<P>
<STYLE>P{margin-top:2px;margin-bottom:2px;}</STYLE>
I met with a BTE from another cafe. So I did participate in it as I used to in our cafe. There was a question raised about tense. But I thought it was right, although I can't bring forth a clear explanation. See how the sentence goes.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>In Korean</P>
<P> </P>
<P>우리의 혈관을 끝과 끝을 이어서 눕혀 놓으면, 60,000 마일로 펼쳐 질것이다. 그것은 지구를 두번이상 돌고도 남을 것이다.</P><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 바탕; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">
<DIV><FONT face=굴림></FONT></DIV></SPAN>
<P> </P>
<P>In Original English:</P>
<P> </P>
<P>If all of your blood vessels are laid end-to-end, they would extend for about 60,000 miles. That's far enough to encircle the earth more than twice. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>Some of the respondents raised a question that <FONT color=#013add>are laid </FONT>in the sentence should be <FONT color=#d40a00>were laid</FONT>. I don't agree with them. Though it seems wrong in the grammatical point of view, I thought it is a matter of colloquialism. I think they are confined in the context of the subjunctive mood(가정법). I wish I could answer it easily, but it is beyond my ability. What do you think about that? I want your advice, Mr. Eu.<FONT face=굴림> <BR></FONT></P>
<!-- -->
첫댓글I understand Mr. Eu will answer your question, but If I put in my words, I am pretty sure they were right because "are laid" in the dependent clause must agree with "would" in the independent clause in this case. Moreover, you might want to leave out "far" infront of enough
because far refers to the antecedent "miles." If you want to emphasize enough, you will have to use "long" instead of "far." Long refers to the antecedent "vessels." Or like I said earlier, you can simply omit "far" because it sounds redundant.
Thanks a lot for your opinions, 여왕. The sentence in original English is not my writing, though. That is written by the person who first put it on the board. Seeing some of your opinions, it is quite the same with my writing.
My writing sentence are : If you connect your veins end to end, it will spread for 60,000 miles. It is long enough to circle the earth twice or more. Mr. Eu, I want you to comment on my question and my writing as well.
I think "are laid" means just writers fixed the present instead of the future, and we don't need to "would" because formal sentence can't influence the later sentence in its meaning......--
It is a good English sentence that may bring us to a lot of questions about when we should use the subjunctive mood. If we see "If clause", there are two possibilities. One is about the subjunctive mood and the other is about a mere conditional adverb clause.
For example, if it is two, it is not the same as one. It is the latter. On the other hand, "If you were there, you would be happy" It is the former. What is the differences?
Actually, sometimes, it is hard to tell the differences. Even natives use both of them without clarification, on and off. But one thing for sure is that there is a difference, which is all about word sense.
On the contrary, when we use just a conditional adverb clause, we tend to set granted the event in that clause, and in the following main clause, we find indication of what might be your conclusion about or reaction to the context given.
Back to your question sentence, (If all of your blood vessels are laid end-to-end, they would extend for about 60,000 miles. That's far enough to encircle the earth more than twice)
Why the writer used " are laid" instead of " were laid"? It is because the probability of the blood vessels being laid doesn't matter to him in going further with what he really wants to say about in the main clause.
In another word, he just took as a given fact the situation that your blood vessels are laid, which didn't bother him at all for the purpose of showing what kind of findings the situation might lead to.
Whether or not to lay all of your blood vessels end to end is not important, for his finding will come explainable only given the fact your vessels are on the end-to end layout.
Accordingly, gravity of his writings congested more on the part of the following main clause. Then, why he used "would" instead of "will". Is it an indication that "would" is relevant to the subjunctive mood?...
This arouses lots of doubts to my argument that this whole sentence doesn't have anything to do with the subjunctive mood and becomes the very culprit that makes too many people sticking to the sense that the sentence is under the subjunctive mood.
But, it is not true, the reason that the writer used " would" instead of "will" is that he fully believes that, if all of your blood vessels are laid end-to-end, the length will no-doubtedly be long enough,
More than twice or a bit less than twice or even more than three times, there are possibilities that would be enough to justify his arguments, but when it comes particularly to how exactly long it might be, he can not be sure enough to assert.
Queen said you might want to leave out "far" in front of enough because far refers to the antecedent "miles If you want to emphasize enough, you will have to use "long" instead of "far.
But it is not the case, you can use "far" there. I don't want to give you another lengthy explanation since you can get the answer by referring to any English dictionaries.
I'd like to write more but I am at work, sorry for this. Lastly, I' like to say that your question is closely related to word sense, not just a grammartical issue. Thanks!!
It's not me who asked the question but I really want to thank you, Clark Gable for your pretty detailed explanation. Actually, I had almost the same view about the given question as yours, but I wasn't sure if I was right enough to give an answer for it. Thanks!!
I would say that both "are laid" and "were laid" are OK, with slight difference in nuance or emphasis, of course. "are laid" is just a simple assumption. But saying "were laid" would stress the fact that the laying will not actually occur, a standard meaning of subjunctive past.
첫댓글 I understand Mr. Eu will answer your question, but If I put in my words, I am pretty sure they were right because "are laid" in the dependent clause must agree with "would" in the independent clause in this case. Moreover, you might want to leave out "far" infront of enough
because far refers to the antecedent "miles." If you want to emphasize enough, you will have to use "long" instead of "far." Long refers to the antecedent "vessels." Or like I said earlier, you can simply omit "far" because it sounds redundant.
That's just my opinion. We will have to wait and listen to what Mr. Eu have to say concerning this.
Thanks a lot for your opinions, 여왕. The sentence in original English is not my writing, though. That is written by the person who first put it on the board. Seeing some of your opinions, it is quite the same with my writing.
My writing sentence are : If you connect your veins end to end, it will spread for 60,000 miles. It is long enough to circle the earth twice or more. Mr. Eu, I want you to comment on my question and my writing as well.
I think "are laid" means just writers fixed the present instead of the future, and we don't need to "would" because formal sentence can't influence the later sentence in its meaning......--
It is a good English sentence that may bring us to a lot of questions about when we should use the subjunctive mood. If we see "If clause", there are two possibilities. One is about the subjunctive mood and the other is about a mere conditional adverb clause.
For example, if it is two, it is not the same as one. It is the latter. On the other hand, "If you were there, you would be happy" It is the former. What is the differences?
Actually, sometimes, it is hard to tell the differences. Even natives use both of them without clarification, on and off. But one thing for sure is that there is a difference, which is all about word sense.
In simple words, when we use the subjunctive mood, we basically assume somewhat improbable the happening of an event described in a "if-clause"
On the contrary, when we use just a conditional adverb clause, we tend to set granted the event in that clause, and in the following main clause, we find indication of what might be your conclusion about or reaction to the context given.
Back to your question sentence, (If all of your blood vessels are laid end-to-end, they would extend for about 60,000 miles. That's far enough to encircle the earth more than twice)
Why the writer used " are laid" instead of " were laid"? It is because the probability of the blood vessels being laid doesn't matter to him in going further with what he really wants to say about in the main clause.
In another word, he just took as a given fact the situation that your blood vessels are laid, which didn't bother him at all for the purpose of showing what kind of findings the situation might lead to.
Whether or not to lay all of your blood vessels end to end is not important, for his finding will come explainable only given the fact your vessels are on the end-to end layout.
Accordingly, gravity of his writings congested more on the part of the following main clause. Then, why he used "would" instead of "will". Is it an indication that "would" is relevant to the subjunctive mood?...
This arouses lots of doubts to my argument that this whole sentence doesn't have anything to do with the subjunctive mood and becomes the very culprit that makes too many people sticking to the sense that the sentence is under the subjunctive mood.
But, it is not true, the reason that the writer used " would" instead of "will" is that he fully believes that, if all of your blood vessels are laid end-to-end, the length will no-doubtedly be long enough,
but only not to be sure if the length might be long enough to encircle the earth more than twice.
More than twice or a bit less than twice or even more than three times, there are possibilities that would be enough to justify his arguments, but when it comes particularly to how exactly long it might be, he can not be sure enough to assert.
That is why he placed "would" instead of "will".
Queen said you might want to leave out "far" in front of enough because far refers to the antecedent "miles If you want to emphasize enough, you will have to use "long" instead of "far.
But it is not the case, you can use "far" there. I don't want to give you another lengthy explanation since you can get the answer by referring to any English dictionaries.
I'd like to write more but I am at work, sorry for this. Lastly, I' like to say that your question is closely related to word sense, not just a grammartical issue. Thanks!!
It's not me who asked the question but I really want to thank you, Clark Gable for your pretty detailed explanation. Actually, I had almost the same view about the given question as yours, but I wasn't sure if I was right enough to give an answer for it. Thanks!!
I would say that both "are laid" and "were laid" are OK, with slight difference in nuance or emphasis, of course. "are laid" is just a simple assumption. But saying "were laid" would stress the fact that the laying will not actually occur, a standard meaning of subjunctive past.
As you know, in "If I were a bird, I would ...", "were" is used because I am not actually a bird.