Modality here?

<With which of my statements do you disagree? Or both?>

I'd say that second question is an example of poor grammar, wouldn't you?

<<With which of my statements do you disagree? Or both? >>

You seem to have the idea that grammar is real in some manner outside of the way it appears in language usage.

For example, the way your use of the concept 'syntax' and how it apparently tells us what sentences 'should' mean.

They mean what people understand them as meaning.

When 'ungrammatical' language becomes the norm, that language is correct usage nonetheless.

I mean, a though there is something separating 'idiom' from the rest of speech. Come on!

As so many have commented, your supposedly 'correct' phrases are no good when it comes to actualy communication.

Do you get het up when someone says 'to boldly go?'

<<You seem to have the idea that grammar is real in some manner outside of the way it appears in language usage. >>
This idea that there are common rules that act regularly is self-evident. Otherwise someone would have to have heard every single possible English phrase before they were fluent in English.

<<I mean, a[s] though there is something separating 'idiom' from the rest of speech. Come on! >>
Simply presenting a claim followed by the phrase "Come on!" is hardly a refutation.

<<As so many have commented, your supposedly 'correct' phrases are no good when it comes to [actual] communication.>>
So you are unable to understand what I am saying? I don't know how to say this politely, but that is simply a reflection of your own ignorance, and I'm not going to stop distinguishing between simple past and compound past simply because some people have not learned about this feature of English. That a form is not useful for communication if other people do not learn about it is true for all forms. You seem to be arrogating the ability to unilaterally banish a form from English by not learning about it, and then insisting that no one else should use it, because you don't understand it.

And "as so many have commented"? Johnny simply said they were "odd", and Danni simply said "You wouldn't know proper grammar if it jumped out and bit you in the ass", which says more about her (his?) civility than it does about the grammatical soundness of my constructions.

<<Do you get het up when someone says 'to boldly go?' >>
So you don't like real English, but you are fine with fake English like "het"? You seem to be saying that if I accept one grammatical rule, I have to accept everything that anyone claims is a grammatical rule.

<<which says more about her (his?) civility than it does about the grammatical soundness of my constructions. >>

Your grammatical constructions speak/shout for themselves. They don't need Danni's help.

<<You seem to be arrogating the ability to unilaterally banish a form from English by not learning about it, and then insisting that no one else should use it, because you don't understand it. >>

No, I'm saying that you seem to have got a particular rule into your head and then gone around applying it it in the most inappropriate situations.

The examples you posted up were simply bad English and we're really doing you a favour pointing this out to you before you try to use them in real life.

<<So you don't like real English, but you are fine with fake English like "het"? You seem to be saying that if I accept one grammatical rule, I have to accept everything that anyone claims is a grammatical rule. >>

It's not 'fake English', it's how some English speakers talk. And the example of the redundant split infinitive rule perfectly parallels your own partiality to grammar 'by the book' rather than based on actual language usage.

<And the example of the redundant split infinitive rule perfectly parallels your own partiality to grammar 'by the book' rather than based on actual language usage. >

And not even the books, these days, support the split-infinitive rule.

<<No, I'm saying that you seem to have got a particular rule into your head and then gone around applying it it in the most inappropriate situations. >>
Except that they are not inappropriate situations.

<<The examples you posted up were simply bad English and we're really doing you a favour pointing this out to you before you try to use them in real life. >>
They are not bad English, and you are simply displaying your ignorance in insisting that they are.

<<It's not 'fake English', it's how some English speakers talk. >>
Some people talk in fake English.

<<And the example of the redundant split infinitive rule perfectly parallels your own partiality to grammar 'by the book' rather than based on actual language usage. >>
First, you are misusing the word "redundant". Secondly, the only "parallel" is that you disagree with both of them. I didn't decide that these forms are right because a book told me so, and I'm not going to decide they're wrong because some people on the internet told me so. They are right because they follow actual language usage.

Now, I've given an explanation for why my forms are correct. I've given an example of how the other form would result in a ridiculous statement ("Ten years ago, I met woman who was the mother of my children".) Your response has been little more than gainsaying. Do you think that "Ten years ago, I met woman who was the mother of my children" is a legitimate sentence? Do you think that it is better than "Ten years ago, I met woman who was to become the mother of my children"?

<<Forms that I would find more natural would be:
He had thirty years to wait before she would be released.>>
<<They are right because they follow actual language usage.>>

But do native speakers really use future tenses ("will-would" in this case) in clauses introduced by "before"? I was told they don't, and I realized it is so, so I really don't understand how your versions can be natural.

<<Do you think that "Ten years ago, I met woman who was the mother of my children" is a legitimate sentence?>>

No, but that has a relative clause introduced by "who", so future tenses in it are fine. It's not similar to your previous examples.

I am the one who will kick your butt. <-- OK
Get out of here before I will kick your butt. <-- not OK to me

PS: what is this crap about the color of this page? In French? I had to look it up on the net to be able to post. This is the English forum. Ok, I am ignorant, but not everyone is supposed to like French, LOL.

Note the difference, Another Guest.

He had thirty years to wait before she was released.
He would have thirty years to wait before she would be released.

The former example is looking back from the point in time, Now, to a point when she was released and then further back to a point when he began waiting (similar to the past perfect). The latter example is looking back from the point in time, Now, to a point before her incarceration and forward toward her release (the future in the present).

For the speaker of the first example, we might say that "have + object + to + verb" can sometimes be semantically and pragmatically equivalent to "have to + object".

For some speakers, including your truly, these can be semantically equivalent:

He had thirty years to wait before she was released.
He had to wait thirty years to before she was released.
He had thirty years to wait for her release.
He had to wait thirty years for her release.

Edit of typo:

<<For some speakers, including yours truly, these can be semantically equivalent:>>

Edit of sleepless nights comment:

<<The latter example is looking back from the point in time, Now, to a point before her incarceration and forward toward her release (the future in the PAST). >>

Thanks for the comments Johnny and Molly, well put.

<<But do native speakers really use future tenses ("will-would" in this case) in clauses introduced by "before"? I was told they don't, and I realized it is so, so I really don't understand how your versions can be natural. >>
It would be rather silly to make a blanket declaration that future tenses always follow the word "before", or that they never do.

And I think that it's actually the subjunctive rather than the future tense.

<<No, but that has a relative clause introduced by "who", so future tenses in it are fine. It's not similar to your previous examples. >>
I don't see what "who" has to do with it. How does that change the tense? You are picking irrelevant features such as "who" and "before", and acting as if they somehow dictate the tense.

<<He had thirty years to wait before she was released.
He would have thirty years to wait before she would be released.

The former example is looking back from the point in time, Now, to a point when she was released and then further back to a point when he began waiting (similar to the past perfect). The latter example is looking back from the point in time, Now, to a point before her incarceration and forward toward her release (the future in the present). >>
In the latter, both the verb tense and the logic of the sentence are saying that we are looking back to a point before her release, and then forward to her release. In the former, the logic of the sentence is still saying that, but the verb tense is not. If you want the logic of the sentence to say that we're looking back to when she was released, and then further back to when he started waiting, that would, as you mention, be shown through the past perfect:
"When she was released, he had been waiting thirty years".

<<For the speaker of the first example, we might say that "have + object + to + verb" can sometimes be semantically and pragmatically equivalent to "have to + object". >>
Huh?

<<He had thirty years to wait before she was released.
He had to wait thirty years to[?] before she was released.
He had thirty years to wait for her release.
He had to wait thirty years for her release. >>
First of all, was the "to" a typo?
Secondly, there are distinct statements being made here. "He had thirty years to wait before she was [to be] released" means that the moment in time which we are discussing came thirty years before she was released. It doesn't mean that the total time he waited was thirty years. It could be that he had to wait forty years, and after ten years he still had thirty years to wait. For someone with mastery of the English language, this distinction can be expressed through verb tense. "He had to wait thirty years before she was released" means the total time was thirty years. "He thirty years to wait before she was to be released" means there were thirty years left at the time we are discussing, but not necessarily thirty years total. "He had thirty years to wait before she was released", however, is not a valid English sentence and has no meaning beyond idiom.

<<For the speaker of the first example, we might say that "have + object + to + verb" can sometimes be semantically and pragmatically equivalent to "have to + object". >>

<Huh? >

You have a problem there?

<First of all, was the "to" a typo?>


Yup. Edit: He had to wait thirty years before she was released.

Secondly, there are distinct statements being made here. "He had thirty years to wait before she was [to be] released"

Do you see a "to be" in my thread examples?

<<For someone with mastery of the English language, this distinction can be expressed through verb tense.>>

Do you think you have a mastery of the English language?

Typo?

>"He thirty years to wait before she was to be released" >

"He had thirty years to wait before she was released", however, is not a valid English sentence and has no meaning beyond idiom.

Idiom? Is idiom not valid language?