Modality here?

MollyB   Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:45 am GMT
<"He had thirty years to wait before she was released", however, is not a valid English sentence and has no meaning beyond idiom.>

So these are not valid English sentences, IYO, right?

He had to wait two hours before she finally left the store.
They had to wait quite a while before she arrived.
svealander   Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:45 am GMT
<<"He had thirty years to wait before she was released", however, is not a valid English sentence and has no meaning beyond idiom. >>

It is a construction commonly used by English speakers. We don't have an Academie Francaise in the English speaking world, so you can't say that language in ise is not valid.

The only 'invalid' language is that which does not communicate properly. And I must say that your earlier suggestions for 'proper' english would not communicate well to English native speakers, in writing or orally.
Johnny   Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:02 pm GMT
<<It would be rather silly to make a blanket declaration that future tenses always follow the word "before", or that they never do.>>
Right, but you said your versions are natural, or even more natural, so it's not a matter of always or never, but it's probably a matter of "usually". If some structures are natural, they must be relatively common in usage.

Sentences like yours are actually considered wrong in all ESL material I have seen, and the versions without "will-would" are the ones that are taught as the basic and natural ones in every course.
"Doing something before I will do something else" is part of a series of mistakes some learners do, especially those whose first language has the future in those structures (like French and Italian, I guess). Other mistakes of the same kind are:
"If I will see her tomorrow, I will ask her about it"
"I will buy a new car when I will have the money"

I am not saying such structures don't appear in any dialects at all. I am just saying your versions are not part of what I learned, and they are exactly what I have been told is unnatural and a typical non-native mistake.

So I just don't understand this thread. Maybe we need more opinions... But no one comes here, MollyB must have scared everyone else off. LOL
Danni   Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:51 pm GMT
<Other mistakes of the same kind are:

"If I will see her tomorrow, I will ask her about it"
"I will buy a new car when I will have the money" >

What's the problem with those?
Another Guest   Wed Nov 26, 2008 3:26 am GMT
<You have a problem there?>
Yes. In the sentence "He had thirty years to wait", "thirty years" is the object, right? So "have to + object" would be "have to thirty years", right?

<Do you see a "to be" in my thread examples?>
Of ocurse not. Which is why I put it in brackets.

<So these are not valid English sentences, IYO, right?

He had to wait two hours before she finally left the store.
They had to wait quite a while before she arrived.>
I thought I had explained why I employed the form that I did. When we're talking about a past point in time at which something else is, relative to that point in time, in the future, the simple past is not appropriate. I've already said that "He had to wait thirty years before she was released" is a perfectly fine sentence, albeit one with a different meaning. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I think that the simple past is never appropriate.

<We don't have an Academie Francaise in the English speaking world, so you can't say that language in ise is not valid.>
If language has no objective meaning, then how can you say that my use of the word "valid" is not valid?

<And I must say that your earlier suggestions for 'proper' english would not communicate well to English native speakers, in writing or orally.>
They would communicate well to people who understand these forms.

<If some structures are natural, they must be relatively common in usage.>
What I'm getting at is that simply because two features appear together in the same sentence doesn't mean that they have anything to do with each other. If someone wearing a blue shirt tells you that he's married, would you assume that it's common for married people to wear blue shirts?

<Sentences like yours are actually considered wrong in all ESL material I have seen>
The sentences that you give are not like the one under discussion.

<"Doing something before I will do something else" is part of a series of mistakes some learners [make]>
It is a mistake if it's intented to convey future tense. However, it is correct to use it to discuss preference. For instance "I will gouge my eyes out with a spoon before I will talk to him again".

<especially those whose first language has the future in those structures (like French and Italian, I guess). Other mistakes of the same kind are:
"If I will see her tomorrow, I will ask her about it"
"I will buy a new car when I will have the money">
Interesting. I don't know about French or Italian, but I'm pretty sure that the normal way of saying the first in Spanish would be "Si la vea manana, le preguntara de esto". That is, the subjunctive would be used, not future. I think that the normal tense is English is the subjunctive as well.

English has several different ways of indicating future. Often, it's just from context. For instance, "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die". Other times, "will" is used: "I will see you tomorrow". Yet another way is "going to": "I'm going to see you tomorrow". British people also use the word "shall", and use it to indicate a sense different from that given by "will". The rules governing which is used when are very complicated, and can't be boiled down to just "forms with the word 'will' are wrong".
MollyB   Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:48 pm GMT
<I've already said that "He had to wait thirty years before she was released" is a perfectly fine sentence, albeit one with a different meaning. >

The problem is that you assumed the thread examples, above and below, referred to, or attempted to refer to, "a past point in time at which something else is, relative to that point in time, in the future,".


He had thirty years to wait before she was released.
We had some miles to drive before we reached the hotel.

You were wrong in your assumption and, as a result, wrong in suggesting these alternatives:

He had thirty years to wait before she would be (or "was to be") released.
We had some miles to drive before we would reach the hotel.

Simply, you made a mistake.
Danni   Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:55 pm GMT
<If language has no objective meaning, then how can you say that my use of the word "valid" is not valid? >

So you meant valid only in your eyes, did you?
MollyB   Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:58 pm GMT
<The rules governing which is used when are very complicated, and can't be boiled down to just "forms with the word 'will' are wrong". >

Not that complicated:

All of the following ideas can be expressed using different tenses:

a. Simple prediction
b. Arrangements
c. Plans and intentions
d. Time-tabled events
e. Prediction based on present evidence
f. Willingness
g. An action in progress in the future
h. An action or event that is a matter of routine
i. Obligation
j. An action or event that will take place immediately or very soon
k. Projecting ourselves into the future and looking back at a completed action.

The example sentences below correspond to the ideas above:

a. There will be snow in many areas tomorrow.
b. I'm meeting Jim at the airport.
c. We're going to spend the summer abroad.
d. The plane takes off at 3 a.m.
e. I think it's going to rain!
f. We'll give you a lift to the cinema.
g. This time next week I'll be sun-bathing.
h. You'll be seeing John in the office tomorrow, won't you?
i. You are to travel directly to London.
j. The train is about to leave.
k. A month from now he will have finished all his exams.
svealander   Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:38 pm GMT
<<If language has no objective meaning, then how can you say that my use of the word "valid" is not valid?>>

Of course it has an objective meaning. Just not the one you're using.
Johnny   Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:15 pm GMT
<<
<Other mistakes of the same kind are:

"If I will see her tomorrow, I will ask her about it"
"I will buy a new car when I will have the money" >

What's the problem with those? >>

I was told they simply suck and they are used by non-native speakers.
Another Guest   Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:12 pm GMT
<The problem is that you assumed the thread examples, above and below, referred to, or attempted to refer to, "a past point in time at which something else is, relative to that point in time, in the future,".>
If they did so intend, then they should be as I suggested. If they intended the meaning in the "He had to wait thirty years before she was released", then they should have been put in that form. If another meaning was meant, then another form should have been used. I specifically stated that my suggestion for how it should be phrased was based on my interpretation of what meaning was intended. That makes it a premise, not an assumption, and the mistake yours, not mine. If you were disagreeing with what meaning was intended rather than how to express a particular meaning, then you should have said so.

Furthermore, this is exactly my point: "He had to wait thirty years before she was released" expresses a clear thought. "He had thirty years to wait before she was to be released" expresses a different clear thought. "He had thirty years to wait before she was released" leaves the reader guessing as to what is meant. Therefore, regardless of what meaning is intended, this form should not be used. It is, by any reasonable meaning of the word, wrong.

<You were wrong in your assumption and, as a result, wrong in suggesting these alternatives>
I stated that these alternatives would sound more natural to me. I am not wrong in that. I also stated that the originals are not proper English. I am not wrong in that. I never stated that I knew for certain the the alternatives would express the intended meaning; in fact, I said the opposite. I simply said that my alternatives would express a meaning in proper English.
MollyB   Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:35 am GMT
<If they did so intend, then they should be as I suggested. If they intended the meaning in the "He had to wait thirty years before she was released", then they should have been put in that form. If another meaning was meant, then another form should have been used. >

The intended meaning was "he waited thirty years for her release" plus a need to express external obligation ("had to"). You misinterpreted that.
MollyB   Fri Nov 28, 2008 7:59 am GMT
Tell us, Another Guest, what you see as the difference in meaning here:

1. He had thirty years to wait before she was to be released.
2. He would have thirty years to wait before she was released.
3. He had thirty years to wait before she was released.
Johnny   Fri Nov 28, 2008 12:05 pm GMT
<<Tell us, Another Guest, what you see as the difference in meaning here:

1. He had thirty years to wait before she was to be released.
2. He would have thirty years to wait before she was released.
3. He had thirty years to wait before she was released. >>

Let me try too!
1 - I don't like this much.
2 - This is expressed from a point in time in the past (future in the past)
3 - This is expressed from the present.
Danni   Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:37 am GMT
Seems Another Guest has accepted his/her error.