Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?

"By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
"By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
"By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"

Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
> 
> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles" 
> 
> 
It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> 
>> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>>
>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
> 
I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
> 
> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles" 
> 
> 
It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> 
>> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>>
>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
> 
I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
> 
> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles" 
> 
> 
It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> 
>> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>>
>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
> 
I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>
>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>> 
>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
miles"?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>"By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>>>conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>
>>
>>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
> 
> 
> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
> miles"?

The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
in the example sentence, which is about the past.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> 
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking 
>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>>
>>
>>
>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
> 
> 
> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
> in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
It's probably worth pointing out that "would", "should" and "could" have 
several other usages besides the conditional.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
>
>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>in the example sentence, which is about the past.

I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>>miles"?
>>
>>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>>in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
> 
> I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
> until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
> correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
> swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)? 

In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
point in time distant from the present.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
> 
> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles" 
> 
> 
It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> 
>> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>>
>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
> 
I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>
>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>> 
>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
miles"?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>"By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>>>conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>
>>
>>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
> 
> 
> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
> miles"?

The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
in the example sentence, which is about the past.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> 
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking 
>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>>
>>
>>
>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
> 
> 
> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
> in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
It's probably worth pointing out that "would", "should" and "could" have 
several other usages besides the conditional.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
>
>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>in the example sentence, which is about the past.

I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>>miles"?
>>
>>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>>in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
> 
> I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
> until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
> correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
> swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)? 

In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
point in time distant from the present.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:12:33 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
>Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
>Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
>the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
>not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
>point in time distant from the present.

OK, I see. So in English you only use the present cond. in a case
like: I'm not hungry, but if I were hungry I would eat something?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:12:33 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
>>Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
>>Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
>>the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
>>not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
>>point in time distant from the present.
> 
> 
> OK, I see. So in English you only use the present cond. in a case
> like: I'm not hungry, but if I were hungry I would eat something? 

I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
"presentness" or "futurity". And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
usages of "would".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
>"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
>"presentness" or "futurity". 

OK

>And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
>usages of "would".

You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German Oxford
Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af any
conditional.

BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
there a book you could recommend?

Bygvir Melkerson wrote:

> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. 

You don't usually get much usage in an E_E dictionary. This is my favourite:
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/books/dictionaries/index.shtml

but there's more etymology than usage.

There are various books on usage (idioms, phrasal verbs etc.) in the 
books index: http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/books/index.shtml.

Paul VBurke

Bygvir Melkerson wrote:

> BTW, I'm looking for a really good English-English dictionary.


My favourite is:

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198605751&view=ask

It includes sample quotations but limited usage.


This smaller dictionary has more usage but less dictionary

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198610571&view=ask

although I have not used that version.


-- 
* * * * * * *
Blue Sow

On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:54:36 +0100, Blue Sow  wrote:

>This smaller dictionary has more usage but less dictionary

Thanks both of you. I will take a further look at the bigger one, this
book is availiable at the wholesalers in Germany within a few days.

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
>> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking
>>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>> miles"?
>>
>>
>> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any
>> sense in the example sentence, which is about the past.
>>
> It's probably worth pointing out that "would", "should" and "could"
> have several other usages besides the conditional.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Thank you very much.

Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
> 
> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles" 
> 
> 
It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> 
>> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>>
>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
> 
I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>
>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>> 
>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
miles"?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>"By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>>>conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>
>>
>>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
> 
> 
> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
> miles"?

The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
in the example sentence, which is about the past.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> 
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking 
>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>>
>>
>>
>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
> 
> 
> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
> in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
It's probably worth pointing out that "would", "should" and "could" have 
several other usages besides the conditional.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
>
>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>in the example sentence, which is about the past.

I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>>miles"?
>>
>>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>>in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
> 
> I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
> until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
> correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
> swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)? 

In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
point in time distant from the present.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:12:33 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
>Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
>Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
>the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
>not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
>point in time distant from the present.

OK, I see. So in English you only use the present cond. in a case
like: I'm not hungry, but if I were hungry I would eat something?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:12:33 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
>>Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
>>Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
>>the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
>>not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
>>point in time distant from the present.
> 
> 
> OK, I see. So in English you only use the present cond. in a case
> like: I'm not hungry, but if I were hungry I would eat something? 

I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
"presentness" or "futurity". And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
usages of "would".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
>"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
>"presentness" or "futurity". 

OK

>And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
>usages of "would".

You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German Oxford
Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af any
conditional.

BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
there a book you could recommend?

Bygvir Melkerson wrote:

> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. 

You don't usually get much usage in an E_E dictionary. This is my favourite:
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/books/dictionaries/index.shtml

but there's more etymology than usage.

There are various books on usage (idioms, phrasal verbs etc.) in the 
books index: http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/books/index.shtml.

Paul VBurke

Bygvir Melkerson wrote:

> BTW, I'm looking for a really good English-English dictionary.


My favourite is:

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198605751&view=ask

It includes sample quotations but limited usage.


This smaller dictionary has more usage but less dictionary

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198610571&view=ask

although I have not used that version.


-- 
* * * * * * *
Blue Sow

On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:54:36 +0100, Blue Sow  wrote:

>This smaller dictionary has more usage but less dictionary

Thanks both of you. I will take a further look at the bigger one, this
book is availiable at the wholesalers in Germany within a few days.

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
>> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking
>>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>> miles"?
>>
>>
>> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any
>> sense in the example sentence, which is about the past.
>>
> It's probably worth pointing out that "would", "should" and "could"
> have several other usages besides the conditional.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Thank you very much.

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
>>"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
>>"presentness" or "futurity". 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> 
>>And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
>>usages of "would".
> 
> 
> You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
> would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German Oxford
> Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af any
> conditional.
> 
That's one example - for example, it often correspondes to the German 
past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which may not necessarily have 
anything to do with conditionality, and it is also used in indirect 
speech without any element of conditionality

> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
> only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
> doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
> there a book you could recommend? 
> 
Som of the learners' dictionaries give some guidance on usage, but I 
think a guide to usage may be more useful if you want help on a fairly 
high level of sophistication. I'd recommend Michael Swan's "Modern 
English Usage", which IIRC is published by Oxford University Press. The 
current edition was published in 1995 but it's still an invaluable guide 
to many of the problems that advanced students of English have.

You can actually browse the book at 
<http://www.amazon.de/gp/reader/0194420981/ref=sib_dp_pt/302-5992301-1015206#reader-page>

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element
>>> of "pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element
>>> of "presentness" or "futurity".
>>
>>
>> OK
>>
>>
>>> And as I mentioned earlier there are other
>>> usages of "would".
>>
>>
>> You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
>> would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German
>> Oxford Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af
>> any conditional.
>>
> That's one example - for example, it often correspondes to the German
> past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which may not necessarily have
> anything to do with conditionality, and it is also used in indirect
> speech without any element of conditionality
>
>> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
>> only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
>> doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
>> there a book you could recommend?
>>
> Som of the learners' dictionaries give some guidance on usage, but I
> think a guide to usage may be more useful if you want help on a fairly
> high level of sophistication. I'd recommend Michael Swan's "Modern
> English Usage", which IIRC is published by Oxford University Press.
> The current edition was published in 1995 but it's still an
> invaluable guide to many of the problems that advanced students of
> English have.
> You can actually browse the book at
> http://www.amazon.de/gp/reader/0194420981/ref=sib_dp_pt/302-5992301-1015206#reader-page

That's "Practical English Usage" - "Modern English Usage " was Fowler (now 
"Fowler's Modern English Usage" by Burchfield...)
-- 
John Briggs

John Briggs schrieb:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
>>Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element
>>>>of "pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element
>>>>of "presentness" or "futurity".
>>>
>>>
>>>OK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And as I mentioned earlier there are other
>>>>usages of "would".
>>>
>>>
>>>You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
>>>would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German
>>>Oxford Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af
>>>any conditional.
>>>
>>
>>That's one example - for example, it often correspondes to the German
>>past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which may not necessarily have
>>anything to do with conditionality, and it is also used in indirect
>>speech without any element of conditionality
>>
>>
>>>BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
>>>only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
>>>doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
>>>there a book you could recommend?
>>>
>>
>>Som of the learners' dictionaries give some guidance on usage, but I
>>think a guide to usage may be more useful if you want help on a fairly
>>high level of sophistication. I'd recommend Michael Swan's "Modern
>>English Usage", which IIRC is published by Oxford University Press.
>>The current edition was published in 1995 but it's still an
>>invaluable guide to many of the problems that advanced students of
>>English have.
>>You can actually browse the book at
>>http://www.amazon.de/gp/reader/0194420981/ref=sib_dp_pt/302-5992301-1015206#reader-page
> 
> 
> That's "Practical English Usage" - "Modern English Usage " was Fowler (now 
> "Fowler's Modern English Usage" by Burchfield...)

Alzheimer's or something seems to be affecting me - I had the facsimile 
of the front cover of the Swan book in front of me when I wrote that! :-((

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
> 
> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles" 
> 
> 
It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> 
>> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>>
>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
> 
I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>
>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>> 
>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
miles"?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>"By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>>>conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>
>>
>>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
> 
> 
> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
> miles"?

The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
in the example sentence, which is about the past.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> 
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking 
>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>>
>>
>>
>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
> 
> 
> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
> in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
It's probably worth pointing out that "would", "should" and "could" have 
several other usages besides the conditional.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
>
>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>in the example sentence, which is about the past.

I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>>miles"?
>>
>>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>>in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
> 
> I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
> until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
> correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
> swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)? 

In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
point in time distant from the present.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:12:33 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
>Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
>Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
>the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
>not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
>point in time distant from the present.

OK, I see. So in English you only use the present cond. in a case
like: I'm not hungry, but if I were hungry I would eat something?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:12:33 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
>>Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
>>Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
>>the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
>>not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
>>point in time distant from the present.
> 
> 
> OK, I see. So in English you only use the present cond. in a case
> like: I'm not hungry, but if I were hungry I would eat something? 

I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
"presentness" or "futurity". And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
usages of "would".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
>"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
>"presentness" or "futurity". 

OK

>And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
>usages of "would".

You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German Oxford
Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af any
conditional.

BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
there a book you could recommend?

Bygvir Melkerson wrote:

> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. 

You don't usually get much usage in an E_E dictionary. This is my favourite:
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/books/dictionaries/index.shtml

but there's more etymology than usage.

There are various books on usage (idioms, phrasal verbs etc.) in the 
books index: http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/books/index.shtml.

Paul VBurke

Bygvir Melkerson wrote:

> BTW, I'm looking for a really good English-English dictionary.


My favourite is:

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198605751&view=ask

It includes sample quotations but limited usage.


This smaller dictionary has more usage but less dictionary

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198610571&view=ask

although I have not used that version.


-- 
* * * * * * *
Blue Sow

On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:54:36 +0100, Blue Sow  wrote:

>This smaller dictionary has more usage but less dictionary

Thanks both of you. I will take a further look at the bigger one, this
book is availiable at the wholesalers in Germany within a few days.

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
>> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking
>>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>> miles"?
>>
>>
>> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any
>> sense in the example sentence, which is about the past.
>>
> It's probably worth pointing out that "would", "should" and "could"
> have several other usages besides the conditional.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Thank you very much.

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
>>"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
>>"presentness" or "futurity". 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> 
>>And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
>>usages of "would".
> 
> 
> You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
> would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German Oxford
> Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af any
> conditional.
> 
That's one example - for example, it often correspondes to the German 
past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which may not necessarily have 
anything to do with conditionality, and it is also used in indirect 
speech without any element of conditionality

> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
> only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
> doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
> there a book you could recommend? 
> 
Som of the learners' dictionaries give some guidance on usage, but I 
think a guide to usage may be more useful if you want help on a fairly 
high level of sophistication. I'd recommend Michael Swan's "Modern 
English Usage", which IIRC is published by Oxford University Press. The 
current edition was published in 1995 but it's still an invaluable guide 
to many of the problems that advanced students of English have.

You can actually browse the book at 
<http://www.amazon.de/gp/reader/0194420981/ref=sib_dp_pt/302-5992301-1015206#reader-page>

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element
>>> of "pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element
>>> of "presentness" or "futurity".
>>
>>
>> OK
>>
>>
>>> And as I mentioned earlier there are other
>>> usages of "would".
>>
>>
>> You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
>> would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German
>> Oxford Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af
>> any conditional.
>>
> That's one example - for example, it often correspondes to the German
> past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which may not necessarily have
> anything to do with conditionality, and it is also used in indirect
> speech without any element of conditionality
>
>> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
>> only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
>> doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
>> there a book you could recommend?
>>
> Som of the learners' dictionaries give some guidance on usage, but I
> think a guide to usage may be more useful if you want help on a fairly
> high level of sophistication. I'd recommend Michael Swan's "Modern
> English Usage", which IIRC is published by Oxford University Press.
> The current edition was published in 1995 but it's still an
> invaluable guide to many of the problems that advanced students of
> English have.
> You can actually browse the book at
> http://www.amazon.de/gp/reader/0194420981/ref=sib_dp_pt/302-5992301-1015206#reader-page

That's "Practical English Usage" - "Modern English Usage " was Fowler (now 
"Fowler's Modern English Usage" by Burchfield...)
-- 
John Briggs

John Briggs schrieb:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
>>Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element
>>>>of "pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element
>>>>of "presentness" or "futurity".
>>>
>>>
>>>OK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And as I mentioned earlier there are other
>>>>usages of "would".
>>>
>>>
>>>You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
>>>would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German
>>>Oxford Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af
>>>any conditional.
>>>
>>
>>That's one example - for example, it often correspondes to the German
>>past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which may not necessarily have
>>anything to do with conditionality, and it is also used in indirect
>>speech without any element of conditionality
>>
>>
>>>BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
>>>only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
>>>doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
>>>there a book you could recommend?
>>>
>>
>>Som of the learners' dictionaries give some guidance on usage, but I
>>think a guide to usage may be more useful if you want help on a fairly
>>high level of sophistication. I'd recommend Michael Swan's "Modern
>>English Usage", which IIRC is published by Oxford University Press.
>>The current edition was published in 1995 but it's still an
>>invaluable guide to many of the problems that advanced students of
>>English have.
>>You can actually browse the book at
>>http://www.amazon.de/gp/reader/0194420981/ref=sib_dp_pt/302-5992301-1015206#reader-page
> 
> 
> That's "Practical English Usage" - "Modern English Usage " was Fowler (now 
> "Fowler's Modern English Usage" by Burchfield...)

Alzheimer's or something seems to be affecting me - I had the facsimile 
of the front cover of the Swan book in front of me when I wrote that! :-((

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:

>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"

>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>>>> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.

>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?

> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense in the 
> example sentence, which is about the past.

It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular occurrence,
and "then" means the time when this had become a regular occurrence.

"In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training sessions,
  by then she would swim 2 miles every week".

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach :
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:

[...]

>>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>> miles"?
>
>> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense
>> in the example sentence, which is about the past.
>
> It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular occurrence,
> and "then" means the time when this had become a regular occurrence.
>
> "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training sessions,
>   by then she would swim 2 miles every week".

I'm not sure `by then' is idiomatic in that sentence.  Certainly it sounds
wrong to me.  `back then' makes more sense:

  `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training sessions
   back then she would swim two miles every week.'
OR
   back then she swam two miles every week.'
OR 
   back then she was swimming two miles every week.'

These all mean approximately the same thing, or are certainly close enough
that, in conversation or writing, no casual practitioner of English would
worry about the difference.

b.

-- 
                                       <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
  `The Americans advise matching socks to your pants, the Italians seem to
   contrast with both shoes and pants. The English, always the eccentrics,
   wear maroon socks with everything!'     -- thesartorialist.blogspot.com

Matthew Huntbach schrieb:
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
>> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> 
> 
>>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking 
>>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
> 
> 
>>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
> 
> 
>>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>> miles"?
> 
> 
>> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>> in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
> 
> It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular occurrence,
> and "then" means the time when this had become a regular occurrence.
> 
> "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training sessions,
>  by then she would swim 2 miles every week".
> 
I understand what you're trying to say, but the sentence doesn't feel 
quite right to me.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

In article , Ben Shimmin
 wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach :
> > On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:

> [...]

> >>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
> >>> miles"?
> >
> >> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any
> >> sense in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> >
> > It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular
> > occurrence, and "then" means the time when this had become a
> > regular occurrence.
> >
> > "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training
> > sessions, by then she would swim 2 miles every week".

> I'm not sure `by then' is idiomatic in that sentence.  Certainly it
> sounds wrong to me.  `back then' makes more sense:

Surely that depends on the intended sense?

>   `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training
> sessions back then she would swim two miles every week.' OR back then
> she swam two miles every week.' OR back then she was swimming two
> miles every week.'

> These all mean approximately the same thing, or are certainly close
> enough that, in conversation or writing, no casual practitioner of
> English would worry about the difference.

"Back then" doesn't mean the same as "by then". The latter has an
implied - possibly essential - meaning of prior ongoing practice; the
former is purely retrospective.

-- 
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!

David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/

David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>:
> In article , Ben Shimmin
>  wrote:
>> Matthew Huntbach :
>> > On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:

[...]

>> >> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any
>> >> sense in the example sentence, which is about the past.
>> >
>> > It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular
>> > occurrence, and "then" means the time when this had become a
>> > regular occurrence.
>> >
>> > "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training
>> > sessions, by then she would swim 2 miles every week".
>
>> I'm not sure `by then' is idiomatic in that sentence.  Certainly it
>> sounds wrong to me.  `back then' makes more sense:
>
> Surely that depends on the intended sense?

It sounds wrong, whatever sense was intended.

>>   `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training
>> sessions back then she would swim two miles every week.' OR back then
>> she swam two miles every week.' OR back then she was swimming two
>> miles every week.'
>
>> These all mean approximately the same thing, or are certainly close
>> enough that, in conversation or writing, no casual practitioner of
>> English would worry about the difference.
>
> "Back then" doesn't mean the same as "by then". The latter has an
> implied - possibly essential - meaning of prior ongoing practice; the
> former is purely retrospective.

Sure, I accept that `back then' is imprecise, but `by then' doesn't work in
that sentence.  It's not idiomatic.  If you want better precision and
a turn of phrase that actually sounds natural, I guess you might say:

  `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training sessions
   prior to that victory, she would swim two miles every week.'

(assuming that that is what `by then' is intended to mean here; if she
also trained by swimming two miles every week after her victory, perhaps
in preparation for future competitions, you would need to meddle with the
sentence even further).

Again, `she swam' and `she was swimming' can replace `she would swim' with
relatively little difference in meaning.

b.

-- 
                                       <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
  `The Americans advise matching socks to your pants, the Italians seem to
   contrast with both shoes and pants. The English, always the eccentrics,
   wear maroon socks with everything!'     -- thesartorialist.blogspot.com

Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
> 
> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles" 
> 
> 
It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> 
>> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>>
>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
> 
I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>
>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>> 
>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
miles"?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>"By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>"By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>>>conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>
>>
>>I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
> 
> 
> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
> miles"?

The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
in the example sentence, which is about the past.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> 
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking 
>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>>
>>
>>
>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
> 
> 
> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
> in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
It's probably worth pointing out that "would", "should" and "could" have 
several other usages besides the conditional.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?
>
>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>in the example sentence, which is about the past.

I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:05:13 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>>miles"?
>>
>>The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>>in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
> 
> I thought 'by then' means in German 'bis dahin', maybe something like
> until then, until this moment or so. If this interpretation is
> correct, why does the pres. cond. make no sense? (By then, Diane would
> swim 2 miles = She don't swim, but if she does it, then 2 miles)? 

In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
point in time distant from the present.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:12:33 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
>Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
>Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
>the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
>not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
>point in time distant from the present.

OK, I see. So in English you only use the present cond. in a case
like: I'm not hungry, but if I were hungry I would eat something?

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 22:12:33 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>In English it wzuld have to be "By now she would have swum 2 miles". 
>>Perfect because it started in the past and continues up to the present. 
>>Indeed in this particular context it would always be the perfect because 
>>the swimming started some time before the time in question (in this case 
>>not rel time but speculative time). And "then" is only used for some 
>>point in time distant from the present.
> 
> 
> OK, I see. So in English you only use the present cond. in a case
> like: I'm not hungry, but if I were hungry I would eat something? 

I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
"presentness" or "futurity". And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
usages of "would".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:

>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
>"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
>"presentness" or "futurity". 

OK

>And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
>usages of "would".

You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German Oxford
Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af any
conditional.

BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
there a book you could recommend?

Bygvir Melkerson wrote:

> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. 

You don't usually get much usage in an E_E dictionary. This is my favourite:
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/books/dictionaries/index.shtml

but there's more etymology than usage.

There are various books on usage (idioms, phrasal verbs etc.) in the 
books index: http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/books/index.shtml.

Paul VBurke

Bygvir Melkerson wrote:

> BTW, I'm looking for a really good English-English dictionary.


My favourite is:

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198605751&view=ask

It includes sample quotations but limited usage.


This smaller dictionary has more usage but less dictionary

http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780198610571&view=ask

although I have not used that version.


-- 
* * * * * * *
Blue Sow

On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:54:36 +0100, Blue Sow  wrote:

>This smaller dictionary has more usage but less dictionary

Thanks both of you. I will take a further look at the bigger one, this
book is availiable at the wholesalers in Germany within a few days.

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Einde O'Callaghan schrieb:
>> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking
>>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>> miles"?
>>
>>
>> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any
>> sense in the example sentence, which is about the past.
>>
> It's probably worth pointing out that "would", "should" and "could"
> have several other usages besides the conditional.
>
> Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Thank you very much.

Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element of 
>>"pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element of 
>>"presentness" or "futurity". 
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> 
>>And as I mentioned earlier there are other 
>>usages of "would".
> 
> 
> You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
> would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German Oxford
> Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af any
> conditional.
> 
That's one example - for example, it often correspondes to the German 
past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which may not necessarily have 
anything to do with conditionality, and it is also used in indirect 
speech without any element of conditionality

> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
> only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
> doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
> there a book you could recommend? 
> 
Som of the learners' dictionaries give some guidance on usage, but I 
think a guide to usage may be more useful if you want help on a fairly 
high level of sophistication. I'd recommend Michael Swan's "Modern 
English Usage", which IIRC is published by Oxford University Press. The 
current edition was published in 1995 but it's still an invaluable guide 
to many of the problems that advanced students of English have.

You can actually browse the book at 
<http://www.amazon.de/gp/reader/0194420981/ref=sib_dp_pt/302-5992301-1015206#reader-page>

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element
>>> of "pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element
>>> of "presentness" or "futurity".
>>
>>
>> OK
>>
>>
>>> And as I mentioned earlier there are other
>>> usages of "would".
>>
>>
>> You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
>> would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German
>> Oxford Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af
>> any conditional.
>>
> That's one example - for example, it often correspondes to the German
> past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which may not necessarily have
> anything to do with conditionality, and it is also used in indirect
> speech without any element of conditionality
>
>> BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
>> only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
>> doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
>> there a book you could recommend?
>>
> Som of the learners' dictionaries give some guidance on usage, but I
> think a guide to usage may be more useful if you want help on a fairly
> high level of sophistication. I'd recommend Michael Swan's "Modern
> English Usage", which IIRC is published by Oxford University Press.
> The current edition was published in 1995 but it's still an
> invaluable guide to many of the problems that advanced students of
> English have.
> You can actually browse the book at
> http://www.amazon.de/gp/reader/0194420981/ref=sib_dp_pt/302-5992301-1015206#reader-page

That's "Practical English Usage" - "Modern English Usage " was Fowler (now 
"Fowler's Modern English Usage" by Burchfield...)
-- 
John Briggs

John Briggs schrieb:
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
>>Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:49:29 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I wouldn't say "only". he perfect is used when there is an element
>>>>of "pastness", so to say, an dthe present when there is an element
>>>>of "presentness" or "futurity".
>>>
>>>
>>>OK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And as I mentioned earlier there are other
>>>>usages of "would".
>>>
>>>
>>>You mean sentences like 'When my parents were away, my grandmother
>>>would take care of me'? This axample is from the English-German
>>>Oxford Dictionary. In the German translation there are no traces af
>>>any conditional.
>>>
>>
>>That's one example - for example, it often correspondes to the German
>>past subjunctive (Konjunktiv II), which may not necessarily have
>>anything to do with conditionality, and it is also used in indirect
>>speech without any element of conditionality
>>
>>
>>>BTW, I'm looking for a really god English-English dictionary. I have
>>>only one from my schooltime, about 35 years old. Price and size
>>>doesn't matter, many examples of usage is what I'm looking for. Is
>>>there a book you could recommend?
>>>
>>
>>Som of the learners' dictionaries give some guidance on usage, but I
>>think a guide to usage may be more useful if you want help on a fairly
>>high level of sophistication. I'd recommend Michael Swan's "Modern
>>English Usage", which IIRC is published by Oxford University Press.
>>The current edition was published in 1995 but it's still an
>>invaluable guide to many of the problems that advanced students of
>>English have.
>>You can actually browse the book at
>>http://www.amazon.de/gp/reader/0194420981/ref=sib_dp_pt/302-5992301-1015206#reader-page
> 
> 
> That's "Practical English Usage" - "Modern English Usage " was Fowler (now 
> "Fowler's Modern English Usage" by Burchfield...)

Alzheimer's or something seems to be affecting me - I had the facsimile 
of the front cover of the Swan book in front of me when I wrote that! :-((

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>  wrote:

>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"

>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>>>> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.

>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional

>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>> miles"?

> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense in the 
> example sentence, which is about the past.

It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular occurrence,
and "then" means the time when this had become a regular occurrence.

"In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training sessions,
  by then she would swim 2 miles every week".

Matthew Huntbach

Matthew Huntbach :
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:

[...]

>>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>> miles"?
>
>> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense
>> in the example sentence, which is about the past.
>
> It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular occurrence,
> and "then" means the time when this had become a regular occurrence.
>
> "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training sessions,
>   by then she would swim 2 miles every week".

I'm not sure `by then' is idiomatic in that sentence.  Certainly it sounds
wrong to me.  `back then' makes more sense:

  `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training sessions
   back then she would swim two miles every week.'
OR
   back then she swam two miles every week.'
OR 
   back then she was swimming two miles every week.'

These all mean approximately the same thing, or are certainly close enough
that, in conversation or writing, no casual practitioner of English would
worry about the difference.

b.

-- 
                                       <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
  `The Americans advise matching socks to your pants, the Italians seem to
   contrast with both shoes and pants. The English, always the eccentrics,
   wear maroon socks with everything!'     -- thesartorialist.blogspot.com

Matthew Huntbach schrieb:
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> 
>> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
> 
> 
>>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking 
>>>>> the conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
> 
> 
>>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
> 
> 
>>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>> miles"?
> 
> 
>> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense 
>> in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> 
> 
> It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular occurrence,
> and "then" means the time when this had become a regular occurrence.
> 
> "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training sessions,
>  by then she would swim 2 miles every week".
> 
I understand what you're trying to say, but the sentence doesn't feel 
quite right to me.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

In article , Ben Shimmin
 wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach :
> > On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> >> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:

> [...]

> >>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
> >>> miles"?
> >
> >> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any
> >> sense in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> >
> > It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular
> > occurrence, and "then" means the time when this had become a
> > regular occurrence.
> >
> > "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training
> > sessions, by then she would swim 2 miles every week".

> I'm not sure `by then' is idiomatic in that sentence.  Certainly it
> sounds wrong to me.  `back then' makes more sense:

Surely that depends on the intended sense?

>   `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training
> sessions back then she would swim two miles every week.' OR back then
> she swam two miles every week.' OR back then she was swimming two
> miles every week.'

> These all mean approximately the same thing, or are certainly close
> enough that, in conversation or writing, no casual practitioner of
> English would worry about the difference.

"Back then" doesn't mean the same as "by then". The latter has an
implied - possibly essential - meaning of prior ongoing practice; the
former is purely retrospective.

-- 
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!

David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/

David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>:
> In article , Ben Shimmin
>  wrote:
>> Matthew Huntbach :
>> > On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:

[...]

>> >> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any
>> >> sense in the example sentence, which is about the past.
>> >
>> > It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular
>> > occurrence, and "then" means the time when this had become a
>> > regular occurrence.
>> >
>> > "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training
>> > sessions, by then she would swim 2 miles every week".
>
>> I'm not sure `by then' is idiomatic in that sentence.  Certainly it
>> sounds wrong to me.  `back then' makes more sense:
>
> Surely that depends on the intended sense?

It sounds wrong, whatever sense was intended.

>>   `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training
>> sessions back then she would swim two miles every week.' OR back then
>> she swam two miles every week.' OR back then she was swimming two
>> miles every week.'
>
>> These all mean approximately the same thing, or are certainly close
>> enough that, in conversation or writing, no casual practitioner of
>> English would worry about the difference.
>
> "Back then" doesn't mean the same as "by then". The latter has an
> implied - possibly essential - meaning of prior ongoing practice; the
> former is purely retrospective.

Sure, I accept that `back then' is imprecise, but `by then' doesn't work in
that sentence.  It's not idiomatic.  If you want better precision and
a turn of phrase that actually sounds natural, I guess you might say:

  `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training sessions
   prior to that victory, she would swim two miles every week.'

(assuming that that is what `by then' is intended to mean here; if she
also trained by swimming two miles every week after her victory, perhaps
in preparation for future competitions, you would need to meddle with the
sentence even further).

Again, `she swam' and `she was swimming' can replace `she would swim' with
relatively little difference in meaning.

b.

-- 
                                       <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
  `The Americans advise matching socks to your pants, the Italians seem to
   contrast with both shoes and pants. The English, always the eccentrics,
   wear maroon socks with everything!'     -- thesartorialist.blogspot.com

"Thomas Hejl Pilgaard"  wrote in message 
news:RQ20i.49$hV5.15@news.get2net.dk...
> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>
> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"

Indicative, conditional, or subjunctive.


> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"

Indicative, subjunctive, or imperative -- and conditional, at a push.


> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"

Indicative or conditional.

However, if they are the whole sentences, and no conditions are set in other 
sentences in the same paragraphs as they, scratch the conditional and 
subjunctive options.

"Matthew Huntbach"  wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.0705110912300.29776@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
> On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
>> Bygvir Melkerson schrieb:
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 22:25:25 +0200, Einde O'Callaghan
>>>  wrote:
>
>>>>>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>>>>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>
>>>>> It's often called the conditional - although technically speaking the 
>>>>> conditional is a mode (or mood), not a tense.
>
>>>> I forgot to mention that it's the perfect conditional
>
>>> And the present conditional is "By then, Diane would have swim 2
>>> miles"?
>
>> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make any sense in 
>> the example sentence, which is about the past.
>
> It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular occurrence,
> and "then" means the time when this had become a regular occurrence.
>
> "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training sessions,
>  by then she would swim 2 miles every week".

You'd get away with that in speech, but I'd blue-pencil any written example 
of it I came across, if that full point remained after "week".
Either use the past progressive, or qualify the use of "would" with a clause 
that gives some kind of condition:
-- "~~ by then she would swim 2 miles every week, before her breakfast on 
Thursday."

But even then, the past progressive or simple past are preferable.

Mark Wallace wrote:
> "Thomas Hejl Pilgaard"  wrote in message
> news:RQ20i.49$hV5.15@news.get2net.dk...
>> Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>>
>> "By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>
> Indicative, conditional, or subjunctive.
>
>
>> "By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>
> Indicative, subjunctive, or imperative -- and conditional, at a push.
>
>
>> "By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>
> Indicative or conditional.
>
> However, if they are the whole sentences, and no conditions are set
> in other sentences in the same paragraphs as they, scratch the
> conditional and subjunctive options.

Okay, so a little more fodder, then:

"John always spent an hour in the sauna before returning. By then, Diane 
would have swum 2 miles."

"John decided to spend an hour in the sauna before returning. By then, Diane 
should have swum 2 miles."

"John realized, it would take him an hour before he would be back. By then, 
Diane could have swum 2 miles."

In article , Ben Shimmin
 wrote:
> David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>:
> > In article , Ben
> > Shimmin  wrote:
> >> Matthew Huntbach :
> >> > On Wed, 9 May 2007, Einde O'Callaghan wrote:

> [...]

> >> >> The present conditional is "would swim" but it wouldn't make
> >> >> any sense in the example sentence, which is about the past.
> >> >
> >> > It makes sense when "would swim" is used to mean a regular
> >> > occurrence, and "then" means the time when this had become a
> >> > regular occurrence.
> >> >
> >> > "In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming. In her training
> >> > sessions, by then she would swim 2 miles every week".
> >
> >> I'm not sure `by then' is idiomatic in that sentence.  Certainly
> >> it sounds wrong to me.  `back then' makes more sense:
> >
> > Surely that depends on the intended sense?

> It sounds wrong, whatever sense was intended.

To you, perhaps.

But I agree that the punctuation and order makes it awkward.

> >>   `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training
> >> sessions back then she would swim two miles every week.' OR back
> >> then she swam two miles every week.' OR back then she was swimming
> >> two miles every week.'
> >
> >> These all mean approximately the same thing, or are certainly
> >> close enough that, in conversation or writing, no casual
> >> practitioner of English would worry about the difference.
> >
> > "Back then" doesn't mean the same as "by then". The latter has an
> > implied - possibly essential - meaning of prior ongoing practice;
> > the former is purely retrospective.

> Sure, I accept that `back then' is imprecise, but `by then' doesn't
> work in that sentence.  It's not idiomatic.  If you want better
> precision and a turn of phrase that actually sounds natural, I guess
> you might say:

>   `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training
>    sessions prior to that victory, she would swim two miles every
>    week.'

Try some preceding information:

"Diane began her swimming career in 1980, at first managing no more
than a length at the local pool but soon increasing the distance. In
1990, she won a gold medal for swimming. By then she would swim 2 miles
every week in her training sessions."

> (assuming that that is what `by then' is intended to mean here; if
> she also trained by swimming two miles every week after her victory,
> perhaps in preparation for future competitions, you would need to
> meddle with the sentence even further).

> Again, `she swam' and `she was swimming' can replace `she would swim'
> with relatively little difference in meaning.

Yes, but "back then" compares with today; "by then" indicates a process
culminating at that point (the winning of the medal).

-- 
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!

David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/

David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>:
> In article , Ben Shimmin
>  wrote:

[...]

>>   `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training
>>    sessions prior to that victory, she would swim two miles every
>>    week.'
>
> Try some preceding information:
>
> "Diane began her swimming career in 1980, at first managing no more
> than a length at the local pool but soon increasing the distance. In
> 1990, she won a gold medal for swimming. By then she would swim 2 miles
> every week in her training sessions."

I'm sure that you could spin it out into a 17 page article and win the
Pulitzer Prize, but `By then' used in this way still sounds clunky to me.

b.

-- 
                                        <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
              Non est hoc loco adrogantia, sed indicium.

In article , Ben Shimmin
 wrote:
> David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>:
> > In article , Ben
> > Shimmin  wrote:

> [...]

> >>   `In 1990, Diane won a gold medal for swimming.  In her training
> >>    sessions prior to that victory, she would swim two miles every
> >>    week.'
> >
> > Try some preceding information:
> >
> > "Diane began her swimming career in 1980, at first managing no more
> > than a length at the local pool but soon increasing the distance.
> > In 1990, she won a gold medal for swimming. By then she would swim
> > 2 miles every week in her training sessions."

> I'm sure that you could spin it out into a 17 page article and win
> the Pulitzer Prize, but `By then' used in this way still sounds
> clunky to me.

Surely it is in the nature of (the English) language to sound clunky to
those who are used to different idioms, or dialects?

For example, my wife sister husband speaks an entirely different sort
to English to me.

-- 
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!

David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/

David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>:
> In article , Ben Shimmin
>  wrote:

[...]

>> I'm sure that you could spin it out into a 17 page article and win
>> the Pulitzer Prize, but `By then' used in this way still sounds
>> clunky to me.
>
> Surely it is in the nature of (the English) language to sound clunky to
> those who are used to different idioms, or dialects?

Yes, and I'm sure you can extend that argument so that all kinds of
gibberish containing all manner of solecisms could be considered `English'.
I don't think that's really of any help to the original poster, though.

> For example, my wife sister husband speaks an entirely different sort
> to English to me.

Hopefully a slightly more intelligible one!

b.

-- 
                                       <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`A simopath -- the technical term for this disorder escapes me -- is a
 citizen convinced he is an ape or other simian.  It is a disorder peculiar
 to the army, and discharge cures it.' -- William S. Burroughs, _Naked Lunch_

Thomas Hejl Pilgaard schrieb:
> Mark Wallace wrote:
> 
>>"Thomas Hejl Pilgaard"  wrote in message
>>news:RQ20i.49$hV5.15@news.get2net.dk...
>>
>>>Into which conjugation/tense should these expression fall?
>>>
>>>"By then, Diane WOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
>>Indicative, conditional, or subjunctive.
>>
>>
>>
>>>"By then, Diane SHOULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
>>Indicative, subjunctive, or imperative -- and conditional, at a push.
>>
>>
>>
>>>"By then, Diane COULD HAVE swum 2 miles"
>>
>>Indicative or conditional.
>>
>>However, if they are the whole sentences, and no conditions are set
>>in other sentences in the same paragraphs as they, scratch the
>>conditional and subjunctive options.
> 
> 
> Okay, so a little more fodder, then:
> 
> "John always spent an hour in the sauna before returning. By then, Diane 
> would have swum 2 miles."
> 
> "John decided to spend an hour in the sauna before returning. By then, Diane 
> should have swum 2 miles."
> 
> "John realized, it would take him an hour before he would be back. By then, 
> Diane could have swum 2 miles." 
> 
> 
These are all connected with habitual action in the past - not 
conditional at all.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

David schrieb:

<snip>
> 
> Surely it is in the nature of (the English) language to sound clunky to
> those who are used to different idioms, or dialects?
> 
> For example, my wife sister husband speaks an entirely different sort
> to English to me.
> 
May I enquire what dialect or idiom of English the last sentence is 
supposed to be? ;-)

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

In article , Einde O'Callaghan
 wrote:
> David schrieb:

> <snip>
> > 
> > Surely it is in the nature of (the English) language to sound
> > clunky to those who are used to different idioms, or dialects?
> > 
> > For example, my wife sister husband speaks an entirely different
> > sort to English to me.
> > 
> May I enquire what dialect or idiom of English the last sentence is
> supposed to be? ;-)

Yorkshire. I understand it is of Norse origin.

-- 
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!

David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/

In article , Ben Shimmin
 wrote:
> David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>:
> > In article , Ben
> > Shimmin  wrote:

> [...]

> >> I'm sure that you could spin it out into a 17 page article and win
> >> the Pulitzer Prize, but `By then' used in this way still sounds
> >> clunky to me.
> >
> > Surely it is in the nature of (the English) language to sound
> > clunky to those who are used to different idioms, or dialects?

> Yes, and I'm sure you can extend that argument so that all kinds of
> gibberish containing all manner of solecisms could be considered
> `English'. I don't think that's really of any help to the original
> poster, though.

Even those used by you, no doubt.

Are you really saying that you don't understand the difference in
meaning of the standard English "by then" and your modern (American?)
English "back then"?

"By then", "by that time" - both pretty common English.

> > For example, my wife sister husband speaks an entirely different
> > sort to English to me.

> Hopefully a slightly more intelligible one!

Pray tell what it is about my English that you find not so
intelligible. I'd hazard that you understood quite well.

-- 
New Marmite(TM): Not as thick! Not as dark! Not as te!

David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/

In article <4ee17c9326nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>,
David  <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> 
> For example, my wife sister husband speaks an entirely different sort
> to English to me.

Only to you, or does he also speak it to others?

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>:

[...]

> Are you really saying that you don't understand the difference in
> meaning of the standard English "by then" and your modern (American?)
> English "back then"?
>
> "By then", "by that time" - both pretty common English.

I'm perfectly aware of the difference, as I pointed out previously.

I also stand by what I said before: that usage of `By then' sounds clunky.
I am not alone in thinking so.  If it is acceptable in Yorkshire, then
that's fine by me.  I don't go to Yorkshire very often, so it's no skin
off my nose if you chaps want to speak in strange and clunky ways.

>> > For example, my wife sister husband speaks an entirely different
>> > sort to English to me.
>
>> Hopefully a slightly more intelligible one!
>
> Pray tell what it is about my English that you find not so
> intelligible. I'd hazard that you understood quite well.

You are wearisome of late, David.  I'm sure you used to be witty, once
upon a time.

b.

-- 
                                       <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
                 Stick and stones may break my bones,
             ma posso mangiare il vetro e non mi fa male.