

Bob says an unreal past could not exist without an unreal present or future, and he really wants to go to the Himalayas.

Alice says there never could be literally such a time as unreal time; just as well, you could try to have a cat for an unreal dog.

She pretends she is seeing bubbles, when it comes to unreal reality, and practices that too, sometimes.

Feel welcome to the GRAMMAR GRAPEVINE.

Chantelle says the world’s worst advice she ever got always came with someone saying, “If I were you…”

She skips the phrase owing to her language economy, also when she listens. She feels different about saying or hearing, “If I were in your shoes…”

“I’d have fresh veg every morning.”

Bob is not thinking about the high Himalaya: he is too small. It is not only in highest mountainous areas we may want to manage, however.

91. If you HAD NOT taken care of it, this handle WOULD HAVE broken off.

Within the probability approach, example 91 is the 3rd Conditional, which tells about the least probable events. The example yet might be telling about a prevented thing.

Let us think about probability a little further.

92. If you take care of this handle now, it still MIGHT work.
(The probability is low.)

We can transform the example and say,

92a. If you take care of this handle now, it WILL work.
(The probability is very high.)

Both 92 and 92a could receive the same label — of the First Conditional — and they differ in PROBABILITY very much.

In 92, taking care of the handle is probable to result in its working.

In 92a, the probability amounts to CERTAINTY. Taking care of the handle is sure to bring a working condition.

PROBABILITY is not going to explain on the use of forms. Let us try LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY.

“It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, American President

Let us sum up. For theory or guesswork, we can use

PRESENT verb forms to speak about the FUTURE,
PAST forms to speak about the PRESENT,
and
ANTECEDENT PAST forms to speak about the PAST.

Feel welcome to
10.1. THE CONDITIONAL OR UNREAL PAST: REAL TIME.

*****

9.3. DETAIL ON MODAL STRUCTURES

Modal Expression, especially the Interrogative or Negative, can give us some trouble, unless we approach the matter as science in a field: we analyze the molecules, see how they are doing, and make a model.

We can recur to CHAPTER 5, as well as compare APPENDIX 4.

54. We CANNOT skip the exercises.

55. We MAY NOT skip the exercises.

56. We WILL NOT skip the exercises.

57. We SHOULD NOT skip the exercises.

58. We OUGHT NOT TO skip the exercises.

59. We SHALL NOT skip the exercises.

60. We MUST NOT skip the exercises.

The form SHALL NOT may imply a conclusion, a decision ― more often in British English than in American, however. American English has the Modal WILL for resolves.

The Modal CAN attracts the particle NOT directly. They become one word, CANNOT. We may come upon the form CAN NOT in historic texts, as the GETTYSBURG ADDRESS.

President Abraham Lincoln gave the speech at the Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in 1863.

The form “can not” is rarely used today. Feel welcome to read the ADDRESS as well as to do the VOLUNTARY EXTRA PRACTICE.

In the Affirmative, MUST NOT can mean that something is forbidden or strongly discommended. NEED can take on the regular negative. The auxiliary is the verb to do.

61. We DO NOT NEED to memorize dictionaries.

We can use the short form DON’T, when our contexts are not formal.
61a. We DON’T NEED to memorize dictionaries.

NEED can take a Modal negation, too. The Modal form may be more emphatic.

61b. We NEEDN’T memorize dictionaries.
(There is definitely no need to memorize dictionaries.)

HAVE TO takes the regular negative.

62. We DO NOT HAVE TO memorize dictionaries.
62a. We DON’T HAVE TO memorize dictionaries.

Our paths can diverge for NEED in the auxiliary PAST.

63. You DIDN’T NEED to do this.
(Something didn’t need to be done and it was not done.)

63a. You NEEDN’T HAVE done this.
(You did, but you COULD HAVE left it alone ― the thinking is about a hypothesis.)

Let us tackle the Interrogative. This is the Modal to move here.
CHAPTER 5 shows Inversion, along with the Negative Interrogative.

64. We CAN work a lot.
CAN we work a lot?

65. We MAY work a lot.
MAY we work a lot?

66. We WILL work a lot.
WILL we work a lot?

67. We SHOULD work a lot.
SHOULD we work a lot?

68. We OUGHT TO work a lot.
OUGHT we TO work a lot?

69. We SHALL work a lot.
SHALL we work a lot?

70. We MUST work a lot.
MUST we work a lot?

In Negative questions, the linguistic chemistry may depend on the form we use, short or full.

71. CAN we NOT work a lot?
71a. CAN’T we work a lot?

72. MAY we NOT work a lot?
72a. MAYN’T we work a lot?

73. WILL we NOT work a lot?
73a. WON’T we work a lot?

74. SHOULD we NOT work a lot?
74a. SHOULDN’T we work a lot?

75. OUGHT we NOT TO work a lot?
75a. OUGHTN’T we TO work a lot?

76. SHALL we NOT work a lot?
76a. SHAN’T we work a lot?

In questions, MUST NOT may ask about the proper course of things.

77. MUST we NOT work a lot?
77a. MUSTN’T we work a lot?

HAVE TO takes the regular Negative Interrogative.

78. DO we NOT HAVE TO work a lot?
78a. DON’T we HAVE TO work a lot?

Let us catch on to the Modal NEED in the grammatical PAST. It behaves more and more like a regular verb, in contemporary American.

79. DID you NOT NEED to work a lot?
79a. DIDN’T you NEED to work a lot?

Please compare,
80. NEEDN’T you HAVE worked a lot?

Expression 80 would be so rare that an American might consider it incorrect. Why is this? Asking questions involves making hypotheses.

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.

Beside inversion, we can use the question mark or intonation alone, to make a question.

Let us regard language economy. In a language information pool, we may not need to provide information more than once.

80a. DIDN’T you NEED / HAVE TO work a lot?

An American could consider an alternate incorrect,
80b. *MUSTN’T you HAVE worked a lot?

NEED and MUST express a high degree of CONTINGENCY or CERTAINTY. Hypotheses with them might vary from those with other Modals: so many things SHOULD BE DONE, and they never are (!)

With high CONTINGENCY or CERTAINTY, we can net the hypothetical time: we have a strong hypothesis in the Modal alone. Here is our model (click to enlarge).

MODAL ECONOMY; CLICK TO ENLARGE

Please compare the absolutely correct in American,
81. SHOULDN’T you HAVE read this all?

There is a structure close to the Modal verbs MUST, NEED, OUGHT TO or SHOULD. It is TO BE (SUPPOSED) TO.

82. You WEREN’T (SUPPOSED) TO get the gizmos.

We can recur to the structure later in the grammar journey. Let us now exercise our brains in
9.4. MODAL RELATIVITY PRACTICE

*****

CHAPTER 8. ALCHEMY OF TIME FOR BEGINNERS

Most grammar resources agree that we have four Aspects in English, the Simple, the Progressive (or Continuous), the Perfect, and the Perfect Progressive (or Perfect Continuous).

By the label, we can say the Perfect Progressive should have features of the Perfect and the Progressive.

We extracted general patterns for the Simple, Progressive, and Perfect in SUB-CHAPTER 3.1.

We can compare Perfect Progressive examples, as online or in books, and note a general pattern for it, too.
FUTURE:
I will have been reading.

PRESENT:
I have been reading.

PAST:
I had been reading.

Let us think how to build this pattern. We can reckon the verb to be from the Progressive takes the place for the head verb in the Perfect pattern.

The verb to have in the Perfect attracts the third form. The Progressive auxiliary be takes on the third form, within the Perfect pattern.

We can have the Perfect Progressive for a merger of the Perfect and the Progressive. Our alchemy makes room for the head verb in the merged, Progressive pattern.

We have correlated the Simple, Progressive, and Perfect Aspects with cognitive mapping values, {ON}, {IN}, and {TO}.
Please compare CHAPTER 4.

We can use the Perfect to say what has progressed TO a time.

We can use the Progressive to tell what is progressing IN a time.

The two combined, the Perfect Progressive can help tell what has been progressing IN a stretch of time we refer TO another time.

What language marker (preposition) could we choose for our merged variable? We could think about “into”, to join the “in” and “to”.

However, “into” may mean the same as “in” or “to” alone, dependent on the context. The westerly wind frolicked into eddies, in exercise 44 (SUB-CHAPTER 7.1).

“Into” may make an impression more formal or emphatic than “in” or “to” on their own.

Let us think about the preposition AT.

Something has been progressing AT this time.

If our moment in time belongs with the FUTURE, we can say,
AT a time, something will have been progressing.

If our moment belongs with the PAST, we can say,
AT a time, something had been progressing.

Some grammar books will associate our feature {TO} with the Aspect we also can name the Perfect Simple. Some may have the name Perfect Continuous, for our variable {AT}.

Psycholinguistics says that naming processes do not change the ways language forms can work for brains. Book authors are people, and people happen to differ in approaches. Language forms can work regardless of grammar labels.

Our visualization is not to fix a picture for language. We do not have to stay with the same visuals for all time. We can present our mapping on one extent, as well as a few extents.

We can merge our Progressive and Perfect arrow cues (please refer to SUB-CHAPTER 5.1).

Perfect tenses have an open time frame: they connote another, simultaneous reference in time.

Let us think about the Perfect Simple. The PRESENT Perfect Simple can embrace some time with reference TO the PRESENT.

17. Madame Règle has lived in Paris for fifteen years.

The open frame here looks TO the PRESENT, regarding a time fifteen years ago.

The PAST Perfect Simple can refer one time in the PAST TO another time in the PAST.

17a. Before moving to Paris, Madame Règle had lived and worked in Lyon, the silk capital of France, for five years.

The open time frame looks TO the PAST, regarding a time five years before.

The FUTURE Perfect Simple may look to a time span from the PRESENT TO the FUTURE. Our basic or nodal time reference is the PRESENT, but we can think about the PAST as well.

17b. Tomorrow, Madame Règle will have lived and worked in France for twenty years.
(Altogether, in France, she has lived in Lyons and Paris.)

Madame Règle is an avid reader. She never really reads one book only. She usually has a small book with her, tied to her bag with a colorful scarf like with a string. She says that actually being able to look at a book makes it more present to her mind. At the same time, there is always another, bigger book she reads at home.

The practiced school habit of stringing books together might have had its advantages. Jill shares the behavior sometimes.

The Perfect Progressive makes a dual time reference and has an open time frame, the same as Perfect Simple. The Perfect Progressive can highlight a process, its time span or dynamism.

Let us think about the verb to read. We write the verb to read identically in the first, second, and third form. We say it differently.

1st form 2nd form 3rd form

read read read

[rI:d] [re:d] [re:d]

The verb to have takes the third form.

17c. Madame Règle has read [re:d] a book about a French thinker, René Descartes.
(She has finished.) {TO}

When we merge the Perfect and the Progressive, our pattern has room for the head verb in the Progressive.

17d. She has been reading [rI:dI Ƞ] a series of philosophical commentary books.
(Her reading is still in progress, she has not finished yet.) {AT}

We do NOT use the third form twice, and we do not add the ING to it. The following example shows the potential error.

17e. She has been * [re:dI Ƞ].

Let us return to our variable {ON}. Could we have it for our basic cognitive reference? Feel welcome to further journey.
8.1. EARTHLING BASIC VARIABLE

*****

1.2. MIND PRACTICE

Exercise 4. Let us try some practice for our minds. We can use exercises 1-3.

A. First, let us think how long we could stay without thinking. We may happen to hear or even say that someone is not thinking. This is yet only a saying, something nobody can mean literally. In reality, a live human being cannot “stop” his or her mind even for a minute.

B. Let us fix our visual focus on a single thing — a teacup, a pencil, or an apple as in the image above? Let us try to think about our object only and not anything else. We can use a wristwatch to see how long we cope.

C. Let us close our eyes and try not to think absolutely anything. The watch will tell us if we really can do this.

D. Let us think if there is language in our thought, what language it is (as English, German, French, or another), and how we think. Do we think in entire words? Could our thoughts be only pictures?

E. Let us go back to exercises 1-3. We try to “see” and “say” our answers in our thoughts strictly, and then we whisper or say them.

We can try writing the answers on a spare piece of paper, at the very same time as we whisper or speak.

In the beginning, we might feel it is really an effort to “discipline” ourselves and consciously direct own thinking. It is essential that we try. “Saying” or “writing” in our thoughts before actual spoken or written activity can make our language habits stronger and also more flexible.

The practice may resemble children learning first tongues, especially if we whisper or speak, and write. Importantly, we do not have to stay doing this forever. It is only to exercise, to make an association in own mind, the way human minds naturally make associations for language.

We humans naturally have inner language. For example, silent reading is faster than reading aloud. This is the inner language to facilitate the process. It is not entire words or even speech sounds. It has only trace aspects of written or spoken language.

Inner language is the highly advanced way for our human brains and minds to correlate language knowledge and skills. We do not know a language really, if it does not belong with our inner ability. Importantly, we can exercise and consciously accept a language into our inner intellectual aptitude.

With practice, we should be able to do exercises in our minds, and speak without excess attention to language form.

Feel welcome to further grammar journey.
Chapter 2, the verb form WILL.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: