[QUOTE=fatphil]Given that English is a language with only 2 tenses, doubling of verbs is utterly vital to the language. Avoidance of the verb 'have' to denote posession is a far better aim.[/QUOTE]There are more than two tenses of English verbs, as there are in most languages.

However, and in line with your statement, there are only two tenses which are indicated by modification of the verb stem. These are the present and the simple past tenses.

All other tenses are indicated by the use of additional words, most often an auxilliary verb or two. This behaviour is also common in most other languages. I can't, at the moment, think of a language which doesn't use such additional words though there are quite possibly are some. Note that in some languages the auxilliary words are sometimes written as suffices or prefices and so their ectopic nature isn't always readily apparent without paying close attention to the etymology. Agglutinative languages, such as Finnish Turkish and Sumerian, as you may expect, are the prime examples of such. I wish I knew more about more such languages. Perhaps you could help us out with examples from Finnish.


Paul

The publican at the Coach and Horses asked a signwriter to paint him a new sign. When the signwriter brought it along for inspection the publican noticed that the words were not evenly spaced. In particular, the gap after "Coach" was bigger than the gap before "Horses". He said to the signwriter, "The spaces between Coach and and and and and Horses are not the same."

So maybe just two "had's" is not such a sin after all.

[QUOTE=Numbers]the double-had I so abhor. [/QUOTE]

When I saw this i was tempted to post the 'eleven hads in a row' quizzer but I refrained: you know it and hate it I expect.

Anyway, this hijack has been very amusing to read, but was there any consensus on the 'St Ives' riddle?

Richard

[QUOTE=xilman]There are more than two tenses of English verbs, as there are in most languages.

However, and in line with your statement, there are only two tenses which are indicated by modification of the verb stem. These are the present and the simple past tenses.
[/QUOTE]

I prefer my shorter wording.

[QUOTE=xilman]
All other tenses are indicated by the use of additional words, most often an auxilliary verb or two. This behaviour is also common in most other languages.
[/QUOTE]

Auxiliaries can mark for time, both tense and aspect, but from the PoV of the English language I see these analytic tenses and moods as clearly distinct from the synthetic tenses formed by modification of the verb stem. (As the auxiliaries themselves have their own past/non-past morphology, amongst other reasons.)

[QUOTE=xilman]
I can't, at the moment, think of a language which doesn't use such additional words though there are quite possibly are some. Note that in some languages the auxilliary words are sometimes written as suffices or prefices and so their ectopic nature isn't always readily apparent without paying close attention to the etymology. Agglutinative languages, such as Finnish Turkish and Sumerian, as you may expect, are the prime examples of such. I wish I knew more about more such languages. Perhaps you could help us out with examples from Finnish.

Paul[/QUOTE]

I am not aware of any language that does not have /any/ auxiliaries.

My finnish is perseesta, but let's have a go...

Our synthetic tenses are exactly as in English - preterite and non-preterite (present).

Our analytic tenses are as in English - perfect and pluperfect.

Our four moods are:
depressed, solemn, morose, and phlegmatic
Erm, no, I mean:
indicative, imperative, conditional (~would), and potential (~might)

Finnish confuses matters a bit as every form of verb has a matching negative form.

It also totally puts coventional indo-european logic in a spin with several bizarre aspects that can imply continuity, repeatedness, momentariness, and all kinds of subtle things. For extra confusion, these aspects have to be interpreted using information gained from the form of its object.

So, those are the main ingredients that can be mixed in, let's see which tenses/moods require auxiliaries, and which don't!

First, the two easily categorised auxiliaries:
1) All negatives have a form of the "don't"/"ain't" auxiliary modal.
2) All perfects/pluperfects use the neutral auxiliary formed from the verb "be", its present indicative. E.g. literally (though not semantically) "i am", where in English we'd say "i have". Like English, the pluperfect uses the preterite tense of the auxiliary used for the perfect.
(Side note - finnish doesn't have a verb "to have" in the way most indo-european languages do, it's synthesised via other constructions)
Correct conclusion - (1) and (2) together do give you two auxiliaries.

No auxiliary word, where one might expect one:
3) The conditional has an -isi- infix.
e.g. haluatko? - do you like? vs. haluaisitko? would you like?
4) The potential has a non-regular form, from what I can see, but always modifies the main verb.
e.g. halunnet - he may like.
5) The passive forms again are suffixes
e.g. contrast "maksava asiakas" = "a paying customer" with "maksettava lasku" = "a to-be-paid bill".
or for the verb sanoa=to say, compare "sanova" = "saying" vs. "sanottava" = "something somebody says" or "to be said" vs. "sannottu" = "something somebody said" or "having been said".
6) The verbal adverb form "in order to <do sthg.>" or "in order that <pers.> might <do sthg.>" is derived from an infinitive formed by a -kse suffix plus a further personal suffix
e.g. kirjoitan oppiaksesi = "i write" "learn-in order to-2nd. pers. sing."
= I write in order that you (singular) might learn.
7) "As <person> was about to <do sthg.>" is likewise derived from an infinitive which looks like the amalgamation of several suffixes and
e.g. "sanomaisillasi <sthg.>" = "just as you were about to say <sthg.>"
8) Aspect modifiers, and other adverbial modifiers, of which there are many. Some are suffixes, some infixes, with various amounts of changing the stem.
e.g. hyp\"at\"a = to jump; hypell\"a = to jump about; hyppi\"a = to jump repeatedly
or potkia = to continually kick; potkaista = to give a kick.

Add all that together, and you can get some real frankenstein's monsters of verb forms just as one word.

Of course there are other modifications of verbs into noun or adjectival forms, but that would triple the length of this post. Finnish is pretty, erm, funky....

I can't pretend to understand more than about 2% of it! Most of this was cribbed off Eugene Holman - ask on usenet if you have any particular questions - soc.culture.baltics or soc.culture.nordic. If instead you want a silly answer, ask Markku J. Saarelainen instead (of sci.crypt notoriety, naturally).

[QUOTE=Numbers]"The spaces between Coach and and and and and Horses are not the same."[/QUOTE]

I hate these. The words which represent actual words rather than that word's meaning should be marked up somehow -- in quotes typically. And once you're sticking stuff in quotes, then the game's over, as you can recurse to infinity.

The sentences that contain "and and and and and" and "and and,
and and and and, and and and and, and and and and, and and and and,
and and and", and sundry tawdry other examples, are just silly contrivances.

Oooh, aren't I clever, I've just accidentally made an even longer one.

NOT!

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=Richard Cameron]When I saw this i was tempted to post the 'eleven hads in a row' quizzer but I refrained: you know it and hate it I expect.

Anyway, this hijack has been very amusing to read, but was there any consensus on the 'St Ives' riddle?

Richard[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
Well we have had some fine lateral thinking and, logical interjections in this thread. Also expositions of the nuances and vagaries of the English language and even a bit of Finnish!
Now I would like to add a dose of logic, as spice, to give it more flavour and I hope we all get a better idea of this simple Childs rhyme. The foll. Is taken from my book “The logic book” by Bergman
1) An argument is a set of sentences one of which (the conclusion) is taken to be
Supported by the remaining sentences (the premises.)
2) A logical criterion is that if all the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion must be true as well. If this criterion is satisfied then it’s a deductively valid argument.
If not then the argument is a deductively invalid argument.
In terms of consistency an argument is a deductively valid argument iff it is not possible consistently, both to assert the premises and to deny the conclusion
3) An argument is inductively strong iff the conclusion is probably true given the premises. Otherwise it is inductively weak.
4) A sentence is logically indeterminate iff it is neither logically true or logically false
5) We must ask, rather, whether the sentence CAN possibly be true and whether it can possibly be false.
Of course if the sentence is actually true it cannot logically be false; if it is actually false it cannot be logically true.
Therefore in this rhyme (1) we can have multiple logical inputs (2) arriving at equally valid logical outputs (3) They will be inductively strong and (4) determinate (5) For each logical input which can be POSSIBLY TRUE the output cannot be logically false, and therefore true.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=fatphil]My finnish is perseesta, but let's have a go...
[/QUOTE]

Beware, there were 3 errors -- 2 typos and 1 gramattical faux pas.
With the help of a few linguists that I know, I shall expand on the above, and put it on my website for future reference.

A Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=fatphil]Beware, there were 3 errors -- 2 typos and 1 gramattical faux pas.
With the help of a few linguists that I know, I shall expand on the above, and put it on my website for future reference.[/QUOTE]
:smile: Well we have had enough of Finnish fatphil which in any case is off topic. How about getting on track in this present case-Logic.
Mally :coffee:

Forum admins - what's the point in having ignore lists if you send mails to me telling me that someone in my ignore list has just made a post? Sounds, erm, flawed. Is it possible to restrict such emails only to posts from those not in ignore lists?

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:smile: Well we have had enough of Finnish fatphil which in any case is off topic. How about getting on track in this present case-Logic.
Mally :coffee:[/QUOTE]Who is this "we" of whom you speak?


Paul

Riddle rhyme
 

[QUOTE=xilman]Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Paul[/QUOTE]
:surprised
Ha! ha! Hail lover of Egyptian hieroglyphs! Haven't you heard of the Royal Plural? Nefertiti herself used it ages ago!
Mally :coffee:
. .