OT. Grammar question...

[Dr Luxurious]

Any English majors out there?
Trying to help one of the kids with homework... :help:

What's the verb tense in "Could you leave the door open?"

[Nooch]

I'm not an expert.. And quite possibly wrong. But when I read that, it sounds like future tense -- even though the future might be immediately in the future.

[eddief]

You could leave the door open. = future?

I'm not an expert.. And quite possibly wrong. But when I read that, it sounds like future tense -- even though the future might be immediately in the future.

[weisan]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=2088173&postcount=10

[MattTuck]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=2088173&postcount=10

Don't try to rope me into this! ;):D

English was my worst subject. In fact, I was advised to attend remedial english during the summer before college!!

objects, subjects, predicates, verb tenses... yikes! Just never got it.

[seanile]

left = past
leaving = present
leave = future

i can't think of an instance in which "to leave" isn't part of a command for an action to be taken.

disclaimer: not an english major, but i write contracts so this stuff matters to me for work

[christian]

Off the top of my head I think it's interrogative form of present continuous tense. I think the "could" is just a head fake to make you think it's conditional, but there is no precedent phrase, so I think that's wrong.

If the sentence were "Will you leave the door open?" then I think it's pretty clearly present continuous. The request is in the present, but the event continues into the near future. "Leave" is a clear indication that it's continuous.

Present continuous. Final answer.

(This is a really really hard question. I'm an ESL speaker and have been a professional writer, and I'm not even that sure.) We need a real grammarian, stat!

[MattTuck]

Edit: ^^^^ Listen to Christian.


Now, I'll expose exactly how bad I am....

The original phrase was "Could you leave the door open?"

I think the verb to worry about is "could".

Which implies not a future/past/present tense, but a possibility.

Therefor, I think this sentence is in the present tense, as the concept of thinking about the door is happening now.

Consider changing the first word.

"Did you leave the door open?"
"Will you leave the door open?"

These are not declarative sentences, but all deal with a thought in the present, compared to the possibility of an action in the future or past.

*This post for entertainment purposes only, cannot be used in English class. The opinions expressed are not those of our sponsors.

[Dr Luxurious]

man this is deep.

google tells me that "could" is a modal auxiliary verb used to express possibility

[Nooch]

Off the top of my head I think it's interrogative form of present continuous tense. I think the "could" is just a head fake to make you think it's conditional, but there is no precedent phrase, so I think that's wrong.

If the sentence were "Will you leave the door open?" then I think it's pretty clearly present continuous. The request is in the present, but the event continues into the near future. "Leave" is a clear indication that it's continuous.

Present continuous. Final answer.

(This is a really really hard question. I'm an ESL speaker and have been a professional writer, and I'm not even that sure.) We need a real grammarian, stat!

This was my mindset -- but I'll admit that I had no idea of a present continuous tense...

(been working in payroll way too long -- all numbers, no words...)

[christian]

Actually, maybe it's just simple future.

"Will you marry me?" is interrogative simple future. Not sure this is entirely different; if you agree, we will be married for a long time. If you agree to leave the door open, the door will remain open.

And the sentence form is more aligned to simple future.

Is this sixth grade homework (simple future) or 11th grade AP Composition (then it's probably present continuous)??? LOL.

[AngryScientist]

from this math/science guy:

future.

the action the sentence refers to has not happened yet. it is also not happening now. therefor past and present are ruled out. future.

[William]

Any English majors out there?
Trying to help one of the kids with homework... :help:

What's the verb tense in "Could you leave the door open?"

Present tense sarcasm. Someone has come in through the door on a cold day but didn't close it. You are letting them know they should close the door properly.






Well, that's my take on it. :)


William

[vav]

Where is fuzzalow when you need him ;)

[joosttx]

without context you cannot say the request near future.

example: I am traveling next week. Upon my return, Could you leave the door open?

Not sure if that effects the analysis.



Off the top of my head I think it's interrogative form of present continuous tense. I think the "could" is just a head fake to make you think it's conditional, but there is no precedent phrase, so I think that's wrong.

If the sentence were "Will you leave the door open?" then I think it's pretty clearly present continuous. The request is in the present, but the event continues into the near future. "Leave" is a clear indication that it's continuous.

Present continuous. Final answer.

(This is a really really hard question. I'm an ESL speaker and have been a professional writer, and I'm not even that sure.) We need a real grammarian, stat!

[MattTuck]

Actually, maybe it's just simple future.

"Will you marry me?" is interrogative simple future. Not sure this is entirely different; if you agree, we will be married for a long time. If you agree to leave the door open, the door will remain open.

And the sentence form is more aligned to simple future.

Is this sixth grade homework (simple future) or 11th grade AP Composition (then it's probably present continuous)??? LOL.

This is like saying in high school, 1+2+3+4....... = infinity. But in college math it equals -1/12. that's messed up. There should only be one right answer. And you already said final answer up above ;)

[christian]

that's messed up. There should only be one right answer.No, there is only one right answer. I don't know it. So I'm trying to cheat by gathering additional data.

The more I think about it, the tougher this is. Could is modal, expressing possibility. But could is also the past form of can.

I really have no clue.

[xlbs]

grammar-monster.com

The examples under "tense" suggest that this is simple future tense, subjunctive mood for the adverb "could".

I spent six years studying English Language and Literature over 40 years ago, but at no point did we study grammar as a stand-alone programme.

Now I provide good financial advice, well-explained.

[fiamme red]

Any English majors out there?
Trying to help one of the kids with homework... :help:

What's the verb tense in "Could you leave the door open?""Could" is the past tense of "can," used as a modal auxiliary verb. Here it's hardly functioning more than a weaker or diffident variety of the present tense "can," as a more polite way to ask the question.

"Leave" is here an infinitive, without the "to."

[xlbs]

fun or controversial as a grammar question to get the fingers tapping on a 'puter!

Almost as much fun as a political opinion...

[martl]

"close the door" - present tense, impolite
"can you close the door?" - present tense, question form - a little more polite
"could you close the door?" - past subjunctive + question, quite polite

[christian]

So M -

Does that mean that the answer to "Tense" is just "It's a modal verb."

Agree that could is the past (preterite, really) form of can, but the sentence is in present, then? Or we simply say, it's modal?

[charliedid]

Is that a request or a theoretical question?

[christian]

"close the door" - present tense, impolite
"can you close the door?" - present tense, question form - a little more polite
"could you close the door?" - past subjunctive + question, quite polite

No, I can't accept that "could you do something" is past tense just because could is the preterite form of can. The action happens now or in the near future.

I think it's "present tense, modal verb" or "future tense, modal verb."


Fun stuff regardless.

[weisan]

Where is fuzzalow when you need him ;)

Fuzz pal and I are negotiating on appearance fee... six figure easily.

[fiamme red]

No, I can't accept that "could you do something" is past tense just because could is the preterite form of can. The action happens now or in the near future.

I think it's "present tense, modal verb" or "future tense, modal verb."


Fun stuff regardless.A statement or question doesn't have a tense; only a verb does. "Could" is past tense, but does not refer here to past time.

[MattTuck]

Student should answer: I'd like to exercise my fifth amendment rights to refuse to answer trick questions.

[Dr Luxurious]

Is this sixth grade homework (simple future) or 11th grade AP Composition (then it's probably present continuous)??? LOL.

actually it's 9th grade AP Comp...

[FlashUNC]

Present or future conditional, though it depends on the context of the sentence. If you're saying that someone who's literally walking out the door at that moment: present conditional. If you're telling someone that as like a standing request for an indefinite period of time, future conditional.

If it's a question on homework, I'd say future conditional.

[Dr Luxurious]

OK, the dictionary says, in typical usage, COULD is used to express possibility or a polite request.
So that makes the whole thing interrogative (I think) and a request to do something in the future even though the verb itself is technically in the past ??? :eek:

Present or future conditional, though it depends on the context of the sentence. If you're saying that someone who's literally walking out the door at that moment: present conditional. If you're telling someone that as like a standing request for an indefinite period of time, future conditional.

If it's a question on homework, I'd say future conditional.

That seems to make sense, more or less, kind of, maybe, I guess...

[christian]

Go with Fiamme Red. I know him in real life and he is super smart and knows this stuff.

[fiamme red]

So that makes the whole thing interrogative (I think) and a request to do something in the future even though the verb itself is technically in the past ??? :eek:



That seems to make sense...Yes, the sentence is interrogative and refers to the future, although the tense of the verb is past. "Could" is sometimes used to refer to the past, of course (e.g., "I couldn't ride my bike yesterday because I wasn't well"), but here it's used instead of "can" to make the tone of the question more polite.

[bocobiking]

grammar-monster.com

The examples under "tense" suggest that this is simple future tense, subjunctive mood for the adverb "could".

I spent six years studying English Language and Literature over 40 years ago, but at no point did we study grammar as a stand-alone programme.

Now I provide good financial advice, well-explained.

This is it. I am an English major and retired English teacher who loves grammar. The "could" auxillary indicates subjunctive mood, which indicates possible but not definite action. So it is an overly polite way of saying "Will you . . ."

[fiamme red]

Go with Fiamme Red. I know him in real life and he is super smart and knows this stuff.Thanks. :)

Some other languages have a subjunctive mood or an optative mood or both. English usually expresses these moods by the use of the past tense (though the time referred to is the present or future), often through modal auxiliaries like "could," "should" and "would" (past for "can," "shall," and "will," respectively). But sometimes it uses regular verbs in the past tense to refer to possibilities corresponding to the use of a subjunctive or optative, e.g., in the protasis of a conditional sentence, e.g.: "If I were king, I'd give you whatever you wish..."; or "if you removed your shoes before you walk in, I'd be grateful."

[Dr Luxurious]

check this out*

http://www.englishpage.com/modals/could.html




* imperative?

[fuzzalow]

Where is fuzzalow when you need him ;)

Fuzz pal and I are negotiating on appearance fee... six figure easily.

weisan-pal would get stuck doin' the heavy lifting if we were to do this - I dunno ding about this stuff anymore. I have multiple advanced degrees, none of them in English! Man's got to know his limitations.

Rules of grammar are important but at this point in my life & career, I don't think about them anymore and I probably learned those rules back as a freshman in HS, just like the OP's kid. I'd guess you'd properly learn the rudiments and then just carry on. It is important to remember, IMO, that learning these rules neither teaches one to write nor teaches one to think. The famed historian David McCullough once told me "Clear writing is clear thinking" which is advice I have tried to uphold.

There's that old saying "The eyes are the window to the soul" which I've stolen the riff from to say that "Writing is a window into the brain". The value is in the thoughts and ideas. The grammar is important because that is how ideas are expressed but grammar is fixable - that's what editors are for. The ideas however, cannot be faked.

[djg]

This is it. I am an English major and retired English teacher who loves grammar. The "could" auxillary indicates subjunctive mood, which indicates possible but not definite action. So it is an overly polite way of saying "Will you . . ."

Colloquially polite and grammatically awkward way of saying "please leave the door open"?

[fiamme red]

check this out*

http://www.englishpage.com/modals/could.html




* imperative?The imperative would be "Leave the door open."

[Dr Luxurious]

The imperative would be "Leave the door open."

I meant "check this out" is the imperative (with an implied "while we're at it") :D

[Louis]

Clearly the OP needs to diagram his sentence - that will make things much clearer...

(jk)

[chunkylover53]

This is it. I am an English major and retired English teacher who loves grammar. The "could" auxillary indicates subjunctive mood, which indicates possible but not definite action. So it is an overly polite way of saying "Will you . . ."

Second. Lot of folks in this thread are confusing tense and mood.

[echappist]

This is it. I am an English major and retired English teacher who loves grammar. The "could" auxillary indicates subjunctive mood, which indicates possible but not definite action. So it is an overly polite way of saying "Will you . . ."

this

it took two pages before someone mentioned subjunctive? ...

for reference, consider the questions for the sentences below: a) is the door open or not, and b) is this in the present or the past?

If you asked, I could leave the door open.

Had you asked, I could have left the door open.

How are the two above different from: If you ask, I can leave the door open.

[OtayBW]

I don't see this as any different than 'may I/can I' vs 'would you/could you'. Not complicated. The rest of the grammar be damned!

[mbrtool]

Man, I now know why Latin was my favorite subject.

Ray

[bocobiking]

I don't see this as any different than 'may I/can I' vs 'would you/could you'. Not complicated. The rest of the grammar be damned!

I think a lot of people shun grammar because they see it as a bunch of rules one should follow. Of course, a lot of stuff-shirt teachers, etc. treat it that way; but linguists are more interested in using grammar to describe how someone is saying/writing something, and why they are saying it that way. No one needs a knowledge of grammar rules to communicate; grammar patterns are just part of our language, a part we know unconsciously. No one needs to know the term "subjunctive" or rules for its use to use the subjunctive mood.

It is interesting for someone like me to have a term like "subjunctive" to describe over-politeness in a statement, just like it's interesting for a scientist to have terms like "inertia" to describe a pattern of acceleration, or for a mechanic to have a term like "torque" to describe what's happening in an engine.

Thanks for indulging me on this topic that is way-off-topic.

[dustyrider]

"Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the Thinks you can think up if only you try!"-Dr. Seuss

:)

[Climb01742]

'Could', on its own, isn't the operative word. 'Could' is dependent on context. Such as, 'I could believe you,' is present tense.

In the OP's example, it's future tense, because it refers to an action a person will, or won't, take in the future, at the moment they leave the room.

Grammar, on its own, is an abstract exercise. The point is to communicate as clearly as possible, with little or no room for confusion or misinterpretation...unless you want to be vague.

[seanile]

too much focus on "could" folks.
"you" is not the subject, the "door" is, so "could's" agreement ain't imperative.



that was really fun to write

[OtayBW]

I think a lot of people shun grammar because they see it as a bunch of rules one should follow. Of course, a lot of stuff-shirt teachers, etc. treat it that way; but linguists are more interested in using grammar to describe how someone is saying/writing something, and why they are saying it that way. No one needs a knowledge of grammar rules to communicate; grammar patterns are just part of our language, a part we know unconsciously. No one needs to know the term "subjunctive" or rules for its use to use the subjunctive mood.

It is interesting for someone like me to have a term like "subjunctive" to describe over-politeness in a statement, just like it's interesting for a scientist to have terms like "inertia" to describe a pattern of acceleration, or for a mechanic to have a term like "torque" to describe what's happening in an engine.

Thanks for indulging me on this topic that is way-off-topic.
Oh sure - I hear ya. I have to do a lot of technical writing myself, and I am a stickler for grammar for clarity, effective communication, and I guess style - but from a functional point of view. I don't recall much about subjunctives, or pluperfect tense, or intransitive verbs, or compound antecedents. I'm pretty good at expletives, though!...:banana:

[djg]

this

it took two pages before someone mentioned subjunctive? ...

for reference, consider the questions for the sentences below: a) is the door open or not, and b) is this in the present or the past?

If you asked, I could leave the door open.

Had you asked, I could have left the door open.

How are the two above different from: If you ask, I can leave the door open.

If you were to ask, I could leave the door open.

I you were silent, I could leave the door open.

I can leave a door open. It's not hard.

[rounder]

Present or future conditional, though it depends on the context of the sentence. If you're saying that someone who's literally walking out the door at that moment: present conditional. If you're telling someone that as like a standing request for an indefinite period of time, future conditional.

If it's a question on homework, I'd say future conditional.

That was my guess...future conditional

[Louis]

If you think English is confusing, French is even more fun:

(edit: I think some of those are wrong)

[echappist]

If you think English is confusing, French is even more fun:

(edit: I think some of those are wrong)

the only thing i was ever good at when learning French was the sujuntif, mais c'est dommage que j'aie oublié tout (hopefully that's the correct subjunctive spelling)

[Louis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Kvu6Kgp88

[MattTuck]

Merry Christmas!

[daker13]

Second. Lot of folks in this thread are confusing tense and mood.

chunkylover's not the first one to say this, but this is the heart of the matter: verb tense and verb mood are two different things. Tense has to do with time. Mood has to do the conditions of the verb: is it a command (imperative), a statement (indicative), a question (interrogative), a wish (optative), a possibility (subjunctive).

If English were declined, like Greek and Latin, we would have thousands of different noun endings memorized, to tell us what tense AND mood was being expressed in a given sentence. But English isn't, so we rely on auxiliary verbs like 'could' to tell us the question has to do with what is or is not possible.

The bad thing about English NOT being declined is, we're much more dependent on word order to express meaning; in Greek, the words can be put in almost any order, and the grammatical meaning stays the same. We say "I buy milk," which is different from saying "Milk buy I," or "I milk buy," etc. In Greek and Latin, I believe, authors often put verbs at the end of the sentence, because it was considered good style.

English has its pleasures, but these do not include explaining to our kids seemingly simple words like 'could,' and verb moods. Personally, I agree with the great George Orwell that grammar really doesn't matter all that much, as long as one's meaning is clear.*





*But, poor grammar may lead people to think that you're dumb.

[giordana93]

sorry I missed this one, as it is the kind of ? I enjoy. (semi-retired French prof) so for posterity, yes, one must separate tense from mood and the rest follows. let me say in passing that it is the very complexity of French grammar (from Latin) that makes the French easier in that the various moods have their own conjugations --i.e. in French there is little chance for ambiguity because the speaker chooses the mood/tense. In English otoh we use the "modal" verbs--mode=mood in French. Context would help us know whether the question means "are you able" to open the door or "will you please" open the door. In either case, I say they are present tense. Easy in the first place, as it is a yes or no question for right now--could you do it. In the second, it is a present tense that implies a future action, but that does not make the action of the verb future--that is the slipperiness of those darn modals.

For the record, I don't think we should ever talk about "future conditional"--such parlance refers to sentences with 2 separate verbs--one in the future and one in the present: if condition X pertains, result y will happen. Note that both are in the Indicative mood (the mood of "reality") and neither in the conditional and in fact there is no such thing as a verb by itself being both conditional and future. The complex sentence (=2 subjects and 2 verbs in one sentence) is structured like a "true" conditional phrase (one in which the "if" clause is indicative or subjunctive, and the then clause is in the conditional--past or present): If I were rich (present subjunctive, counterfactual), I would buy a Pegoretti (present conditional). If I had known (pluperfect indicative), I would have called (past conditional). Note that in English we make what is a grave mistake in French with almost all of our conditionals by using the conditional on the "if" side: If I would have known... if I would see him.... it's wrong but so common that it is almost standard now.

finally, the example in OP has nothing to do with the subjunctive ime. the latter mood is tough for English speakers with the easiest example to cite coming from prayers or wishes: Hallowed be thy name (not is); thy kingdom come (not comes, which normal verb agreement would require). compare: long live the king. another reasonably common example: I vote that John be our president. So I guess we could say this: there is no separate conjugation for conditional mood in English; we choose the modal verb "would," to help the main verb to be expressed conditionally--I would do it; if the helping verb "can" happens to be part of the utterance we want to make conditional, we say could (there is no "I would can"): I can do it becomes I could do it (expressed conditionally: if the conditions are met).

Note that you could (pun intended) substitute "can" or "would" into the sentence "could you open the door," and it would (again) clarify the mood (can=indicative; would=conditional)--but they would both be in the present. at least that's what I think. I could be wrong. :)

[CampyorBust]

Grammar is just like a social constuct puff puff man pass