I think the second would be correct, but very awkward. You may be able to recast it into something more present: He feels a desire to clap John around the shoulder, but understands this is not possible.
― the unappreciated charisma of cows (Aimless), Thursday, 30 July 2020 15:08 (three years ago) link
feels like there's a suppressed 'have' in the first one i.e. 'If he could (have), he would have..' but that's repetitive, so you leave it out and allow the 'have' in 'would have' to do all the work
so i think actually the opposite of what mark s has said?? i do not say this lightly
i.e. the first is narrating something that happened in the past; the second feels of the present
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:05 (three years ago) link
I agree with Tracer; the second one is in the present so I'd go with that.
― Lily Dale, Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:21 (three years ago) link
Very much with TH and Lily on this, with the obvious caveat that I'm a non-native speaker.
― pomenitul, Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:25 (three years ago) link
I'd change the clause entirely to "wishing he could clap John around the shoulder", which gets across the fact that he wants to but can't.
― joni mitchell jarre (anagram), Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:33 (three years ago) link
i agree about the suppressed "have" and can't work out how tracer's is "opposite" to mine?
― mark s, Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:33 (three years ago) link
As a thought experiment, 'He would clap John around the shoulder if he could' sounds more idiomatic to me than 'He would have clapped John around the shoulder if he could'.
― pomenitul, Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:35 (three years ago) link
it's not an issue of more or less idiomatic really, you'd use them in different contexts
― mark s, Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:38 (three years ago) link
mark you say 'the first suggests something that might well still happen if conditions turn out right'
but would've-could've feels like the book is closed on that
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:38 (three years ago) link
I defer to your judgement, of course, it's just that the second sentence sounds off to my ears without the extra 'have'.
― pomenitul, Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:40 (three years ago) link
ok lol i think i muddled myself (and everyone else) by writing my expanded examples in the opposite order to dog latin's
when i write "so i think you want the second, the first suggests something that might well still happen if conditions turn out right" and when i say "second" i'm referring to dog latin's order but when i say "first" i'm referring to my order! simples!
ffs
sorry abt that everyone, what i shd have said is ""i think you want the second (your second), which suggests something that might well still happen if conditions turn out right"
― mark s, Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:46 (three years ago) link
Tracer is right. In contrast, however, I would actually say (and write) both "have"s.
If he could have [done whatever], he would have [done whatever].
There may be a way to rephrase to get out of the clunkiness even if it takes more words. My philosophy is WARP (Words Are Readers' Pals). Maybe try inverting it, as pomenitul suggested?
He would have clapped John around the shoulder if he could have.
He would have clapped John around the shoulder, if he only could.
He would've clapped John around the shoulder if he could've.
He would have clapped John around the shoulder, but he couldn't.
He would have clapped John around the shoulder, if it were possible.
He would've clapped John around the shoulder, but didn't want people to think he was gay.
He would have clapped John around the shoulder, if he only could. Unfortunately, John was born without shoulders.
― Gin and Juice Newton (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:49 (three years ago) link
tracer is saying use the one without any haves
(i was trying to say this also but fucked it up)
― mark s, Thursday, 30 July 2020 16:53 (three years ago) link
this should be the only thread permits such pedantry, but there shouldn't be a comma preceding the attribution here
(unless that is an American-specific rule?)
― singular wolf erotica producer (Hadrian VIII), Thursday, 30 July 2020 17:05 (three years ago) link
Possibly not the right thread, but you guys will know - where do you go to google the historical usage of a phrase over time? Not just in books but in general (on the internet, I guess).Or does anyone know if "control the narrative" is a relatively modern phrase?
― kinder, Monday, 3 August 2020 19:52 (three years ago) link
https://books.google.com/ngrams
― Brad C., Monday, 3 August 2020 20:00 (three years ago) link
That's what I tried; is that not just books?
― kinder, Monday, 3 August 2020 20:17 (three years ago) link
Oh OK it works anyway! thanks
You might also be interested in the Time Magazine Corpus of American English, which lets you search for the other words and terms that show up in conjunction with a given phrase and thus get a sense of how its connotation changes over time.
https://www.english-corpora.org/time/
― Lily Dale, Tuesday, 4 August 2020 00:03 (three years ago) link
Whoa
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 4 August 2020 00:07 (three years ago) link
'It’s a wonderful example of historic architecture with a beautiful garden and an amazing history, particularly of the xxx family who led their creative lives here in the 19th and 20th century.’ OR ‘It’s a wonderful example of historic architecture with a beautiful garden and an amazing history, particularly of the xxx family who led their creative lives here in the 19th and 20th centuries.’
― Ward Fowler, Tuesday, 4 August 2020 08:19 (three years ago) link
plur(al)
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 4 August 2020 08:43 (three years ago) link
I'd even replace "in" with "during", but it's not a dealbreaker.
― pplains, Tuesday, 4 August 2020 12:21 (three years ago) link
Thank you, I also went with the plural, although I suspect the first one might also be 'correct' in English.
Agree too about 'during' over 'in', but this is one of those "don't tamper with the client's copy more than is absolutely necessary" deals, so left as is.
― Ward Fowler, Tuesday, 4 August 2020 14:01 (three years ago) link
O how I do know exactly what you're talking about.
― pplains, Tuesday, 4 August 2020 15:01 (three years ago) link
If anyone ever wants to make a hypocrite meme about editors, feel free to use the "Please provide copy with files" b/w "This copy is all wrong."
― pplains, Tuesday, 4 August 2020 15:02 (three years ago) link
Yikes! Thanks for the help upthread everyone. More complicated than I thought it would be.
― doorstep jetski (dog latin), Tuesday, 4 August 2020 15:50 (three years ago) link
I know there are common nouns for inhabitans of large English-speaking cities, such as "New Yorker" or "Londoner", but what noun would you use for someone who lives, say, in Oslo or Prague or Helsinki? Osloer/Praguer/Helsinkier? Or Osloan/Helsinkian/Praguean? Or something else?
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 06:17 (three years ago) link
Helsinkite? :)
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 06:20 (three years ago) link
These are in (e.g.) the Wikipedia articles for the cities, under “demonyms”
― assert (MatthewK), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 06:25 (three years ago) link
Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_adjectivals_and_demonyms_for_cities
― assert (MatthewK), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 06:28 (three years ago) link
Ah, okay, thanks! Apparently it's "Helsinkian" and "Praguer", but the Olso article has no demonym.
I wonder if there's some logic to these, or whether people just use whatever is easiest to pronounce out of the available suffixes: -er / -ian / -ite?
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 06:30 (three years ago) link
(xpost)
Ok, the article you linked says "Oslovian".
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 06:32 (three years ago) link
The list has “Oslovian” which is superb
― assert (MatthewK), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 06:32 (three years ago) link
sorry!
I wonder where the extra "v" comes from in demonyms like Peruvian or Oslovian?
― Tuomas, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 06:35 (three years ago) link
I think it's to do with an implied W at the end.
Some discussion at https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/310461/why-is-there-a-v-in-peruvian
Wikipedia gives the etymology as Piruw [pɪɾʊw], from Quechua, the Inka language.That [w] at the end would become a /v/ in Spanish when adding a suffix to produce Peruviano.
Time for a campaign for 'Glagovian' to upset the natives.
― here we go, ten in a rona (onimo), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 07:46 (three years ago) link
spanish word for peruvian is peruano though. could never understand the logic of spanish doing this, in the same vein, americano vs. estadounidense, nicaragüense, etc. why puertorriqueño and not puertorriquense.
― superdeep borehole (harbl), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 13:59 (three years ago) link
Osloid
― Specific Ocean Blue (dog latin), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 14:02 (three years ago) link
Christian
― pomenitul, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 14:04 (three years ago) link
did we get this sorted?
― mark s, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 14:22 (three years ago) link
Osilator
― Specific Ocean Blue (dog latin), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 14:24 (three years ago) link
Oslonaut
Praguer U
― superdeep borehole (harbl), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 14:35 (three years ago) link
demonyms should get their own thread imo
― sound of scampo talk to me (El Tomboto), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 14:42 (three years ago) link
poll demonyms
― superdeep borehole (harbl), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 14:59 (three years ago) link
this one is just...Aguascalientes Hidrocálido
― superdeep borehole (harbl), Wednesday, 14 October 2020 15:00 (three years ago) link
i mean why change from latin to greek
Search & Destroy: Demonyms
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 14 October 2020 15:02 (three years ago) link