|
The English-Learning and Languages Review Æ Homepage |
Questions
and Answers on English
Send your questions to The Editor - he will do his best to
answer them on this page.
Your name will not be published without
your permission.
An
English enquirer asks:
Please could you let me know whether it is
grammatically correct to say:
"an hotel" or "a hotel"
I was taught to say "an" (many years ago!).
The New Oxford Dictionary of
English explains that there is still a difference of opinion about the form of
the indefinite article before words beginning with h with an unstressed
first syllable. An was apparently common in the 18th and 19th centuries
before words like hotel and historical, because the
initial h was not pronounced. Today the initial h is usually
pronounced, and so a is used. But there are still those, particularly
among the older generation, who keep the h silent and so use an.
A
reader asks about the basic rules of word order for adverbs and adverbial
clauses in written English. In fact, one cannot really speak of rules in
this connection. There are only certain conventions of common usage. See The Position of
Adverbs and Adverbial Clauses in English
A French student asks about the use of used
to.
Used to has long been a difficulty for learners of
English.
Let us first get the
transitive verb use out of the way, so that we don't confuse it
with used to.
Use (past tense and
past participle used) is pronounced with a voiced s, and
has nothing to do with used to.
When
you use this machine, always use protective glasses.
I
used a finger nail to scratch a little piece of paint off.
On the other hand the s in
used to is always voiceless.
In
the following two sentences the two used
to's are completely different.
1 I was
used to living alone, so I didn't really mind the lonely life in the
2 I used
to live alone, but I don't now - my brother has joined me.
In
1,
used
to has
the sense of familiar with.
This
is the pattern:
I.......................Subject
was................Verb
TO BE or TO GET - in any tense
used..............ADJECTIVE
to....................PREPOSITION
living..............NOUN
- Because to is a
preposition, and must therefore govern a noun or pronoun, any verb that follows
it must be in the noun form, i.e. the -ing
form
In
2,
l used to live is a sort of emphatic Past
Simple, contrasted with the present. Used to is often said to be
habit in the past. It does have something of the meaning of past habit, but
just to say it means past habit is rather misleading, as the following examples
show:
I
used occasionally to visit her in hospital. This
is hardly a habit, while
There
used to be a church here, but they must have pulled it down. is definitely not habit! The pattern of this sort of used to
is as follows:
I.......................Subject
used...............VERB
- ONLY the PAST tense exists
to.....................INFINITIVE PARTICLE
live..................INFINITIVE
Here are some more examples
illustrating these points:
Type 1.
He's
used to getting his own way, so it's not surprising he was furious when we
opposed his plan. He's not used to having his authority questioned.
She
was used to people asking questions during her lectures - in fact she
positively encouraged it.
He'll
get used to getting up early. He's very adaptable.
He'll
be used to getting up early. After all, he was brought up on a farm.
Notice
the difference in meaning of these last two examples. He'll get used has the sense of
"He will become used", and the will is a will of future fact. In He'll be used the
will is a will of 'assumption', with the same
sort of meaning as must
in "You must be tired after your long journey." You could express
much the same idea by saying "I imagine he is used to getting up
early."
I'm
not used to this sort of heat, I'm afraid. I'm quite used to the cold, though.
Type 2.
He
used to play a lot of tennis, but he's getting a bit old for it now.
There
used to be a coal mine here in the seventies, but it was closed down in the
Thatcher years. It used to be a thriving community, with a sense of solidarity,
but that's all gone now.
Hyeon-Woo Cho in
While I was reading Dear Ann Landers, I came
across this sentence:
"If
you will excuse me, I think I will slip into something more comfortable."
Well,
according to grammar books, 'will' is not allowed in if-clauses whatsoever.
Then, how is the above sentence possible? As a matter of fact, you native
speakers never omit will there, right? I couldn't find any sentence
without will in the above context while the auxiliary is normally banned
in if-clauses. Can anybody comment on this?"
'Modal' will and would
Willingness
In the particular sentence quoted above the first will
is not a future tense will. We might call it a 'modal' will,
because it expresses the idea of 'willingness'. The first clause has the
sense of "If you are willing to excuse me..." This 'modal' use of will
in if clauses is quite common. (Throughout this explanation I use
the phrase "if clause" to represent all Conditional clauses.)
If you'll [you will] just
hold the door open for me a moment, I can take this table out to the kitchen.
Would is used in the same way, and many people would
consider it rather more polite than will.
If you would just pass me
that plate...(In such a request the sentence is often left unfinished.)
If and would are also often used together in
conversation such as:
"Shall I turn this light
off?" "Yes, if you would."
Obstinate persistence
Modal will does not only express the willingness idea. It
may also, for instance, express obstinate persistence.
If you will keep all the
windows shut, of course you'll get headaches. (With this sense will is stressed, and cannot be contracted to 'll.)
wish
if is also often used with would (but not will)
as a polite way of expressing the idea of "if you wish to". With this
sense it is usually used with verbs such as like, prefer, or care.
If you would like to come
with me, I'll show you.
If you would care to have a
copy of your own, I'll send you one.
Future will and Conditional would with if
But the use of will in if clauses also
raises a more fundamental issue. It is an interesting example of a mistake that
grammarians often make. They confuse something that is common in life with the
rules of language. In real life, actions that are dependent on conditions usually come after the
condition. For example:
If it rains we'll have to
cancel the match.
Here, cancelling the match will come AFTER the rain
starts, and this is the usual time relationship between if actions and
the actions dependent on them. First it
rains; then we cancel the match.
If it rains we must take
umbrellas.
The picture this sentence produces in the mind's eye
is, again, of us waiting (at home or wherever we are) to see whether it rains
at the time we want to go out. If it rains, but not before, we take umbrellas.
First it rains, then we take umbrellas.
Exactly the same principle applies to unfulfilled
conditions.
If we had known it was going
to rain, we would have taken umbrellas.
Once again, the time of the main verb, taking
umbrellas, comes AFTER the time of the if verb, the knowing. But let us
imagine the situation we were in when we made the mistake of not taking
umbrellas. What might we have said if our information had been better? One of
us might have said:
The weather forecast says
it's going to rain.
And somebody else might then say:
Well, if it's going to rain,
we must take umbrellas.
Here the times of the two actions have been turned the
other way round. The main action (taking umbrellas) must be NOW, BEFORE the if
action on which taking umbrellas depends, the raining. But we could also
express this sentence by using will instead of going to:
Well, if it will rain, we
must take umbrellas.
If aspirins will cure it,
I'll [I will] take a couple tonight instead of this horrible medicine.
It works the same way with would.
If it would make Bill happy,
I'd [I would] give him the money.
What I am saying here is that I would give Bill the
money FIRST, IF AFTERWARDS Bill would become happy because of it.
So we arrive at a very simple principle:
If the if action is BEFORE the main action, will
and would are NOT used in the if clause. This – main action after the condition action -
is the normal situation in life. Many languages, though, use a Future or
Conditional verb in the Conditional ('if') clause in this situation, which is
why speakers of those languages need to be particularly careful not to use will
or would in the Conditional clause in such sentences, which are the
great majority.
But if the if action is AFTER the main action, will
or would (or an equivalent
expression indicating the Future) IS used in the if clause.
Because this second sort of situation is not common in
real life, most grammarians have not thought of it when making up their rules
for conditional sentences. This is a pity, because it tends to give the
impression that languages are governed by arbitrary rules without any logical
consistency. In fact this not so. In all languages certain conventions of meaning
have been established. To express ourselves clearly and accurately we have to
use those conventional meanings logically in a way that says what we mean. So
if we want to express an "If...will" situation, we have to say
"If...will....."!
WOULD
with IF – see WILL with IF
The English-Learning and Languages Review and its individual
contributors assert their Copyright on all the material published in it.
Nevertheless, the Review gives permission for unlimited reproduction of
the contents of this page, on condition that:
·
copies are not sold
|
The English-Learning and Languages Review Æ
Homepage |