Ask a Question(Create a thread) |
|
Is this a mistake?This is the place for questions about conjugations, verb tenses, adverbs, adjectives, word order, syntax and other grammar questions for English or Spanish. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
(Note that in something like "If I had met Fred on Tuesday, I would have spoken to him" the had met is a perfect subjunctive, not an active pluperfect.) |
Get rid of these ads by registering for a free Tomísimo account.
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I concur with Perikles: "I would never had" is strongly marked and doesn't parse as anything sensible.
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Well, if "I would never had" is simply wrong, then how could it be that when you google it with quotation marks you get 29,300,000 hits and example after example of it being profusely used? Are all these people using it wrong?
If I knew I was getting into this conundrum, I would never had replied to this thread! (Si supiera que me estaba metiendo en este acertijo desconcertante, ¡no habría contestado nunca a esta trama!) Yes, maybe "I would have never replied to this thread!" is 'better', but the question remains, why would 'I would never had' be 'simply wrong'? |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A superficial count of the cases thrown up by Google on the first few pages of hits suggests to me that virtually every case of 'had' is American usage. I am just commenting on what I perceive to be correct BrE, which is my language. (The OP also stresses she is learning specifically BrE, which is why my reply was so dogmatic.) Each to his/her own. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The British National Corpus (BNC) has 4 instances of "would never had" and 621 instances of "would never have" in 100 million words. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 9 instances of "would never had" and 2098 of "would never have" in 400 million words. So, in spite of the impression that the Google counts give, it seems to be a rare error. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The way I see it. I have = Yo tengo/he I had = Yo tuve o tenía/hube, había I will have = Yo tendré/habré I would have = Yo tendría/habría I will have had = Yo habré tenido I would have had = Yo habría tenido |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Well, thank you for all this data, gents. Definitely helpful.
I checked OED (Oxford English Dictionary) and while I was not about to read the 5 or 6 pages these illustrious scholars and lexicographers (Sir Murray and so forth) dedicate to "have", I saw under definition 40. 1905 Second-rate 'romanticism' as Mr. Marion Crawford would have us call it. And also1654 GATAKER: Sir R. Owen would gladie had me seated in Shropshire. (gladie, in the original, I take as an archaic form of "gladly") So, for 'practical' purposes, I would stick to the "have" usage, specially if I happen to travel to "Kent-on-Essex" (sorry, Kent and Essex!) In terms of 'understanding' it, while traveling along the cyberspace, I will be ready to 'understand' the version with "had". Because, right or wrong, if "the world and his wife", "everybody and his brother" use both forms of expression, for all my jam and honey [in my fully unnn-qualified opinion] Adam and Eve [I believe] I would have no problem in understanding and getting myself understood... On the other hand, on the counts given by BNC and COCA, while the 'had' form is very reduced in percentage, is there any data on it being 'wrong'? Is there any specific grammar reference that would be categorical in terms of explaining this issue? Not that I am trying to beat a dead horse to death, but besides the "usage rate", it'll be good to have some authoritative reference on the matter. Although, like the Latin saw goes, "Vox populi, vox dei" (the voice of the people is the voice of God), my mother also used to say, “el número de necios es infinito”, (coincidentaly matching with Ecclesiastes, and Don Quixote) as well as "el sentido común es el menos común de los sentidos"... At any rate, thank you for your attention to this. (And yes, I agree, al César lo que es del César...) |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
It is relevant to consider the context in which an answer is given. The OP of this thread asked the simple question Is X correct? Now almost every such query could result in an endless discussion about frequency of usage, but in this case here, a NO is a useful and fairly accurate answer because the exact answer is too confusing for the OP's purpose.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
I get the point. My only concern (right or wrong) is that the OP is using a book which may have 'bona fide' errors, or may have mistakes... but still she refers to that book as a source of 'valid' information.
If the validity of such reference is invalidated with cause, then, fine, she can throw the book in the wastebasket. But if it is not absolutely wrong, then a book that may be totally fine, it's looked upon or regarded with suspicion at every turn... [...] (Well, I guess that helps to develop the student’s critical awareness...) |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
I think I would start questioning the school or the library or whomever is responsible for having a book with so many errors in it. I don't think its the first error Irmamar has found in this book because that sentence is definitely wrong.
__________________
Elaina All our dreams can come true if we have the courage to pursue them. Walt Disney |
Link to this thread | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|