At a hotel reception, why does the receptionist as "what was the name, please", and not "what is the name, please"?
was/is
I don't know. It's just a habit. That might be the same as "What did you say your name was?" but no-one asks it that way as it would be far too complicated.
When I'm in the "right" mood I usually reply "... and it still is". :-)
When I'm in the "right" mood I usually reply "... and it still is". :-)
Bridget, one of the things we use past forms is to show politeness, indirectness, tentativeness, and other forms of social distancing.
Similar:
Can/could you help me?
May/might I take your order, sir?
Similar:
Can/could you help me?
May/might I take your order, sir?
It could also be used if you told them your name before; when you made reservations for example.
The thing with "can/could" and "may/might" is the conditional mood, not the past tense. I don't think using the past tense for politeness, etc. is all that common, although it does happen sometimes.
- Kef
- Kef
<The thing with "can/could" and "may/might" is the conditional mood, not the past tense.>
How are these conditional?
Can I help you?
Could I help you?
And even if you believe that the "past tense" of modals is not common in indicating more politeness, can you explain how these are conditional.
May I borrow your car?
Might I borrow you car?
I don't see conditionality there, I see modality.
How are these conditional?
Can I help you?
Could I help you?
And even if you believe that the "past tense" of modals is not common in indicating more politeness, can you explain how these are conditional.
May I borrow your car?
Might I borrow you car?
I don't see conditionality there, I see modality.
Names such as "conditional mood" are only names, and the forms they are used to express can be used for other purposes. I could just as easily argue that those examples aren't in the past tense because they don't refer to anything in the past, right? ;) Nonetheless, I think there may be an underlying condition: "Could I help you, if I may?" In any case, I think most grammarians would call this the conditional mood and not the past tense, even though the form of the verb is the same.
It's also worth noting that some other languages use their conditional mood for the same purpose. For instance, in Spanish, one could ask "Could I...?" by using "¿Podría...?", which is a conditional form that's distinct from the past tense.
- Kef
It's also worth noting that some other languages use their conditional mood for the same purpose. For instance, in Spanish, one could ask "Could I...?" by using "¿Podría...?", which is a conditional form that's distinct from the past tense.
- Kef
<"Could I help you, if I may?">
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. The forms are not in any way conditional.
I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. The forms are not in any way conditional.
> Most grammrians would call those "modal auxiliaries".
The verb itself (i.e., can/may) is the modal auxiliary. The way it's conjugated is the conditional mood.
> The forms are not in any way conditional.
There was a condition there, wasn't it? "If I may" is a condition. If that doesn't make it conditional, what does? That statement is certainly more conditional than it is past tense, don't you agree?
- Kef
The verb itself (i.e., can/may) is the modal auxiliary. The way it's conjugated is the conditional mood.
> The forms are not in any way conditional.
There was a condition there, wasn't it? "If I may" is a condition. If that doesn't make it conditional, what does? That statement is certainly more conditional than it is past tense, don't you agree?
- Kef
Also, let's try an exercise. "Can you do me a favor?" This literally means "Are you able to do me a favor?" (though the connotation isn't the same). Now let's consider a slightly different sentence: "Could you do me a favor?" If we do the same thing, we get "Would you be able to do me a favor?", not "Were you able to do me a favor?" This is clearly not a past tense construction.
- Kef
- Kef
<There was a condition there, wasn't it? "If I may" is a condition. If that doesn't make it conditional, what does? That statement is certainly more conditional than it is past tense, don't you agree? >
Why should it be? Do you think that the past tense in English is only used to refer to time?
Why should it be? Do you think that the past tense in English is only used to refer to time?
<If we do the same thing, we get "Would you be able to do me a favor?", not "Were you able to do me a favor?" This is clearly not a past tense construction. >
The "present tense" form is "will you do me a favour". Again, the "past tense" form is used to: show more respect, more politeness, social distance, tentativeness, etc. It is not conditional there.
The "present tense" form is "will you do me a favour". Again, the "past tense" form is used to: show more respect, more politeness, social distance, tentativeness, etc. It is not conditional there.
You completely missed the point. The point is this:
* The word "can" literally means "is able to". (I know that "Can you do me a favor?" doesn't have the same connotation as "Are you able to do me a favor?", but the literal meaning is the same. *For the purposes of this demonstration*, they are equivalent.)
* The past tense of "is able to" is "was able to".
* The conditional form of "is able to" is "would be able to".
* "Would you be able to do me a favor?" - a correct, if awkward, way of asking for a favor.
* "Were you able to do me a favor?" - neither a correct nor natural way to ask for a favor.
* Therefore, "could" is (in this context) equivalent to "would be able to", and not "was able to".
* Because "would be able to" is conditional, and "could" is equivalent, "could" must be conditional.
It's a matter of logic. The point is I'm proving that "could", in this context, is grammatically equivalent to "would be able to" (the conditional construction) and not "was able to" (the past tense construction). That's all I'm doing here, but I believe I've done that successfully.
Now, here's a summary of arguments I've made in favor of calling it the conditional mood:
* There is a possible (unstated) underlying condition, which makes it fit the idea of the conditional mood better than the idea of the past tense (there is no past involved here). Although you rejected this argument, you gave no reason why, so it currently still stands.
* The syntax agrees with Wikipedia's definition of "conditional mood", which at least allows the possibility.
* Another language with a distinct conditional mood has been cited that uses the conditional mood the same way. Are you going to argue that it's not conditional in Spanish even though it uses a form that is unambiguously called the "conditional mood" and is used in exactly the same manner? And if not, what makes it more conditional in Spanish than in English?
* I have demonstrated above that "could" in this context is grammatically equivalent to an unambiguously conditional construction.
I haven't seen any refutations to any of these points ("The forms are not in any way conditional" and "I'm sorry, but that is nonsense" are not refutations), nor have I seen you advance any other point for your position.
My friend, the burden of proof is on you. You must advance an argument for calling it the past tense, and by that I mean demonstrating logic or citing a source, not simply saying I'm wrong.
By the way, I expect a moderator might come along and not be happy about this digression. If so, I request that this be split into its own thread rather than deleted if it's possible.
- Kef
* The word "can" literally means "is able to". (I know that "Can you do me a favor?" doesn't have the same connotation as "Are you able to do me a favor?", but the literal meaning is the same. *For the purposes of this demonstration*, they are equivalent.)
* The past tense of "is able to" is "was able to".
* The conditional form of "is able to" is "would be able to".
* "Would you be able to do me a favor?" - a correct, if awkward, way of asking for a favor.
* "Were you able to do me a favor?" - neither a correct nor natural way to ask for a favor.
* Therefore, "could" is (in this context) equivalent to "would be able to", and not "was able to".
* Because "would be able to" is conditional, and "could" is equivalent, "could" must be conditional.
It's a matter of logic. The point is I'm proving that "could", in this context, is grammatically equivalent to "would be able to" (the conditional construction) and not "was able to" (the past tense construction). That's all I'm doing here, but I believe I've done that successfully.
Now, here's a summary of arguments I've made in favor of calling it the conditional mood:
* There is a possible (unstated) underlying condition, which makes it fit the idea of the conditional mood better than the idea of the past tense (there is no past involved here). Although you rejected this argument, you gave no reason why, so it currently still stands.
* The syntax agrees with Wikipedia's definition of "conditional mood", which at least allows the possibility.
* Another language with a distinct conditional mood has been cited that uses the conditional mood the same way. Are you going to argue that it's not conditional in Spanish even though it uses a form that is unambiguously called the "conditional mood" and is used in exactly the same manner? And if not, what makes it more conditional in Spanish than in English?
* I have demonstrated above that "could" in this context is grammatically equivalent to an unambiguously conditional construction.
I haven't seen any refutations to any of these points ("The forms are not in any way conditional" and "I'm sorry, but that is nonsense" are not refutations), nor have I seen you advance any other point for your position.
My friend, the burden of proof is on you. You must advance an argument for calling it the past tense, and by that I mean demonstrating logic or citing a source, not simply saying I'm wrong.
By the way, I expect a moderator might come along and not be happy about this digression. If so, I request that this be split into its own thread rather than deleted if it's possible.
- Kef
How is "would + noun/pronoun + be able to" conditional. Please show us hwere you get such information from. Are you saying that "would" is always conditional? Is "will you be able to do me a favour" conditional, IYO?