Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2014 September 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 13

Logic of progressive and simple tenses

Well, as you probably have noticed, English is not my native language.
Anyway, I would like to know what is the logic of the progressive and simple tenses.
I mean, whenever I hear a person speaks with a progressive tense, I get the feeling that he is in the middle of it.
My problem with that definition, is that I can use present progressive for the near future, but how it makes any sense?
Another thing, I get the feeling that there are a lot cases where both tenses (simple and progressive) can be used, so I would like to know where is the logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exx8 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Exx8 -- for verbs where the subject is an active doer, then the plain unadorned present tense (with no modals) actually has a kind of habitual or general reference, while the progressive tense is used for specific concrete actions. So "I'm reading Jane Eyre now" vs. "I read 50 pages a day." The questions "What are you reading?" and What do you read?" are very different -- the first implies "What are you reading now?" while the second implies "What do you read habitually?" For verbs where the subject is an "affected experiencer", the plain present is is used much more often than the progressive ("I believe/know/feel this"). AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The progressive is rapidly gaining ground. It is found half a dozen times in the Lord of the Rings (which is obviously intentional) and much less in 19th century works than current ones. When I was a kid you could not ask "what are you seeing" (although "who are you seeing" was a different matter.) "I'm loving it" was unheard of. Do we not have a link to English progressive verb? μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought about those definitions, but then what is the purpose of the future progressive? I mean "I'll be reading"? the context should be that when I'll go by and I'll see you reading a book. but it looks to me a little bit bizarre. Don't you think?Exx8 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Tomorrow when you arrive I will be watering the plants out back" means, "so expect me not to hear you at the front door, come around back.

"Tomorrow when you arrive I will water the plants out back" means, I'll wait for you to arrive, but be prepared I may be busy for a bit.

This kind of instruction is not suitable for this forum. You should seek an advanced native tutor and a good English grammar written in your native language. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

well I understand how to use it(I mean I HAVE written this section). My question is what is the logic.It's more linguistics question. I understand that it describes a continuous action and what it means, but my question is why it so differs for the the English that they made a whole new series for the continious tenses. I'm asking about the etymology of the continuous tenses. Yes this is my question. Exx8 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As for the historical origins of the progressive, at least one part of it is an old (Middle English) construction that used to be of the form "I am on V-ing", i.e. originally a locative construction: "I am in (the process of) doing something". This is a common grammaticalization path (similar to German "Ich bin am Arbeiten/ich bin beim Arbeiten" and similar patterns in many other languages). People "invent" such forms in order to place more emphasis on the dynamic/temporary nature of an event; then through routinization these turns of phrase become a fixed part of the language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Arguments

Inspired by a question above, is there a term for when you have an argument/discussion with someone, and gradually change your parlance to meet their point of view, but they continue to argue against you, not realising that what they are now doing is agreeing with what you said in the first place? Is it 'automatic gain-saying'? KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 10:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I call it "duck seasoning", but that may be an unmitigated fabrication. In any case, it also works for making cartoon rabbits drink. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

y comercial

Is it incorrect to use & in Spanish? --66.190.99.112 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's fine. THe ampersand originates in the Latin et, from which the French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese words for "and" come. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Out of hand"

Does anyone know where the expression "out of hand" (meaning "out of control") comes from? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of different uses, which don't strike me as being related. Could you specify which one you meant? There's the sense of things getting crazier or more outrageous, as in The argument got out of hand and devolved into fisticuffs. and there's also the sense of being able to solve problems quickly or easily, as in He appeared to be the sort of fellow to solve such problems out of hand. They both seem pretty straightforward, but I don't know of the specific etymology of either expression. The first immediately conjures an image of a problem growing so large your hands literally can't hold it any more and the second seems to refer to being able to deal with problems with what you have on hand and without the need for reinforcements. Matt Deres (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note, the question was modified after I edit-conflicted. Matt Deres (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I was referring to the "out of control" meaning. Not the second meaning that you mention. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also the meaning of "without any further consideration" or "sight unseen", usually in a negative context, e.g., "The princess was haughty, imperious and disdainful of men. Those few suitors whose approaches she deigned to entertain were subject to the condition that, if they failed to cause her to fall in love with them in one night, they would be executed in the morning. Most suitors were luckier, as they were dismissed out of hand." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

OR: Sounds to me like a metaphor for a carriage driver who drops his reins. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The first sense has an opposite, "in hand". You can take something in hand or allow it to get out of hand, whether that is a problem or something physical like a garden. Double entendres aside, "in hand" means under one's control, or purview, or remit, or oversight, a current task. The second sense, "dismissed out of hand" doesn't have any opposite "in hand". It is certainly pretty old. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

When did "regularly" come to occasionally mean "frequently"?

Quite often, "regularly" is used to mean "frequently". I understand that it's common usage, and am not complaining about that. How long has this usage been common? HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Inadequacies in the educational system contribute to the misuse of words, but there are still persons who know how to use them correctly.

• Halley's Comet revolves around the Sun, regularly but not frequently.
• Snow falls in polar regions of the Earth, frequently but not regularly.

A person might use Google Ngram Viewer to look for an answer to your question, but choosing useful search terms in this instance seems to be difficult.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The OED gives the sense of regularly relating to time as sense 6 of the word, specifically defining it as "At fixed times or uniform intervals; repeatedly, without interruption; frequently, often.". In other words it doesn't distinguish between "regularly" meaning "according to a fixed pattern (of time)" and "regularly" meaning "frequently but not necessarily according to a fixed pattern". (Most of the other senses it identifies - there are 8 in total - refer to uniformity of manner or conformity to a set of rules). I'd hazard that it chooses not to attempt to untangle the two senses relating to time as often when the word is used, it's unclear whether the author meant "at uniform intervals" or just meant "often". The earliest example it quotes for "regularly" referring to time is from 1665 in a letter by Robert Boyle. The quote is "Permit mee [not] for a weeke or 10 days to cont[inue] my Correspondence with you so regularly as I was wont." I would understand the meaning in that sentence to probably mean just "frequently" rather than implying that the writer had previously written, say, every three days like clockwork. The second example, from 1699, refers to the heartbeat and clearly implies "at uniform intervals". The remaining examples are examples of both senses. I agree the distinction set out by Wavelength is useful, but it has no historical validity in terms of "correctness" and is by-the-by to the OP's question. Both usages have existed as long as "regularly" has been applied to time. Valiantis (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You might find some answers here (aka the last time you asked this question).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably, therefore, this question will be posted frequently but not regularly. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I like to date most of today's language mistakes to January 1, 2000. Probably isn't true, but feels true. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)