Conference thebay::joyoflex

>        In order to have passed the course, I would have to have
>        written an extra paper.

>        In order to have passed the course, I would have had to
>        write an extra paper.

and how about

	 In order to have passed the course, I would have had to have
	 written an extra paper.

<
<	In order to have passed the course, I would have to have
<	written an extra paper.
<
<	In order to have passed the course, I would have had to
<	write an extra paper.
<

There is a difference and it COULD be important (not likely).  The first
allows for the extra paper to have been written at any time prior to
the grade assignment, and would tend to be used in those cases where
this was true.  The second could technically allow the writing of a paper
before the course, but is the only one that seems to specifically allow 
the paper to be written during the course.  I trust that it is clear that
everyday speech would make no distinction.

Lew

    I agree with .1.  The other possibilities all sound as if the tenses
    don't agree.  When the agreement of tenses in the subjuntive was
    drilled into my head in grade school, I could have listed off the
    "rule";  (In fact I would have had to have done so many times 8^);
    but that was a long time ago...)
    
    -ellie

    The second one is prettier, but please get rid of the "In order to have
    passed..."
    
    	- I would have had to write an extra paper to pass the course.
    
    	- Passing the course would have required an extra paper.
    
    	- I failed the course because I hadn't written an extra paper.
    
    And so on.
    
    Ray

    The sticking point is in both cases not the structure of the clause but
    rather the form of the introductory adverbial infinitive phrase.  It
    should not be a perfect infinitive, because that form requires events
    antecedent to itself.  It should be a present infinitive, thus:  "In
    order to pass the course."
    
    To see the solutions that this revision leads to, let us substitute
    "been required" for "had" in the clause, leading to the following
    possibilities:
    
    In order to pass the course in 1990, I would at that time have been
    required to write an extra paper.
    
    In order to pass the course in 1990, I would in 1990 have been required
    to have written an extra paper before that time.
    
    Either is correct; the choice is left to fit the required meaning.

	Re: .4 and .5

	With all due respect, you can do whatever you want with the
	first part of the sentence.  I realize it's not pretty, and I
	probably wouldn't word it that way myself, but I really wasn't
	concerned with that aspect of it.  The alternatives in .5 change
	the second half of the sentence so much in both cases that the
	question hasn't been answered.	Not for me, anyways.

        Ellie, you might be right in .3 ...

	Di

    Dick's arguments in .5 show how complex this whole thing can get; but
    there are distinct meanings and they can be expressed. People who can't
    get their heads around arguments like that, often sling in an extra
    auxiliary because it sounds posh. In my experience I think there's a
    simple rule (which, I'm afraid, won't help much if you want practical
    advice): the more steps back in the past/retreats into conditionality,
    the greater the opportunity for error. In other words, if you want to
    get it right more often than you get it wrong, keep it simple; every
    word you add is a whole nother opportunity for getting it wrong.
    
    b
    
    ps The answer to .0 is that either is right in appropriate
    circumstances; circumstances, it seems to me, are more often
    appropriate for the ...would have had to write... version - the number
    of times I've heard `would have had to have <past-participle>' in
    inappropriate circumstances must far out-number the times I've heard 
    `would have had to <past-participle>' used where the `had to have'
    form would have been right. And the more I write the more ...

  >>  there are distinct meanings and they can be expressed. People who can't
  >>  get their heads around arguments like that, often sling in an extra
  >>  auxiliary because it sounds posh. In my experience I think there's a

    I hope you're not putting me in this category...  I know simpler
    is better, for the most part, but I was just looking for an answer
    in this particular situation, irrespective of how wise it would
    be to use these forms.  
    
  >>  ps The answer to .0 is that either is right in appropriate
  >>  circumstances; circumstances, it seems to me, are more often

    It's, specifically, the circumstances that I'm wondering about.

    Diane

    
   >> I hope that helps. Of course, usage over there may differ.

	Yes, it does, and yes, it most certainly does.  8^)
	(...maybe not in this case, though)

	Thanks very much,
	Diane

    I'll just toss in here that there are at least three forms of "have":
    
    	to have = to possess
    	to have to = to be compelled
    	to have = auxiliary verb
    

    Have I remarked somewhere before that the verb `to have' 
    (in the `compelled' sense) behaves phonologically as if it 
    were `to haf'? - declined
    	I haf				we haf
    	you haf				you haf
    	he she or it hass		they haf
    - because it's always followed by `to'. (NB this isn't a
    truism: I know every word is shaped by its phonetic 
    environment; but in this case the environment's fixed.) 
    I've even heard someone (English by birth and education) 
    say `It's a question of haffing to'.
    
    b

I don't think it's "have" with a "to" inevitably attached, I think it is
a separate verb "have to".

W9NCD kind of bags/begs the issue by stating that "to" is usually 
appended but using as examples of the "compelled" sense, "We have 
things to do" and "have a deadline to meet".  I don't buy these as 
examples of the "compelled" sense, but rather as slightly metaphorical
versions of the "possess" sense.

The dictionary is trapped by the convention of defining single words
rather than groups and phrases.

    Yes. I don't buy those W9NCD examples either. The `tener que'
    sort of `have' always takes a `to' (which, as I said, devoices
    the -V- sound). (I use the `tener que' example not just to
    be fancy, but to avoid the `compulsion' idea - which invites
    sloppy thinking, as evidenced by the W9NCD examples; anyway,
    Tom used it first.)
    
    The `haffing to' example I mentioned (which I'm not trying to
    suggest is at all common) kept the devoiced -F- sound even when
    the inflection of `have' (having) should have protected the -V- 
    sound. I shouldn't be surprised if in a hundred years that sort
    of `have' starts being spelt (in some circles) `haff'. [You heard
    it here first, folks.]
    
    b

Depending on formality and emphasis, I sometimes pronounce "have to"
with /v/ and sometimes with /f/.

I always pronounce "used to" (as in "He used to be...") "yoosta."

> I always pronounce "used to" (as in "He used to be...") "yoosta."
        
        Rhymes with "Worcester"? :-)
        
        Dan

    I don't see what's so bad about pronouncing "have to" as if it were
    spelled "haff to".  Pronouncing a "v" in this instance is difficult,
    and this is one of the reasons that pronunciations don't always follow
    spelling.  
    
    -ellie

    Not `bad'; everyone (except maybe foreigners) does it. It's just
    that on the basis of what I've learnt about spoken Latin and
    written Romance vernaculars growing out of it, a formal written
    change strikes me as possible. (Of course, we'll all be dead before I'm
    proved wrong!)
    
    b

    re .18
    
    Oh, I agree.  The written changes eventually catch up with the spoken
    changes.  Too bad we won't be around to see if it really happens.
    
    In a german course I once took, the instructor made an interesting
    observation: that spelling was just a best-guess try at approximating a
    spoken language.  This idea took me by surprise, because I had always
    thought of the written language as the "correct" language.  I've since
    changed my mind....
    
    -e

>    that spelling was just a best-guess try at approximating a
>    spoken language. 
    
    A fayre amount of my reading is pre-19th century; it's a constant
    reminder of how little "correct" spelling is needed.  
    
    The paybacks of our current dictionary-run approach are:
    
      1) Provides another class distinction.  Yeah!
    
      2) Makes it easier to rush big chunks of words directly from sheet
    to brain, bypassing mouth.  In other words, facilitates speed reading
    and junk reading. 
    
      3) Makes it easier to index words -- to look them up in a
    dictionary, for example.
    
    It seems to me that rap lyric sheets feature the most thoroughgoing
    rethinking of English orthography since spelling started getting
    regulated in the 18th century.
    
    Ray

    Linguists pay no attention to the written language at all.  There is
    virtually no interest in the written language, it isn't a special case
    or anything, it's just not there for them.

    	The written language is correct in its context. The spoken language
    is correct in a different context. The Chinese debunked the idea that
    there was a neccessary relationship between the two, and mathematics
    provides a more modern example of the dissociation.
    
    	There are pretty good ways of approximating a spoken language. The
    standard phonetic alphabet can represent even things like the "click"
    sound of some african tribes, and there are books published in the
    phonetic alphabet that Bernard Shaw championed. In principle these can
    be read correctly by anyone who has developed the required dexterity of
    the vocal organs.
    
    	Most European languages seem to be trying to fill the gap - a close
    enough approximation to pronunciation to enable most people to read
    text in their own dialect without translation, and standardised enough
    to be consistent enough that Southern France French is spelt the same
    as Northern France French.
    
    	It is this requirement for consistency that is fulfilled by Chinese
    and Mathematics that is the reason for the written languages lagging
    the spoken languages. Even should Southern French become dominent in
    the next 50 years I doubt if you will see formal French using "byang"
    rather than "bien" in writing, though it is used in informal contexts.
    
    	We could all use a phonetic alphabet. Everyone would be able to
    pronounce what was written, and would say it the way that the author
    intended, but might not understand it even if it was their native
    language.

    That's true of most American linguists, Tom, but some farther out ones
    (Kristeva, for example) are interested in written forms as well, even
    as regards phonetic alphabets.
    
    To dig this rathole a little deeper, Jacques Derrida (the Rathole-King)
    had his first big hit with _Of_Grammatology_, which privileges writing
    over speech.  That approach gives him access to a lot of interesting
    territory.
    
    As a poetry freak, I'm particularly interested in this write-vs.-talk
    issue.  Poetry has to be heard, or even (excuse my French) tongued, to
    be pleasurable.  But the visual cues provide their share of
    indispensable pleasure as well.  I have no idea how someone could
    simply _hear_ Susan Howe's poetry, which relies so heavily on layout
    (including spelling), but it's gorgeous stuff.
    
    And I'm just now starting a book about Emily Dickinson which claims
    that her manuscripts provide a far richer experience than the printed
    poem.  That argument starts to approach Chinese calligraphy -- the
    written word as visual art.
    
    Ray

    One oft-overlooked aspect of consistant spelling is that it permits
    sight reading.  See how fast you can read if you have to mentally
    (or even subvocally) `sound out' every word.
    
    							Ann B.

    All those languages with consistent near-phonetic spelling also have
    restrictive immigration policies.  English lets words in from anywhere,
    thus spelling difficulties.  
    
    I assume many of you have read "Maihem in ce klaisrum".  One of my
    high-school teachers made us read it and I have been anti-phonetic
    ever since.  Our English spelling is one of the things that makes the
    visual element of the written language work.  Just think, if
    advertisers couldn't spell words differently, what a loss!
    
    Every language has something real hard and subtle about it.  For
    Norwegian, it's those pesky tones.  For French, it is "five vowels,
    all pronounced ONG".  For English, it's spelling.

    Japanese has consistent near-phonetic spelling and lets words in from
    anywhere.  And the written language lags the spoken language by only
    a few years, except that spoken strings of misordered sentence fragments
    are likely to be straightened out when written.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    I haven't kept count, but when people explain it to me it sounds like
    Japanese has somewhere between three and seven writing systems, which
    for my money makes Japanese spelling considerably more complex than
    English.
    

	Japanese has three major alphabets; two are phonetic (called kana), 
one is pictographic (kanji).  Words that are borrowed from other languages 
are usually written in one of the phonetic alphabets.
	This puts an interesting twist on the "spelling and grammar as an 
indication of education and breeding" phenomenon.  Most anybody can learn to 
spell correctly, in kana.  But the more educated and cultured use the 
pictographic characters.  Very little writing is done exclusively in either 
kana or kanji, but a passage written by, or aimed at, the more educated and 
cultured would have a higher proportion of kanji.

Clay