# sorry, I forget vs I forgot (present/ past/ present perfect tense)



## newname

Hi,

Which tense is correct here?

A: Hello B. How are you?
B: Hello. (embarrassed) I'm sorry. But I ... (forget/have forgot) your name.

I think forget is correct.

Thank you.


----------



## Copyright

I'm sorry, but I've forgotten your question name.


----------



## owlman5

I'd use the simple past here: I'm sorry, but I forgot your name.  This would tell my listener that I knew the name but forgot it at some point in the past.

PS Copyright's version with the present perfect would also work.


----------



## newname

Thank you, Owlman.

But I have a question Owlman.




owlman5 said:


> I'd use the simple past here: I'm sorry, but I forgot your name.  This would tell my listener that I knew the name but forgot it at some point in the past (--> now I know you name, which is not true).
> 
> What about "my forget"? I am expressing a fact: I do not remember your name. I forget it now.
> 
> PS Copyright's version with the present perfect would also work.


----------



## newname

Copyright said:


> I'm sorry, but I've forgotten your question name.



My grammar book says verbs of knowing, believing, and understanding cannot be used in the present perfect except when they express actions that occurred in the past and continue past the time of speaking in the present.

Thus:
 I have forgotten how to play chess for ages.
 I have just forgotten his name
 I'm sorry. But You misunderstand/ don't understand me.
 I'm sorry. But you have misunderstood/ have not understood me.

I'd like to have your opinions on this.

Thank you.


----------



## Loob

I agree with poster no2 ... happens a lot.

Dang, I've forgotten his name.


----------



## Copyright

I have forgotten how to play chess for ages.  (I forgot how to play chess ages ago.) 

 I have just forgotten his name.   Odd but possible, I suppose. I would say _I just forgot his name_ (this very moment). 

 I'm sorry, but you misunderstand/don't understand me. (Yes, I agree.)

 I'm sorry, but you have misunderstood/have not understood me. 

I'm sorry but I've forgotten your name, your rank and your serial number.


----------



## plinkaplinka

I'd go with the "I have forgotten" construction too.

You used to hear the "I forget" construction more often, but usually in the context of something you'd possibly expect to remember later - 

"I forget his name for the moment"


----------



## newname

Thank you all of you. But, a part from forgetting, which I think is not a verb of knowing or believing or understanding, my grammar book says: \

(quote)
_Recent actions, even when the time is not mentioned, must be expressed by the simple past:
 Did you know that he was going to get married (Have you known would not be possible) and 
 Hello. I didn't know you were in London._

I am confused.


----------



## newname

plinkaplinka said:


> I'd go with the "I have forgotten" construction too.
> 
> but usually in the context of something you'd possibly expect to remember later -
> 
> "I forget his name for the moment"



Yes. This is exactly the context where I want to use 'forget'

 A: Do you know that man standing by the door?
B: Yes. But I forget his name (for now). Let me think for a moment and I'll tell you.

('I forgot' would make me instantly think I remember his name now, which seems absurd to me)


----------



## Copyright

I don't have a lot to say about the grammar of the situation, but I would suggest that there are social expressions that are so standard that we follow their conventions:_* How do you do? *_comes readily to mind. By the same token, many of us say, *I'm sorry; I've forgotten your name. *


----------



## plinkaplinka

Both are idiomatic expressions which imply a context.

"Hello, I didn't know you were in London". Well, I know you are in London now, because I can see you, but a minute ago I didn't, so the full statement should be "Hello, up to the very moment I saw you I didn't know you were in London, but I do now" - but life is too short!

"Did you know he was going to get married" is similarly shorthand for "He is going to get married. Did you know that already?"


----------



## newname

plinkaplinka said:


> "Did you know he was going to get married" is similarly shorthand for "He is going to get married. Did you know that already?"



I notice that you say  'Did you know that already' and not 'Have you known that already'


----------



## plinkaplinka

Hi (and sorry for the delay),

Yes, definitely "Did you know", and I'm now trying desperately to think why!

I think it's to do with the continuity of the knowledge, and again there are some implications in the way the questions are phrased - 

"Have you known Fred for long?" - I know you know Fred now, and I know you knew Fred at the start of the conversation (by implication), but I don't know when you started to know Fred - so I'm trying to find the start of a continuous action that began in the past.

"Did you know he was getting married? - I know you know he's getting married now because I've just told you, but I don't know whether you knew that at the start of the conversation though. So I'm trying to find out something which has a fixed end point. I'm trying to find out what you knew before we started talking. I could have phrased it "He's getting married. Before I told you did you know that?" - but nobody ever would!

However, if the answer to the question is "Yes I knew that already", my next question could be "Have you known that for long?", because now I know it's a continuous period.


----------



## sunyaer

This is a very helpful thread, especially for the concept of continuity of the knowledge.

I just bookmarked this with other similar threads that may help to clarify tense confusions.


*didn't come*

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2284386&p=13352328#post13352328


*{Did you bring / Have you brought} the book?*

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2391771


----------



## Samwisedumb

newname said:


> My grammar book says verbs of knowing, believing, and understanding cannot be used in the present perfect except when they express actions that occurred in the past and continue past the time of speaking in the present.
> 
> Thus:
> I have forgotten how to play chess for ages.
> I have just forgotten his name
> I'm sorry. But You misunderstand/ don't understand me.
> I'm sorry. But you have misunderstood/ have not understood me.
> 
> I'd like to have your opinions on this.
> 
> Thank you.



By the time you say "I have forgotten your name," the action of not remembering his name has already past. Therefore, using the a past tense form of -to forget- seems more appropriate.


----------



## Samwisedumb

newname said:


> Yes. This is exactly the context where I want to use 'forget'
> 
> A: Do you know that man standing by the door?
> B: Yes. But I forget his name (for now). Let me think for a moment and I'll tell you.
> 
> ('I forgot' would make me instantly think I remember his name now, which seems absurd to me)



I think using "I forget" is something that should only be said when you  want to tell someone you regularly forget something.  No one says "I  run" to express that they are running at that moment, nor to express  that they just finished running.  Using "I forget your name" just sounds  wrong to me.  Although it does make sense since the definition of  forget is "to be unable to remember something"; and at that moment you _are_ _unable _to remember their name.

The people who say forgot probably say "I forgot your name," meaning "I don't remember your name, I _tried_ to remember it, but I _was unable_." At least that's what I mean by it.


----------



## sunyaer

Samwisedumb said:


> By the time you say "I have forgotten your name," the action of not remembering his name has already past. Therefore, using the a past tense form of -to forget- seems more appropriate.



Yes, the action of forgetting his name has already past, but the result of not remembering remains. Another similar example: _the suspect of the shooting has been captured_, meaning that the suspect is in police custody although the capturing event has finished. Comments?


----------



## Mark Teacher

Samwisedumb said:


> I think using "I forget" is something that should only be said when you  want to tell someone you regularly forget something.  No one says "I  run" to express that they are running at that moment, nor to express  that they just finished running.  Using "I forget your name" just sounds  wrong to me.  Although it does make sense since the definition of  forget is "to be unable to remember something"; and at that moment you _are_ _unable _to remember their name.
> 
> The people who say forgot probably say "I forgot your name," meaning "I don't remember your name, I _tried_ to remember it, but I _was unable_." At least that's what I mean by it.



I fully agree that it sounds wrong, and I believe it is wrong, but you have to be aware there is much historical usage of "forget" in the stative.  As far as dictionary definitions are concerned, "to be unable to remember something," should not be taken to support forget as a stative verb.  Many dictionaries give such definitions, but still do not give an example such as: "I forget your name."  It's just meant to be a general definition of the nature of the word.  Naturally, if one forgets something, one will be unable to remember it.  Also, "remembering" something is a state, not being able to remember is not a state, but instead only a description of not being able to get back to the state of remembering.


----------



## sunyaer

Samwisedumb said:


> ...  Using "I forget your name" just sounds  *wrong* to me.  Although it *does make sense *since the definition of  forget is "to be unable to remember something"; and at that moment you _are_ _unable _to remember their name.
> 
> ...



Very confusing comments. It is wrong but still makes sense?


----------



## JulianStuart

MerriamWebster (linked through the WRF dictionary) has the following



> ...
> a :  to *lose* the remembrance of :  *be* unable to think of or recall _<I forget his name_>
> b : obsolete :  to cease from doing
> ...


It seems as though one definition describes the action of forgetting while the other describes a state of being unable to recall. I am fine with both, although I may have acquired this comfort from living in the US for many years.


----------



## Mark Teacher

sunyaer said:


> Very confusing comments. It is wrong but still makes sense?



That's because the person is confused.  He senses there is a problem with using "forget" as a stative verb, but reads a definition that "seems" to say otherwise.  "Forget" is not grammatically stative at all; it is solely dynamic.  *“Forget” cannot be a stative verb for the simple reason that for one to be in a state of “forgetting,” one must forget something first, which is an act, and no state can begin with an act.  *All states are just the way things are.  One can say "I have liked you for a long time," but one cannot say, "I have forgotten where I left my keys for two hours."  That sentence is illogical.  The act of forgetting does not go away when one tries to stretch out the act with a time adverb.


----------



## JulianStuart

marksesl said:


> That's because the person is confused.  He senses there is a problem with using "forget" as a stative verb, but reads a definition that "seems" to say otherwise.  "Forget" is not grammatically stative at all; it is solely dynamic.  *“Forget” cannot be a stative verb for the simple reason that for one to be in a state of “forgetting,” one must forget something first, which is an act, and no state can begin with an act.  *All states are just the way things are.  One can say "I have liked you for a long time," but one cannot say, "I have forgotten where I left my keys for two hours."  That sentence is illogical.  The act of forgetting does not go away when one tries to stretch out the act with a time adverb.


Unless, of course, one considers "forget" as a verb that _can_ be used to describe a state.  Your assertion may be true for you, if you don't consider it possible, but current usage accommodates the stative use: that's why the Merriam Webster entry includes that definition _and specific example_.  It may be a usage that has caught on more in the US than the UK, even though some AmE speakers still prefer "I have forgotten" or "I forgot". 

<<A belated welcome to the forum, marksesl You really should disclose which variety of English is your native language (actually a forum requirement for this very reason!)>>


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> Unless, of course, one considers "forget" as a verb that _can_ be used to describe a state.  Your assertion may be true for you, if you don't consider it possible, but current usage accommodates the stative use: that's why the Merriam Webster entry includes that definition _and specific example_.  It may be a usage that has caught on more in the US than the UK, even though some AmE speakers still prefer "I have forgotten" or "I forgot".
> 
> <<A belated welcome to the forum, marksesl You really should disclose which variety of English is your native language (actually a forum requirement for this very reason!)>>



I am American.  I'm discussion only objective grammar and the logic it holds, not usage.  Saying, "I forget your name," is ungrammatical, and this is the very reason why people come to such forums scratching their heads, saying that sounds funny.  It should sound strange because it makes no sense.  No state can start with a act. A state must be stative throughout its period.  If it were a state, one could say, "I've forgotten where I put the keys for two hours now,"  like how one can say, "I've liked pudding all my life."  The prior statement is an impossible statement grammatically speaking.  Dictionaries perpetuate ungrammatical usage frequently because dictionaries reflect how people talk.


----------



## JulianStuart

marksesl said:


> I am American.  I'm discussion only objective grammar and the logic it holds, not usage.  ...  Dictionaries perpetuate ungrammatical usage frequently because dictionaries reflect how people talk.



Your logic is unassailable if you start with the premise/stipulation/assertion that "forget" is purely an action verb.  However, you cannot then, logically, use that to demonstrate that it is "therefore" not also possible to use it as a stative verb.  (That's either begging the question or a strawman - I get confused on logical fallacies)  Grammar and dictionary definitions are both records or formalizations of how people speak.  Many currently "correct" grammar "rules" and usages originated as "errors" but were adopted by native speakers and are now "English".  (OR, as the language maven William Safire summed it up: When enough of them are wrong, they're right)

"{A or B etc}, I forget which, ..." has a long heritage - one citation I found was Longfellow*!
The Ngrams of "I forget which,I forgot which,I have forgotten which" are illuminating on the proposition that "_forget_ should go in a dictionary with the meaning_ be unable to recall"_, regardless of whether "forget" can be considered as an act as well.

*Not sure if this Google Books link will work for everyone.


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> Your logic is unassailable if you start with the premise/stipulation/assertion that "forget" is purely an action verb.  However, you cannot then, logically, use that to demonstrate that it is "therefore" not also possible to use it as a stative verb.  (That's either begging the question or a strawman - I get confused on logical fallacies)  Grammar and dictionary definitions are both records or formalizations of how people speak.  Many currently "correct" grammar "rules" and usages originated as "errors" but were adopted by native speakers and are now "English".  (OR, as the language maven William Safire summed it up: When enough of them are wrong, they're right)
> 
> "{A or B etc}, I forget which, ..." has a long heritage - one citation I found was Longfellow*!
> The Ngrams of "I forget which,I forgot which,I have forgotten which" are illuminating on the proposition that "_forget_ should go in a dictionary with the meaning_ be unable to recall"_, regardless of whether "forget" can be considered as an act as well.
> 
> *Not sure if this Google Books link will work for everyone.





That would be "begging the question," but that is in no way what I'm doing.  "Forget" cannot be a stative verb because one must forget something first in order to be in the state of "forgetting."  That is why it is illogical.  No state can begin with a precipitating act.  It is the concept that is not possible.  Conversely, one need not have remembered something first in order to be in a state of "remembering," e.g., "I'll always remember the fun we had at your birthday party."  So, now you're going to say, but forget can be taken to mean "not be able to remember," after all, that's what many dictionaries say.  If that were true, then "I've forgotten where I left my keys for two hours," would have to make sense, being that forgotten would be synonymous with the expression "not been able to remember."  Not only would it be difficult to sell such a statement to anyone as being grammatical, "not able to remember" cannot be synonymous with "forget."  In its dynamic aspect, "forget" means that information has left one's mind, but in the phrase "I'm not able to remember," there is no clear indication any information ever left the person's mind, so the expression has no dynamic sense, like what "forget," as a dynamic verb, has.  Thus, the two are not and cannot be identical in meaning.


----------



## Loob

marksesl said:


> ... No state can begin with a precipitating act. ...


I think that's simply not true, marksesl.

For example, _understand_ can represent a state: _I understand what you're saying._
But it can also represent "entrance into a state": _I finally understood what he was saying!_

That said, I'm not sure that the concept of 'precipitating act' is particularly relevant here.

 In newname's context, I would definitely say "I've forgotten".

But I could happily use Julian's "It's either A or B, I forget which".


----------



## Mark Teacher

Loob said:


> I think that's simply not true, marksesl.
> 
> For example, _understand_ can represent a state: _I understand what you're saying._
> But it can also represent "entrance into a state": _I finally understood what he was saying!_
> 
> That said, I'm not sure that the concept of 'precipitating act' is particularly relevant here.
> 
> In newname's context, I would definitely say "I've forgotten".
> 
> But I could happily use Julian's "It's either A or B, I forget which".



Nope, in "I understand what you're saying," the sentence is purely stative.  In, "I finally understood what he was saying," the sentence is purely dynamic.  In the first sentence, the stative one, there is no specific act in a moment of time where you went from not understanding to understanding.  You are just understanding in real time.  Even if there was an instant when you understood, and then went into a state of understanding, there is nothing implicit of that occurring in the sentence.  There is no precipitating act indicated, and there cannot be because an act designates a stating point which would be logically contradictory to the concept of a state.  A state cannot progress through time from a starting point to an ending point.  It's just the way things are: "I like ice cream."


----------



## Loob

Well, I did say I didn't think the concept of 'precipitating act' was relevant.

If we use the same words as you used about the two 'understand' sentences, we get: 
- in "It's either A or B, I forget which", the sentence is purely stative.
- in "I've forgotten your name", the sentence is purely dynamic.

No?


----------



## JulianStuart

marksesl said:


> Nope, in "I understand what you're saying," the sentence is purely stative.  In, "I finally understood what he was saying," the sentence is purely dynamic.  In the first sentence, the stative one, there is no specific act in a moment of time where you went from not understanding to understanding.  You are just understanding in real time.



By analogy, the entry in the dictionary is based on the sense of "forget = be unable to recall" as it follows the same pattern: In "I understand what you're saying I forget which bus he came in on," the sentence is purely stative. In, "I finally understood what he was saying,  I forgot which bus he came in on" the sentence is purely dynamic. In the first sentence, the stative one, there is no specific act in a moment of time where you went from not understanding to understanding being able to recall to not being able to recall. You are just understanding unable to recall in real time.

"I have to use a calculator, because I've forgotten my 11 times table."  No-one is remotely suggesting this could be replaced by "I forget my 11 times table".  In this situation, the verb is clearly dynamic but, like your example of understand, the verb has also undeniably been used by _many_ people as a stative one (as the Ngrams showed above).  If this bothers you, you could put the use into either D) "idiom" category 





> an expression or phrase that does not follow regular rules of grammar, or one whose meaning cannot be predicted from the meaning of its individual parts:


 or


> linguistic usage that is grammatical and natural to {a significant number of} native speakers of a language


----------



## Mark Teacher

Loob said:


> Well, I did say I didn't think the concept of 'precipitating act' was relevant.
> 
> If we use the same words as you used about the two 'understand' sentences, we get:
> - in "It's either A or B, I forget which", the sentence is purely stative.
> - in "I've forgotten your name", the sentence is purely dynamic.
> 
> No?



No.
In "I understand," there is no need to have understood something first to be in the state of "I understand ...," so there is no logical contradiction.  In, "I forget" as a state, there absolutely had to have been an act of forgetting that precipitated the state of "forget."  One can't be in a state of forget, without first having forgotten something.  So, forget as a state is a logical impossibility.  A state is just a state.  No act can begin a state.  I'm not saying there is no good use for such an expression, but it is technically ungrammatical.  People who wonder why it sounds strange should have that pointed out to them.  It is a useful (to some, not me) expression, but objectively ungrammatical.  You're second sentence is spot on (first time I ever used that expression), but I will never say "I forget your name," or any other instance of "forget" as stative.    It's just wrong.


----------



## Loob

We'll just have to agree to differ, then, marksesl.


----------



## Mark Teacher

Loob said:


> We'll just have to agree to differ, then, marksesl.



"Agree to differ" sounds strange to me.  It's a logical contradiction. How can one agree to disagree?  This opens up a whole new area of discussion.  Is this something like "I  remembered to forget"?  Or, perhaps "I forgot to remember"?  Let's see, I'll have to check with Shakira on that.


----------



## Einstein

"Agree to differ" is a common expression and is said in a half-ironic sense. It means we'll have to accept (agree on the fact) that we can't agree. We also say "agree to disagree".

For the original question I'd say, "I'm sorry, I've forgotten your name". I know Americans are more inclined to say "I forgot your name", but in BrE the use of the past simple suggests a moment in the past without telling us the present situation:
"I'm afraid I forgot your name only five minutes after you told me. Susan has just reminded me that your name is Simon". "I've forgotten" indicates more clearly that I still don't remember.

"I forget" as a stative verb, as a synonym of "I don't remember", sounds a little old-fashioned to me, but just a little. My father used to say it if I asked him a question:
"Where does Michael live?" "I forget". I would have said, "I don't remember".


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> By analogy, the entry in the dictionary is based on the sense of "forget = be unable to recall" as it follows the same pattern: In "I understand what you're saying I forget which bus he came in on," the sentence is purely stative. In, "I finally understood what he was saying,  I forgot which bus he came in on" the sentence is purely dynamic. In the first sentence, the stative one, there is no specific act in a moment of time where you went from not understanding to understanding being able to recall to not being able to recall. You are just understanding unable to recall in real time.
> 
> "I have to use a calculator, because I've forgotten my 11 times table."  No-one is remotely suggesting this could be replaced by "I forget my 11 times table".  In this situation, the verb is clearly dynamic but, like your example of understand, the verb has also undeniably been used by _many_ people as a stative one (as the Ngrams showed above).  If this bothers you, you could put the use into either D) "idiom" category  or



Dictionaries that say things like "unable to remember" often don't even give a stative example, such as in Oxford, Collins, and Cambridge, though they all give many dynamic examples.  What they are doing is just giving the consequences of having forgotten something.  This is even spelled out in the British definition given in Collins: "If you _forget_ something, or if you _forget_ how to do something, you cannot think of it or think of how to do it, although you knew in the past.  He forgot where he left the car.fəˈɡɛt VERB."  

Now, I know that there are some dictionaries that do give stative examples along with such definitions, but the point is, such definitions must be considered ambiguous as to their meanings for the reasons of inconsistency in examples and interpretation.    

So, an ambiguous definition can turn a verb that is obviously purely dynamic "I forgot where I parked my car," into a verb that is purely stative, "I forget where I parked my car"?     I don't think so.  Yes, this can only be interpreted as a kind of idiom.  Now, many people who use "forget" as stative, would in fact say, "Sorry, I forget your name."  So, how is that any different from saying, "I forget my 11 times tables," which you reject as being proper?  And, if you would, please explain why saying something like "It's either this or that, I forget which," is more acceptable?


----------



## Mark Teacher

Einstein said:


> "Agree to differ" is a common expression and is said in a half-ironic sense. It means we'll have to accept (agree on the fact) that we can't agree. We also say "agree to disagree".
> 
> For the original question I'd say, "I'm sorry, I've forgotten your name". I know Americans are more inclined to say "I forgot your name", but in BrE the use of the past simple suggests a moment in the past without telling us the present situation:
> "I'm afraid I forgot your name only five minutes after you told me. Susan has just reminded me that your name is Simon". "I've forgotten" indicates more clearly that I still don't remember.
> 
> "I forget" as a stative verb, as a synonym of "I don't remember", sounds a little old-fashioned to me, but just a little. My father used to say it if I asked him a question:
> "Where does Michael live?" "I forget". I would have said, "I don't remember".



Americas do tend to be a bit more terse than Brits in their speech, but certainly many Americans would use the present perfect to be more exact and even polite: "Sorry, I've forgotten your name," would still be very American.  

I'm happy to hear you are not completely comfortable with using "forget" as a state, and yes it does sound a bit old fashioned.  This also, I believe, implies that you don't hear  this usage so often now, which contradicts those who argue "I forget" as stative is common and natural.  I'll have to say, only a single person in the last ten years has ever spoken to me like that.  I am one-hundred percent positive I have not heard the expression this week, but I have heard "I forgot" several times.  

And, yes, of course, I know what "We'll have to agree to disagree" means, but there actually is a bit of inherent contraction (I think).  Can one really agree to disagree, or does one just agree to stop arguing about it?


----------



## almostgal

Samwisedumb said:


> I think using "I forget" is something that should only be said when you  want to tell someone you regularly forget something.  No one says "I  run" to express that they are running at that moment, nor to express  that they just finished running.  Using "I forget your name" just sounds  wrong to me.  Although it does make sense since the definition of  forget is "to be unable to remember something"; and at that moment you _are_ _unable _to remember their name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people who say forgot probably say "I forgot your name," meaning "I don't remember your name, I _tried_ to remember it, but I _was unable_." At least that's what I mean by it.



But what I understand is that, he had express the 'fact' that he has forgotten the name of the person before or at the moment of speaking. So what does fact mean when speaking of simple present as they suggest? I don't understand well this tense.

Thanks


----------



## Einstein

marksesl said:


> Can one really agree to disagree, or does one just agree to stop arguing about it?


This is the meaning; I've never thought it meant anything else. Certainly, taken literally it's not very logical, but we all know what it means.


----------



## Mark Teacher

almostgal said:


> But what I understand is that, he had express the 'fact' that he has forgotten the name of the person before or at the moment of speaking. So what does fact mean when speaking of simple present as they suggest? I don't understand well this tense.
> 
> Thanks



Saying "I forget" as a state verb must mean one is in a period of not being able to remember, which is logically impossible with the word "forget."  But, actually you might be correct as usage is concerned.  Perhaps one is not trying to describe a state, but just saying "I forget" to mean "I just forgot."  This would not be idiomatic to the language and inconsistent with definitions of present tense, but still something someone might say.


----------



## sunyaer

marksesl said:


> No.
> In "I understand," there is no need to have understood something first to be in the state of "I understand ...," so there is no logical contradiction.  In, "I forget" as a state, there absolutely had to have been an act of forgetting that precipitated the state of "forget."  One can't be in a state of forget, without first having forgotten something.  So, forget as a state is a logical impossibility.  A state is just a state.  No act can begin a state.  I'm not saying there is no good use for such an expression, but it is technically ungrammatical.  People who wonder why it sounds strange should have that pointed out to them.  It is a useful (to some, not me) expression, but objectively ungrammatical.  You're second sentence is spot on (first time I ever used that expression), but I will never say "I forget your name," or any other instance of "forget" as stative.    It's just wrong.



It would be very helpful to look at the etymological analysis of "understand" and "forget" in understanding their sense of being dynamic or static.

Understand: under- + stand   ("stand" is static in nature.)

Forget: for- + get  ("get" denotes the result of acquiring, having dynamic sense.)


So, "I forget your name" sounds a little strange as it is being used to mean a state.


----------



## JulianStuart

marksesl said:


> Dictionaries that say things like "unable to remember" often don't even give a stative example, such as in Oxford, Collins, Cambridge, and even Merriam-Webster, though they all give many dynamic examples.  What they are doing is just giving the consequences of having forgotten something.  This is even spelled out in the British definition given in Collins: "If you _forget_ something, or if you _forget_ how to do something, you cannot think of it or think of how to do it, although you knew in the past.  He forgot where he left the car.fəˈɡɛt VERB."


 The example in #21 is from MW and, I would submit, based on the Ngrams (linked in #25), and previous discussion here (linked in #23), is a descriptive entry, rather than a prescriptive one.  If one is to insist that people may only use forget as a dynamic verb, then all your logic applies and represents a prescriptive definition.  Clearly the majority of uses are dynamic, no dispute there.  As Einstein noted, the stative use sounds "old-fashioned" - and indeed the Ngrams show that it used to be more popular.  They also show that "I forget which" is still about 10x as frequent as either "I forgot which" and "I have forgotten which".  Even with the limitations of the Ngram database, a 10x factor is quite telling!
A well-worn example of evolution of meaning (going from prescriptivist "error" to descriptivist "standard") is the word nice.  Originally meaning "foolish" (based on nescire, not know) has changed through "precise" to present day "pleasant".  The amorphous mass of English-speakers will usually have its way, in spite of prescriptivism (a paraphrase of Safire above) and the dictionaries and grammarians just have to keep up.  As for logicians, well I just don't understand (haven't understood) how your "logic example" of _understand_ can be afforded dual verbship (dynamic and stative) but not _forget_.  Or even remember. "I don't remember his name."  Should that be "I haven't remembered his name"??



marksesl said:


> Now, I know that there are some dictionaries that do give stative examples along with such definitions, but the point is, such definitions must be considered ambiguous as to their meanings for the reasons of inconsistency in examples and interpretation.


 They give entries with such examples to illustrate how some speakers use the word.    



marksesl said:


> So, an ambiguous definition can turn a verb that is obviously purely dynamic "I forgot where I parked my car," into a verb that is purely stative, "I forget where I parked my car"?     I don't think so.  Yes, this can only be interpreted as a kind of idiom.


 I think we get the point that you don't think so   As I said, I don't have a problem with your use of "idiom" to describe this (quite common) usage.



marksesl said:


> Now, many people who use "forget" as stative, would in fact say, "Sorry, I forget your name."  So, how is that any different from saying, "I forget my 11 times tables," which you reject as being proper?  And, if you would, please explain why saying something like "It's either this or that, I forget which," is more acceptable?


If you read carefully you will see I have been descriptive all along - I used the 11 times table as an example of a complete lack of prescriptivism (i.e., asserting what is proper and what is not) with regard to stative use. That was just in case anyone thought I was suggesting they _should_ use the stative in that, or even any other, case. I cannot tell you why so many people find "I forget which" acceptable and I certainly wasn't _telling_ anyone to use it. 

In case you were wondering, I am in the camp that thinks "I'm sorry I forget your name" sounds rude and I would use "I have forgotten your name" - something about a nuance along the lines of "I (regularly - as in simple present usage of the dynamic verb) forget your name" being disrespectful!

Everyone draws their own line about when prescriptivism should yield to descriptivism and I understand where you are on this issue. I also agree that we need prescriptivists. However, as many others, both in the thread and in the printed world, I will also agree to disagree with you on this particular issue.


----------



## Mark Teacher

sunyaer said:


> It would be very helpful to look at the etymological analysis of "understand" and "forget" in understanding their sense of being dynamic or static.
> 
> Understand: under- + stand   ("stand" is static in nature.)
> 
> Forget: for- + get  ("get" denotes the result of acquiring, having dynamic sense.)
> 
> So, "I forget your name" sounds a little strange as it is being used to mean a state.



Thank you for this.  Yes, the basic meaning of the verb "forget" would be undermined by viewing it as stative.  I never thought about that before.


----------



## JulianStuart

marksesl said:


> Nope, in "I understand what you're saying," the sentence is purely stative.  In, "I finally understood what he was saying," the sentence is purely dynamic.





sunyaer said:


> It would be very helpful to look at the etymological analysis of "understand" and "forget" in understanding their sense of being dynamic or static.
> Understand: under- + stand   ("stand" is static in nature.)
> Forget: for- + get  ("get" denotes the result of acquiring, having dynamic sense.)
> So, "I forget your name" sounds a little strange as it is being used to mean a state.


Sometimes etymology reflects current meaning, many times not.
marksesl has _understand_ being either stative or dynamic, but your etymology does not.
Similarly, my example of "nice" refutes the universal notion that etymology will reveal current meaning
I am happy to apply the logic of dual verb usage in marksesl's sentence above for _understand_ to both _remember_ and _forget.
_If there is a distinction in the logic that excludes "forget", I just don't get eek it.
It is not always true that both sides in a dispute/discussion will agree to disagree, but I do.


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> Sometimes etymology reflects current meaning, many times not.
> marksesl has _understand_ being either stative or dynamic, but your etymology does not.
> Similarly, my example of "nice" refutes the universal notion that etymology will reveal current meaning
> I am happy to apply the logic of dual verb usage in marksesl's sentence above for _understand_ to both _remember_ and _forget.
> _If there is a distinction in the logic that excludes "forget", I just don't get eek it.
> It is not always true that both sides in a dispute/discussion will agree to disagree, but I do.



The infinitive "to understand" is stative.  So, the etymological analysis: under- + stand ("stand" is static in nature) is valid.   This should be obvious.  
However, there can be a transitory moment going from not understanding to understanding, that can be viewed as dynamic, such as in the sentence "I just remembered ...," That is why such a sentence cannot work in the present perfect using a time adverb to stretch out the act.  One CAN say, "I've understood algebra since I was a teenager," but one CANNOT say, "I've just understood algebra since I was a teenager"; this sentence contains an act.  

Now, in reference to "forget," one cannot put it into the present perfect with a time adverb at all: "I've forgotten my wallet for two hours," doesn't make any more sense than, "I've just forgotten my wallet for two hours."  This is because "forget" is clearly an act, regardless if "just" is there or not.  One had to have remembered something first in order to have forgotten it later.  That act of that information leaving the mind cannot be stretched out over time.  It should be clear that "forget" is only dynamic. 

 In the sentences "I've understood that for a long time," and "I've remembered that for a long time," what may seem to be acts are just the inchoative aspects of these verbs that show entrance into their respective states.  "Forget" does not have an inchoative aspect.  It has exactly the opposite, which I'll call an "exchoative" aspect because "for-get" literally means to "un-get" or "to-lose" from the mind (see online Etymology Library).  Please note that English does not have a formal inchoative aspect, but some English words do maintain such a quality.


----------



## Mark Teacher

I will attempt to make this crystal clear (assuming anyone is still reading).  Any attempt to have a dynamic aspect and a stative aspect working together in the same word with the same meaning is a logical impossibility.  Take the word "lose."  "I lost my pen."  Of course, the present tense is "lose."  No matter how many people in future years might like to say "I lose your pen," to express a state of not having it, such a statement is a self-contradiction, a logical impossibility, and must always be considered ungrammatical.  You cannot have lost it and then be in a state of lose with the same word.  No word can contain those two concepts together. The word must mean one or the other.  Obviously, one cannot say, "I have lost your pen for a week now."  No such state is possible because a state cannot be started by an act that somehow morphs into the state.  A state does not progress through time, so it is not possible to have an act in time that began the state.  Again, since a state does not progress or change with the flow of time, there cannot be a dynamic act at a specific point in time that began that state.  A dynamic act is something that happened in time.  Whereas: Love, like, owe, contain all just express the way things are and are timeless.  The concepts of having forgotten something and now not being able to remember it as a consequence of having forgotten it are mutually exclusive and must be expressed in separate words.


----------



## Mark Teacher

> Similarly, my example of "nice" refutes the universal notion that etymology will reveal current meaning



Etymology is "the study of the origin of words *and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history*," thus etymology should reveal current usage.  The evolution of "nice" from it original usage of _foolish_ to its current usage of _kind_ is all described in its etymological analysis in the "Online Etymology Dictionary," so the etymology of "nice" does indeed reflect its current usage.  

 Since "nice" is not syllabized, it has to be taken as a unit, which can probably allow it to evolve more easily;  but "for-get" has two syllables which can be analyzed separately, so the parts still have to make sense working together, this may make evolution more difficult.  The _for-_ part means _away_ or _opposite_ and the _-get_ part means grasp.  So one goes _away from having grasped _information in one's mind: _To lose one's grip on the information_.


----------



## JulianStuart

OK, _mea culpa_, I was not sufficiently precise.  I used "etymology" incorrectly to mean "if you look at the meanings of the _original_ roots (only)" you can deduce what the meaning of the word as it is used _today_.

If the meaning of a word can change over time and that is all included in its "etymology", this must be because of changes in the way people use the word.  Thus, when someone started using _nice_ in a different way than its "original" way, they were "making a mistake".  Eventually, it became accepted and no longer a "mistake" as more and more people used it with the new meaning. 

My only point in this thread is that "I forget which" has been used for a long time by a lot of people to mean "I don't remember which".  I accept, along with those users, that its meaning in such usages is now different from its meaning in other simple present usages - such as "I (regularly) forget the combination of my safe". There must be some underlying reason why so many people use this form, given the current state of the "correct meaning", leading to a need to "modify" the dictionary entry so people learning English are aware of this usage.
All of your logic above notwithstanding, I see a symmetry between _remember_ and _forget_ and think it possible that the other users see it similarly (subconsciously, of course!) - we know changes in words and grammar frequently defy cold logic and we even have a word to describe the phenomenon. 

The first two entries under "remember" in the dictionary, 


> 1. to become aware of (something forgotten) again; *bring back* to one's consciousness; *recall
> *2. to *retain* (an idea, intention, etc) in one's conscious mind: _to remember Pythagoras' theorem, remember to do one's shopping_


The symmetric opposite "action" (or whatever word is appropriate to indicate the transition of the first meaning of remember), for forget is "to become *un*aware of (something previously remembered)". However, in a world reflecting the widespread usage cited above, we have symmetry with _the second_ meaning of remember so that _forget_ is considered as the *opposite of retain.*


> "When I was gardening yesterday, I remembered his name." is the parallel to "When I was learning German, I forgot all my Greek".
> = I became (un)able to recall X. (cf. meaning #1)
> 
> "I remember that day clearly" is the parallel to "George or Bill, I forget which".
> = I do (not) retain the information (cf. meaning #2)


I am not making (or trying to refute) any comment on wrong/right, correct/incorrect, only trying to establish that there is a lot of evidence of ongoing etymology(_sic_) for this word/usage   More simply put, the origin of the _specific_ usage above is "I forget X = I don't remember X". Of course, it goes without saying that the equal sign there is for the specific usage, not a universal one


----------



## Mark Teacher

I doubt that saying a word with a slight variation in meaning is a misstate.  Like genetic evolution, things can just change.  Small changes need not be viewed as mistakes.  I have no problem with what "nice" means today regardless of what it meant originally.  This is missing the point. "Forget" is a technical issue.  "Forget" evolving to mean "can't remember," did not eliminate its original meaning of losing grasp of the information.  We still have that meaning.  If "nice" still meant "stupid," as well as its newer meaning of "kind," there might very well be a problem.  

"Forget," as stative, has a bigger problem though.  As, mentioned previously, one cannot have an act and a state contained within the exact same word having the same general meaning.  "Think" can have both aspects, but each of those two aspects have a different meaning:  "I think Lady Gaga is a great singer," and "I'm thinking about her now."  Besides having two different meaning, the dynamic aspect is distinguished by adding -ing.  There is no parallel to the usage of "forget" having two aspects in the same word, meaning the same thing, in the same tense.  This is contrived and must be viewed as ungrammatical.  

There is also no reason to view opposites as being mirror parallels, or having "symmetry" in concepts, and in how they can be treated.  In fact, opposites may always need to be treated differently, at least with verbs:  "I have a pencil." / "I don't have a pencil."  These certainly sound opposite, but they are not.  In "I have a pencil," one had to be given a pencil, but to not have a pencil, one did not need to lose a pencil.  There is no mirror image. One can only say "I don't have a pencil," or "I lost my pencil."  Likewise, with "remember," one can only say "I don't remember," or I forgot" (I lost the information just as I lost my pencil.)  Saying, "I forget," to mean "I don't remember," is a non sequitur.  There is no possible word that can mean not remember because there is no opposite state.  

No opposite state?  That's correct.  When one says, "I can't remember," one is actually saying he/she cannot get back into the state of "remembering."  That is only a declaration of not being able to get back into the previous state.  I can drive a car. - (state) / I can't drive a car - (not in the state of being able to drive a car).  What verb could mean a state of not being able to drive a car?  One can only say, "I can't drive a car."  "I have a book."  "I don't have a book because I lost the only one I had."  Lost is the reason why the person doesn't have a book.  That cannot be turned into a state of "I lose my book."  Perhaps a word to mean not having the book could be "bookless," but that would be an adjective, like not having a home is homeless.  There is no verb-state that can describe not having the book. 

So now, let's look at your examples:



> "When I was gardening yesterday, I remembered his name." is the parallel to "When I was learning German, I forgot all my Greek".
> = I became (un)able to recall X. (cf. meaning #1)
> 
> "I remember that day clearly" is the parallel to "George or Bill, I forget which".
> = I do (not) retain the information (cf. meaning #2)


*
First set:*
In the first sentence you got information / lost information / and got it back. (Logical and Grammatical)   
In the second sentence you got information / then lost it.  
Not perfectly parallel, but both are dynamic; you remembered, and forgot.  No logical problems here.  Your word *"forgot"* just means you lost the information you had gotten at some previous time. (Logical and Grammatical)

*Second set:*
In the first sentence you retained information from a previous experience. (stative)  There was never an act where you had to have "remembered" anything.  So, there is nothing going on dynamic here at all.  The word "remember" need only represent retention of an experience. (Logical and Grammatical)

In the second sentence you got information / lost the information /can't get the information back.
There is no parallel here at all. Your word "forget" must somehow mean *got - lose - can't get back*.  Impossible.  It makes no sense; no stative verb can represent lost the information you previously had gotten, and now can't get that information back.  One must say, *"... I forgot which."  *Since you can only lose something you first got, both the _got part _and the _lose part _are covered.  Since "forgot" is the reason for _"can't get the information back"_ you're covered there as well. 

Now using your own logic against you.  You have said one should not say, "I forget my 11 times tables."   So, why not just argue that _forget_ means the opposite of "remember" here too, as you did above?  How can it make sense in one, but not the other? 


Grammar is the logic of how words are put together.  It's not about usage.  The sentence "A or B, I forget which," is illogical, thus ungrammatical, as is any stative usage of the verb "forget."


----------



## Loob

Mark Teacher said:


> ...Grammar is the logic of how words are put together.  It's not about usage.  The sentence "A or B, I forget which," is illogical, thus ungrammatical, as is any stative usage of the verb "forget."


Erm - grammar *is* about usage!


----------



## JulianStuart

Mark Teacher said:


> Grammar is the logic of how words are put together.  It's not about usage.  The sentence "A or B, I forget which," is illogical, thus ungrammatical, as is any stative usage of the verb "forget."


I thought we had established that _for you_, the sentence and widespread usage is an "idiom" - and I'm fine with your regarding it as such.


> *id•i•om* _/ˈɪdiəm/_  n. [countable]an expression or phrase that *does not follow  regular rules of grammar*, or one whose meaning cannot be predicted from  the meaning of its individual parts:


For lots of _other_ people, your assertion would not be convincing and for them the expression makes perfect sense.
How many people? As one measure, we can use the Google books database:
In 1835, the Ngram "I forget which" was ~100 times as frequent as  "I forgot which" .
In 2008, the Ngram "I forget which" was still ~17 times as frequent as  "I forgot which".
Reminds me a bit of the assertion of the proud parents of an uncoordinated son : "Everyone's out of step in the army except our Johnny"



Mark Teacher said:


> One must say, "... I forgot which."


A grammar "rule" that is wrong for >90% of the speakers of a language does not strike me as being well formulated. As usage changes, dictionary definitions (and/or grammar rules) must change too (that's what you said etymology was about) so I agree with Loob - grammar is inextricably linked to usage.

Out.


----------



## Mark Teacher

Loob said:


> Erm - grammar *is* about usage!



gram·mar _noun_ \ˈgra-mər\                                                

                                                                                                         : the set of rules that explain how words are used in a language
: speech or writing judged by how well it follows the rules of grammar
: a book that explains the grammar rules of a language


----------



## Loob

Yes. .........


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> I thought we had established that _for you_, the sentence and widespread usage is an "idiom" - and I'm fine with your regarding it as such.
> 
> For lots of _other_ people, your assertion would not be convincing and for them the expression makes perfect sense.
> How many people? As one measure, we can use the Google books database:
> In 1835, the Ngram "I forget which" was ~100 times as frequent as  "I forgot which" .
> In 2008, the Ngram "I forget which" was still ~17 times as frequent as  "I forgot which".
> Reminds me a bit of the assertion of the proud parents of an uncoordinated son : "Everyone's out of step in the army except our Johnny"
> 
> 
> A grammar "rule" that is wrong for >90% of the speakers of a language does not strike me as being well formulated. As usage changes, dictionary definitions (and/or grammar rules) must change too (that's what you said etymology was about) so I agree with Loob - grammar is inextricably linked to usage.
> 
> Out.



Gee, what an exercise in illogic.  Yes, I did said "forget" as stative is ungrammatical, and I accepted it as an idiom.  And, as you have pointed out, an idiom does not follow regular rules of grammar.  Idioms are ungrammatical.  So, me accepting "forget" as an idiom is exactly correct.  

If one can read English, I have explained why the word does not make sense, so the people who think it makes sense are simply incorrect.  They are using an idiom and not realizing it.

Grammar rules are based upon logic of the way the words are used together.  Logic is the whole point of grammar.  I didn't even use a singe rule of grammar.  I'm only talking about the logic of the concept.  It is illogical, thus it must be ungrammatical.  Please show me a rule of grammar (not usage) that supports "forget" being used as stative.  And, please stop trying to convince me that logic is controlled by majority rule.


----------



## Loob

Mark Teacher said:


> ... Logic is the whole point of grammar. ...


No,_ usage_ is the whole point of grammar.  If people say "I forget which" - which Julian's links to the ngrams indicate that they do - then "I forget which" is grammatical.


----------



## Mark Teacher

Loob said:


> Yes. .........



Yes, what?  The definitions are clear that grammar refers to *rules.  *Grammar is prescriptive, usage is descriptive.


----------



## Mark Teacher

Ok, then show me the grammar rule that supports "forget" as stative. please.  I'd really like to see that one..


----------



## Loob

See Julian's ngram.


----------



## Mark Teacher

Loob said:


> See Julian's ngram.



"The organisation of grammar all depends on the logic. And, understanding grammar will mean you can think more logically.Grammar without logic and organisation means you cannot clearly put across your message."  - englishgrammarprep

I have more than clearly shown that using "forget" as stative is illogical.  Now, I have shown that illogical structures are not grammatical, like in a double negative.  No matter how many people say, "That won't do you no good," the expression is ungrammatical.  Double negatives work when one is trying to say the opposite, "She is not unattractive."  Here the logic can be understood.  

Julian's ngram is about usage, not logic or grammar.  

The verb "be" represents a state.  There is no word that can mean the opposite of "be."  One can only say, "not be."

"I am a clown."  Is not being a clown a state?  No.  One can only say, "I am not a clown."   "I remember ..."  /  "I don't remember," is the only proper way to negate that state.  One cannot be in a state of not remembering any more than one can be in a state of not being a clown.  There is no logical thing as, "I forget," meaning, "I don't remember."  It's a non sequitur.  If the statement is illogical it is also ungrammatical.


----------



## Loob

You and I use the term "ungrammatical" differently, Mark.  I clearly should have stopped at post 32.


----------



## JulianStuart

Short answer this time.





Mark Teacher said:


> *gram·mar*: the set of rules that *explain how words are used* in a language


Let's take that as a starting pint.  I fear Loob and I see it differently than you d_o. I_ take this definition to mean that, _first_ we determine how the words _are actually used by native speakers _of  a language, and_ then_ from that we formulate rules and definitions to  "explain" how they are used (and what they mean when used that way). Otherwise, whence the  rules?


Mark Teacher said:


> Julian's ngram is about usage, ...


We can look at the relationship between usage and how well the derived rules of grammar can explain usage. For example, we are all familiar with the rule   "prepositions take an object, not a subject, form of a personal  pronoun."  Is this a good rule? The Ngram investigating how people fill the blank in "between you and ___" with the choice of either _I _or _me_, tells us how good the rule is.   The error (using I) has been relatively constant in print (about 15:1 adhering to versus breaking the rule).  The "rule" is therefore a good_ explanation of how people use the words_ (i.e. their usage).  We can conclude two things: the grammarians have done a good job deriving this particular grammar rule, and a smallish fraction of native speakers make mistakes.

We can go the other way and look at a usage pattern and attempt to formulate or test our own rule for the situation

Sample sentence: "Either A or B, I _____ which."  

The investigation is now into whether we can explain the word that is used by native speakers to communicate a sense of "to be in a state of being unable to recall X"?  If the proposed rule is that "_forget_ cannot be used in a stative fashion" and we find they rarely use "forget" that way, then the rule would be supported and we would have a good "grammar" rule - since it would actually "explain how people use the word".  Conversely, if the overwhelming majority (greater than 15:1_ vide supra_) do use "forget" that way, then we _must_ conclude that the proposed rule is a _poor way to explain how the word is used _in our test sentence and _ergo_ that _this specific rule_ is not "grammatical".

(PS _Re_ post # 53, I can read English, I just don't _accept_ your "explanation".)


----------



## Susan Y

I have just caught up with this lengthy thread.

In support of Loob and JS, I would like to add a quotation which neatly sums up the descriptive (rather than _prescriptive_) view of grammar taken by contemporary linguisticians. It is a quote from the "father of modern linguistics", Henry Sweet:

"The first object in studying grammar is to learn to observe linguistic facts as they _are,_ not as they  _ough_t to be, or as they were in an earlier stage of the language”.

Henry Sweet, _A New English Grammar,_ Cambridge University Press, 1892.


----------



## mplsray

Mark Teacher said:


> Now, I have shown that illogical structures are not grammatical, like in a double negative.  No matter how many people say, "That won't do you no good," the expression is ungrammatical.  Double negatives work when one is trying to say the opposite, "She is not unattractive."



Grammar is a set of rules for manipulating words in order to pass an idea from the speaker to the hearer. Negative concord sentences such as "That won't do you no good." fulfill that function admirably, and thus are grammatical in nonstandard English. As a bonus, they are even understandable by speakers of standard grammar! 

By the way, you give an example of the litotes, "She is not unattractive." This is, in fact, _not_ the opposite of "She is attractive." but is weaker. It directly proves your point false.

I don't consider "I forget" to be an idiom. It has been used in this manner since at least 1787. From the Oxford English Dictionary entry "forget, v_._":




> [*1.*] *b.* To fail to recall to mind; not to recollect.
> 
> 1787   ‘G. Gambado’ _Acad. Horsemen_ 12   He says much the same of rabbits and onions, but I forget how he brings that to bear.



The only way in which it might be considered a sort of idiom is if it were only in English that this modification of meaning had happened. But I know of at least two languages in which the word for _forget_ is used similarly, French and Esperanto.


----------



## Mark Teacher

All very nicely stated Julian, but this usage has been around for a long time, so where is the grammar rule, like how prepositions take objects not subjects? This particular use of "forget" would have to come under the heading of an expression I believe.  Expressions have staying power and are commonly use, but are often not grammatical.  
Please explain how I can have access to Ngram and please do a comparison between "I forget your name," and "I forgot your name."  Thanks.


----------



## Mark Teacher

Susan, of course there is a general truth to that, but there is still a persistence of logic held within grammar.  Grammatical constructions are suppose to make *sense* in accordance to the overall principles that have been established from observation.  That's the reason we have grammar books, and teach grammar in school - we are teaching children how they _ought_ to speak and write.  Double negative are still taught to be incorrect, though they have been around for a long time and used by many, usually uneducated, people.  I am saying, just as double negative are incorrect because they make no sense, so does "I forget your name."  One cannot be in a state of the act. If I turn on the lights, the lights are on, but the act "turn on" is very different from the state of "being on."  The act and the state are two different things.  Forget literally means, to "un-get" or "to lose one's grip on."  This is an act, and the word "forget" is used as an act all the time.  After that act takes place, information is forgotten.  Both the act and the state cannot be squeezed into the same word; it defies all prevailing rules of grammar, thus the usage is ungrammatical.  I'm certain you would agree now.


----------



## mplsray

Mark Teacher said:


> Forget literally means, to "un-get" or "to lose one's grip on."  This is an act, and the word "forget" is used as an act all the time.  After that act takes place, information is forgotten.  Both the act and the state cannot be squeezed into the same word; it defies all prevailing rules of grammar, thus the usage is ungrammatical.



There are two problems here. You are presuming that "I forget" indicates a state, when it instead indicates an act: the act of failing to recall to mind. The other error is to bring the word's etymology into the matter. Since there was a change of meaning from the original sense, to try to call back the original sense when speaking of the current sense is to commit the etymological fallacy.


----------



## Mark Teacher

mplsray said:


> There are two problems here. You are presuming that "I forget" indicates a state, when it instead indicates an act: the act of failing to recall to mind. The other error is to bring the word's etymology into the matter. Since there was a change of meaning from the original sense, to try to call back the original sense when speaking of the current sense is to commit the etymological fallacy.



No, that's incorrect.  I did not say that the etymology prescribed how the word should be used in current use.  I said the word "literally" means ..., and that it does.  Nobody would think that original usage mandates current usage, but prior use, especially as what is so clearly shown in the individual syllables here, cannot be easily cast aside.  

Secondly, everyone else here is arguing that the word "forget" is used statively in a sentence such as "I forget your name," so then everyone else here must be making the same mistake.  Yes?   Let's see, "the act of failing to recall to mind,"  so if I say, "I have forgotten my teacher's name for two weeks,"  that is acceptable because I just mean I keep failing to recall my teacher's name over and over and over?  Yes?  No.  Lastly, one must be careful when using negative constructions.  Is failing to do something an act?  "I failed to pick up my mail today."  I dare say, that is no act.  Nice try though.


----------



## mplsray

Mark Teacher said:


> No, that's incorrect.  I did not say that the etymology prescribed how the word should be used in current use.  I said the word "literally" means ..., and that it does.  Nobody would think that original usage mandates current usage, but prior use, especially as what is so clearly shown in the individual syllables here, cannot be easily cast aside.
> 
> Secondly, everyone else here is arguing that the word "forget" is used statively in a sentence such as "I forget your name," so then everyone else here must be making the same mistake.  Yes?   Let's see, "the act of failing to recall to mind,"  so if I say, "I have forgotten my teacher's name for two weeks,"  that is acceptable because I just means I keep failing to recall my teacher's name over and over and over?  Yes?  No.  Lastly, one must be careful when using negative constructions.  Is failing to do something an act?  "I failed to pick up my mail today."  I dare say, that is no act.  Nice try though.



"I forget your name" contains a dynamic (active) rather than a stative verb. Stative verbs usually do not occur in the progressive aspect, which is relevant in this case because it means that you cannot substitute "I am forgetting your name" for "I forget your name." Dynamic verbs are not just about actions, but also about processes, and failing to recall to mind is, if not an action, then a process.

As Tom McArthur points out in the entry "stative verb" in _The Oxford Companion to the English Language_, some verbs in English are partly stative and partly dynamic, with _forget_ being one of the examples he provides:



> no *_She is liking to help people,_ but _How are you liking your new job?_; no _*I am forgetting their address_, but _Forget it!_



Addition: As for the "literal meaning" of _forget,_ there is, strictly speaking, _no literal meaning_ for the word. This is because the prefix _for-_ in this word is no longer part of modern English. According to the Oxford English Dictionary entry "for-, _prefix1_," this prefix "is now entirely obsolete," that is, it is not used to make new words (and so the average speaker of English cannot be expected to know its former meaning).


----------



## JulianStuart

Mark Teacher said:


> All very nicely stated Julian, but this usage has been around for a long time, so where is the grammar rule, like how prepositions take objects not subjects? This particular use of "forget" would have to come under the heading of an expression I believe.  Expressions have staying power and are commonly use, but are often not grammatical.
> Please explain how I can have access to Ngram and please do a comparison between "I forget your name," and "I forgot your name."  Thanks.


Bringing in a new "term" at this stage ("expression"), would seem to require that you define what you mean by the term. (Is it the same as the "idiom" meaning one that cannot be determined from the words that make it?) An "explanation of how words comprising an expression are used", and have been commonly used for a long time would seem to qualify, based on the definition above, as an example of "grammar", no?

The following link takes you to the Ngram viewer and where you can enter your own terms in the box at the top*.  You can see that I forget his name>I forgot his name has the same general frequency shape as "I forget which">"I forgot which" linked earlier, so "I forget which" is not unique in its use of meaning "I don't recall X" where X is "which" or "his name".  In the "I forget your name, I forgot your name" Ngrams, the "forgot" version has recently crept ahead but the frequency of both is now quite low, with the "forget" having dominated in the past, as with "which" and "his name" as the variable X.   In post #41 I explained about "I forget your name" - perhaps the data reflect an increase (in the print database version) of the effect of the "grammar of politeness" (as opposed to the "grammar of language")?

*Have you been able to access the links I have posted above (on between you and I or I forget which etc)? If so, just enter your phrases of choice in the box at the top of page with graphs on - you can select which database to query : American or British or combined all English etc, from the drop down menu.


----------



## Mark Teacher

mplsray said:


> Grammar is a set of rules for manipulating words in order to pass an idea from the speaker to the hearer. Negative concord sentences such as "That won't do you no good." fulfill that function admirably, and thus are grammatical in nonstandard English. As a bonus, they are even understandable by speakers of standard grammar!



When you give a definition, you must quote it (even if you don't give the source), otherwise you appear to just be making up stuff.  Secondly, you are committing an obviously fallacy, as others here are doing.  If I say a turtle can't fly, that does not mean that everything that can't fly is a turtle.  In the definition, "Grammar is a set of rules for manipulating words in order to pass an idea from the speaker to the hearer," the statement may be true, but does not equate to mean everything that is understandable is grammatical.  Surly, you can see the flaw in your logic here.  Lastly, the sentence "That won't do you no good," is ungrammatical, so that is why it is marginalized to being nonstandard English.  No grammar teacher would accept that as being correct.  By your reasoning, anything that is not complete gibberish must be deemed grammatical.    



> By the way, you give an example of the litotes, "She is not unattractive." This is, in fact, _not_ the opposite of "She is attractive." but is weaker. It directly proves your point false.



Yes, it's an example of a litotes:  "A figure of speech consisting of an understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by negating its opposite, as in _This is no small problem_."  Where did I say "She is not unattractive" is the opposite of "She is attractive"?  I think you mean "is the same as," but I didn't say that either.  *If I didn't use the word "attractive,"* don't attribute it to me.  I'm saying that double negatives can indeed make logical sense when the intention is to use two negatives to the get the opposite effect of what each of those two negative words mean individually.  _Sigh 
_


> I don't consider "I forget" to be an idiom. It has been used in this manner since at least 1787. From the Oxford English Dictionary entry "forget, v_._":


 
Idioms typically are quite old.



> The only way in which it might be considered a sort of idiom is if it were only in English that this modification of meaning had happened. But I know of at least two languages in which the word for _forget_ is used similarly, French and Esperanto.



Similar idiom usage occurs across cultures all the time.  If the statement "I forget your name," does not make logical sense, it must be considered to be one of the following: just wrong, an idiom, non standard English, or an expression.


----------



## Mark Teacher

If I make any typos please don't quote them, just correct them and point them out and I'll correct them in my original message.  I make lots of typos.  



mplsray said:


> "I forget your name" contains a dynamic (active) rather than a stative verb. Stative verbs usually do not occur in the progressive aspect, which is relevant in this case because it means that you cannot substitute "I am forgetting your name" for "I forget your name." Dynamic verbs are not just about actions, but also about processes, and failing to recall to mind is, if not an action, then a process.



When you say "I'm forgetting your name," can't be substituted for "I forget your name,"  to prove that "I forget your name," must be stative ignores the fact the single action dynamic verbs (like "forget") can also not be put into the progressive.  One cannot say, "I'm losing my pen," though lose is certainly is a dynamic verb.  It is possible to show short term changes, of course.  One can say, "I'm leaving,"  but one cannot say, "I'm leaving for two hours."   So, you in fact can say, "I'm forgetting ..." for either stative use or dynamic use, but in both it would only mean for a short duration: "Am I forgetting anything?" (short term dynamic), or "Are you forgetting you need to mow the lawn?" to someone who is just sitting watching T.V. (stative use).  So, your argument must fail.

It's interesting to note that many people who do support the use of "forget" as stative would say there is nothing at all wrong with saying, "I'm forgetting your name at the moment," so this also contradicts your argument.     



> As Tom McArthur points out in the entry "stative verb" in _The Oxford Companion to the English Language_, some verbs in English are partly stative and partly dynamic, with _forget_ being one of the examples he provides:



"Forget" is first and foremost the act of forgetting.  It can be stative in short term situations, so perhaps that is what he meant.  I already gave an example.  Many primarily dynamic verbs can be structured into a sentence that forces them to be state for awhile.  Nothing new there. I don't think Mr. McArthur was supporting "forget" as stative in long terms situations.  Did he give an example for "forget" as stative?    Consider this, if someone said, "I forget your name,"  would you answer "You do?"  That sounds rather ridiculous to me.  I don't think anyone really considers "forget" to be stative in such a sentence; it's just another way of saying I "forgot."    




> Addition: As for the "literal meaning" of _forget,_ there is, strictly speaking, _no literal meaning_ for the word. This is because the prefix _for-_ in this word is no longer part of modern English. According to the Oxford English Dictionary entry "for-, _prefix1_," this prefix "is now entirely obsolete," that is, it is not used to make new words (and so the average speaker of English cannot be expected to know its former meaning).



I will investigate this more closely, but one can still say that was the literal meaning of the word.


----------



## sunyaer

Mark Teacher said:


> ...
> 
> I don't think anyone really considers "forget" to be stative in such a sentence; it's just another way of saying I "forgot."
> 
> ...



Agreed. When the speaker is saying "I forget your name", "I forgot..." is meant, ignoring the time-lag from the point of "forgot" to the point of uttering. The speech would sound more natural if some extra words were added, like "you see what, I forget your name."

See the following from_ The English Present Tense _By Ronald W. Langacker (University of California, San Diego)

"The conventions of play-by-play reporting rest on either the *fiction* that this is feasible or else the *tolerance* of a certain time-lag."


----------



## Mark Teacher

sunyaer said:


> Agreed. When the speaker is saying "I forget your name", "I forgot..." is meant, ignoring the time-lag from the point of "forgot" to the point of uttering. The speech would sound more natural if some extra words were added, like "you see what, I forget your name."
> 
> See the following from_ The English Present Tense _By Ronald W. Langacker (University of California, San Diego)
> 
> "The conventions of play-by-play reporting rest on either the *fiction* that this is feasible or else the *tolerance* of a certain time-lag."



Thank you so much for that Sunyaer!   So, it's case closed.  It's just another way of saying "I forgot" that psychologically moves the act of forgetting into the present.  It is not actually stative at all, but is used as a means of ignoring the time lag from the act of forgetting to the present situation.  Excellent!   

This is why it works so well with "It's either A or B, I forget which" because one is psychologically removing the time period from that act of forgetting, in a situation that has immediate present importance.  On the other had, in "I forget my 11 times tables," there is no present importance to the act of forgetting, so it sounds silly.  That sentence sounds much better as "I forgot my 11 times tables" pushing that act of forgetting back in time. This just explains everything.


----------



## JulianStuart

> sunyaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. When the speaker is saying "I forget your name", "I forgot..." is meant, ignoring the time-lag from the point of "forgot" to the point of uttering. The speech would sound more natural if some extra words were added, like "you see what, I forget your name."
> 
> See the following from The English Present Tense By Ronald W. Langacker (University of California, San Diego)
> 
> 
> "The conventions of play-by-play reporting rest on either the fiction that this is feasible or else the tolerance of a certain time-lag."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you so much for that Sunyaer! So, it's case closed. It's just another way of saying "I forgot" that psychologically moves the act of forgetting into the present. It is not actually stative at all, but is used just a means of ignoring the time lag from the act of forgetting to the present situation. Excellent! This is why it works so well with "It's either A or B, I forget" because one is psychologically removing the time period from that act of forgetting, in a situation that has immediate present importance. On the other had, in "I forget my 11 times tables," there is no present importance to the act of forgetting, so it sounds silly. That sentence sounds much better as "I forgot my 11 times tables" pushing that act of forgetting back in time. This just explains everything.
Click to expand...

Does this mean there actually is a grammar rule (that we can deduce from how people actually use the word*) and we can dispense with the (silly) notion that the >90% of native speakers are "wrong"?? If that is the case, we have just caused the native speaker population's "error-rate" to plunge!  Either way, it is clear that when they say "I forget which" they simply mean "I am (currently) unable to recall which".  

Personally, I don't think I ever know exactly when I forget something - I just realize I am in a state where I can no longer recall it  I can often remember, however, the first time I entered that state of not being able to remember and that state continues until I remember it - using the meaning of "recall", of course, and not the meaning of "retain"

*Like we deduced the existence of (i.e., came up with a name for) the similar "historic present tense" because people use it and we had to explain how and why it's not "incorrect".


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> Does this mean there actually is a grammar rule (that we can deduce from how people actually use the word*) and we can dispense with the (silly) notion that the >90% of native speakers are "wrong"?? If that is the case, we have just caused the native speaker population's "error-rate" to plunge!  Either way,



It means the use is vindicated when properly understood, and all the afore mentioned justifications given here have been wrong.  *The verb is not being used statively. *However, it would not be proper to use "I forget" just at anytime.  Any such rule would have to emphasize  that using "I forget" to mean "I forgot" is only justified in instances where there is present urgency or where current behavior is affected.



> it is clear that when they say "I forget which" they simply mean "I am (currently) unable to recall which".



*No, that would not be correct!*  The term is synonymous with "forgot," not "I am currently unable to recall which."  That misses the point entirely.  Using "forget" in this manner is moving of the act of information leaving the mind to the present by ignoring the time gap between the time the information was really forgotten and the time of utterance.



> Personally, I don't think I ever know exactly when I forget something - I just realize I am in a state where I can no longer recall it  I can often remember, however, the first time I entered that state of not being able to remember and that state continues until I remember it - using the meaning of "recall", of course, and not the meaning of "retain"



One certainly does not need  to know exactly when something was forgotten. 

Anyway, you don't enter the state of not remembering. Remembering is the real state, "Not being able to remember" means not being able to get back into that state (that's exactly what the words say).  Negatives states are not real, they are pseudo states that depend upon the existence of the positive states.  Just compare the words:  *Remembering* is a state and *means to retain the information*, while *forgetting* simply means *the information is leaving the mind*. Forgetting" is *NOT* the opposite of remembering.  These opposites are *NOT mirror images* of one another.  This is the reason why one cannot be in a state of forget and why one cannot use "I forget" statively.   


*Like we deduced the existence of (i.e., came up with a name for) the similar "historic present tense" because people use it and we had to explain how and why it's not "incorrect".


----------



## sunyaer

Mark Teacher said:


> ...
> 
> One certainly does not need  to know exactly when something was forgotten.
> 
> ...



Good point. The focus of interest is that the time of "forget" came before the time of utterance.


----------



## Mark Teacher

Continual unrelenting indulgence in the fallacy of symmetric  opposite states is unfortunate  because it  generates a spate of speculative misinformation  about why a word such as “forget” is sometimes used in what seems to be a stative aspect, when it is in fact not, and cannot be.  This type of thinking can only lead to further misunderstandings, and has unfortunately led some, perhaps understandably, to the view that grammar consists of merely following the patterns of usage without regard to any objective need to be consistent with the laws of reason or logic.  Logic is in fact the foundation of grammar, not usage.  Grammarians insist that sentences make logical sense.  We are not allowed to have misplaced modifies, double negative, ambiguous pronouns, or faulty noun agreement, no matter how many employ such things.  No matter how many people might think it is perfectly reasonable to say “All of the children wore a cap to school,” it is incorrect.  The children could not have worn one cap.   Who among us has not misused “who” and “whom,” but try using the wrong word on a standardized test and you will surely miss a point.   “It is I mother”;  this is correct regardless of how many would prefer to say, “It is me mother.”  Of course, most of us prefer to say, “He is taller than me,” instead of “He is taller than I,” but only the latter is grammatically correct.  

Regardless of what people do and how much they do it, all is still filtered through the logical sensibilities of grammarians before acceptability is permitted in any book on grammar.  The word “forget” cannot be used in a stative sense, for it is illogical to do so.  The only exoneration of such use in what is mistakenly assumed to be stative, is to view it as what has been previously stated -- an ignoring of the time gap between the act of forgetting and the time of utterance for the sake of tolerance of the time lag.  It is then still, as it must be, a dynamic act.  In the sentence, “It is either in the car or in the bedroom, I forget which,” one does not want it to seem that act of forgetting had taken place at some time in the past, yet no corrective action was taken.  Saying “forget,” makes the time lag more tolerable, and lessens a view of incompetency.  In “I forgot my 11 times tables,” there is no such need; who has not forgotten his or her 11 times tables long ago anyway?  It is for this reason that saying, “Sorry, I forget you name,” ignoring the time lag in which corrective actions could have taken place, makes the time lag more tolerable, and the gaffe more forgivable


----------



## sunyaer

Mark Teacher said:


> ...
> 
> In the sentence, “It is either in the car or in the bedroom, I forget which,” one does not want it to seem that act of forgetting had taken place at some time in the past, yet no corrective action was taken.  Saying “forget,” makes the time lag more tolerable, and lessens a view of incompetency.  In “I forgot my 11 times tables,” there is no such need; who has not forgotten his or her 11 times tables long ago anyway?  It is for this reason that saying, “Sorry, I forget you name,” ignoring the time lag in which corrective actions could have taken place, makes the time lag more tolerable, and the gaffe more forgivable



What does " no corrective action was taken" mean here?

Could  explanation be given to "who has not forgotten his or her 11 times tables long ago anyway?"


----------



## Mark Teacher

sunyaer said:


> What does " no corrective action was taken" mean here?
> 
> Could  explanation be given to "who has not forgotten his or her 11 times tables long ago anyway?"



I just mean if you forgot a long time ago, and had time to refresh your memory, but didn't, then you might be viewed as incompetent.  "It's A or B, I forgot which," may make one wonder why didn't you check again and find out before now?   Or, if you "forgot" my name at some time in the past, then why didn't you ask someone before meeting me again?  Ha ha, I just realized that the 11 times tables are very easy to remember, 22, 33, 44, etc.     It would have been better to say, "I forgot my 12 times tables"!


----------



## sunyaer

Mark Teacher said:


> ...
> 
> It would have been better to say, "I forgot my 12 times tables"!



Does this mean that it would have been better to say "I forgot my 12 times tables" than "I forget my 12 times tables", as the latter of which carries a sense of "I has not forgotten my 11 times tables long ago", which is not something that people would express?


----------



## JulianStuart

When people use "I forget which" in our examples above, we have no idea whether their forgetting of X happened recently or decades ago.  They simply mean that right now they can't recall X. X might refer to something that happened yesterday, or decades ago during their schooling, for example.


----------



## Mark Teacher

sunyaer said:


> Does this mean that it would have been better to say "I forgot my 12 times tables" than "I forget my 12 times tables", as the latter of which carries a sense of "I have not forgotten my 11 times tables long ago", which is not something that people would express?



Gee sunyaer, [scratching head] ahh,  ... It would not be particularly damaging to say, "I forgot my 12 times tables" because most everyone has.  I think saying, "I forget my 12 times tables," would seem inappropriate, since "forget" implies a sense of being recent.


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> When people use "I forget which" in our examples above, we have no idea whether their forgetting of X happened recently or decades ago.  They simply mean that right now they can't recall X. X might refer to something that happened yesterday, or decades ago during their schooling, for example.



Dear Julian, you don't realize how you are contradicting your previous feeling that saying, "I forget my 11 times tables," would be clearly wrong.  The view that I took, which sunyaer agreed with and offered support, clearly supports your view that something that was obviously forgotten many years ago simply sounds better with "forgot," than with "forget."  "Forget" sounds silly with something that almost certainly was not recently forgotten. So, ignoring of a time gap is not even desirable.   Yes, we have no idea when the person forgot something, especially when that person says, "I forget"; that's the point, the time lag is being ignored.  The person also may have no idea, except in cases where the information was obviously forgotten long ago.  Again, saying, " ... this or that, I forget ..." just ignores any time lag because the listener needs to know now, and you don't want the  person to think you forgot a long time ago.  Nobody needs to know when the act of actually forgetting took place to make this work.  Of course, this usage of "forget" is done subconsciously.


----------



## JulianStuart

JulianStuart said:


> *When people use "I forget which" in our examples above*,  we have no idea whether their forgetting of X happened recently or  decades ago.  They simply mean that right now they can't recall X. X  might refer to something that happened yesterday, or decades ago during  their schooling, for example.





Mark Teacher said:


> Dear Julian, you don't realize how you are  contradicting your previous feeling that saying, "I forget my 11 times  tables," would be clearly wrong.


 That's why I specifically chose the words I used - I have now bolded them above to attract your attention.  If you will go back, you will see that I used that example solely to make it clear that I was not prescriptively saying "You must always use forget" - to distinguish it for you, and anyone else still hanging around, from the "I forget which" usage in which people use the word to mean "I cannot currently recall which".



Mark Teacher said:


> JulianStuart said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is clear that when they say "I forget which" they simply mean "I am (currently) unable to recall which".
> 
> 
> 
> *No, that would not be correct!*
Click to expand...

Two possibilities exist for this assertion of "incorrectness":
1) you think the people who say this actually are able to recall but are, for some reason denying it  
or
2) you think they are saying to themselves: "I am using _forget_ in this manner to move the act  of information leaving my mind to the present by ignoring the time gap  between the time the information was really forgotten and the time of this  utterance because if it was a long time ago that the information left and I haven't made the effort to, or succeeded in recalling it, you might think I am incompetent."


JulianStuart said:


> The first two entries under "remember" in the dictionary,
> 
> 
> 
> 1. to become aware of (something forgotten) again; *bring back* to one's consciousness; *recall ->ACT
> *2. to *retain* (an idea, intention, etc) in one's conscious mind: _to remember Pythagoras' theorem, _*->STATE*
Click to expand...

I just added the red for clarity of discussion 


Mark Teacher said:


> When one says, "I can't remember," one is  actually saying he/she cannot get back into the state of "remembering."   That is only a declaration of not being able to get back into the  previous state.


  Does this mean you feel "to bring back" or "to recall" something is not an "act"?


Mark Teacher said:


> .  As, mentioned  previously, one cannot   have an act and a state contained within the  exact same word having the   same general meaning


.


Mark Teacher said:


> Anyway, you don't enter the state of not remembering. Remembering is the  real state, "Not being able to remember" means not being able to get  back into that state (that's exactly what the words say).  Negatives  states are not real, they are pseudo states that depend upon the  existence of the positive states.  Just compare the words:  *Remembering* is a state and *means to retain the information*, while *forgetting* simply means *the information is leaving the mind*. Forgetting" is *NOT* the opposite of remembering.  These opposites are *NOT mirror images* of one another.  This is the reason why one cannot be in a state of forget and why one cannot use "I forget" statively.



Your assertions there do not take note of the fact that the _single word_ "remember" is used to describe a state *or* an act. Your logic comes across, to me at least, as similar to "When a light is on it is in the real state, but when it is off, it is not really in a state - it's only a pseudo-state"!  I see _on_ and _off_ both as states.  That's why I have not accepted any logic based on the above line of, um , reasoning.



Mark Teacher said:


> "Forget" sounds silly with  something that almost certainly was not recently forgotten.


.  This is consistent with your view of "states" and your use of the word "forget".  The key issue for people trying to _explain how the word is used_ (both grammarians and learners of English) is _why so many people clearly don't find it silly_ in the "I forget which" examples.  As you rightly say "Of course, this usage of "forget" is done  subconsciously."  However, calling 90%+ of the users in print, the other posters who accept this usage, and dictionaries "wrong" is  plainly absurd and an abdication of one's responsibility to "explain"



Mark Teacher said:


> Again, saying, " ... this or that, I forget ..."  just ignores any time lag because the listener needs to know now, and  you don't want the  person to think you forgot a long time ago.  Nobody  needs to know when the act of actually forgetting took place to make  this work.  Of course, this usage of "forget" is done  subconsciously.


While that may be the case in some examples, I totally reject it as anything like a general statement. In a lot of the examples in the Ngrams, it is clear that the  information is* not *central to the discussion at hand and the  speaker/author simply wants the listener/reader to know that it was  either A or B and not any other possibility. For example in this: "I was  introduced by either my chemistry teacher or my physics teacher, I  forget which, to Feynman's famous quote  _'__Everything_ that living things do can be understood in terms of the _jiggling_ and _wiggling_ of _atoms_,'" - it is not relevant to my listener _which_ teacher it was, and it was some decades ago. In contrast,  "On my latest trip through the Southwest, we had just filled up near Kanab, in Glendale or Orderville, I forget which, when the "check engine" light came on." That could have been last week.  In neither case does the listener need to know - it's not really relevant to what happened to the engine - and there is no indication of the speaker feeling "incompetent" for not being able to provide an_ in_essential detail in the story.


Regardless of what you or I might think about whether remembering and forgetting are like opposites (and what we consider logical or grammatical) , it is clear that a very large number of people are using, and have used for over 200 years, the _single word_ "forget", on different occasions, sometimes to refer to a state and sometimes, obviously more commonly, to refer to an act.  They see the state as "being unable to recall the information" and the act as "losing the information".  A grammar book that does not acknowledge this would be, in my opinion, incomplete  A grammar book that says "This usage is simply incorrect" would go straight in the circular file.

I think I have just used up my life's allotment of time on this subject and will have nothing further to say.
That leaves you with the opportunity to have the last word.  Choose it carefully


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> That's why I specifically chose the words I used - I have now bolded them above to attract your attention.  If you will go back, you will see that I used that example solely to make it clear that I was not prescriptively saying "You must always use forget" - to distinguish it for you, and anyone else still hanging around, from the "I forget which" usage in which people use the word to mean "I cannot currently recall which".



Frankly, I'm a bit lost here Julian.  For what reason would you think that I thought you ever prescribed that someone must use "forget" in that sentence?   The point is why should you think it is incorrect to use "forget" in a sentence like "I forget my 11 times tables"?  The only reason that can be considered wrong is because the time gap being ignored would seem to make no sense in a situation where the information was forgotten long ago.  If "forget" means being in a state of "forget," then for what reason would saying, "I forgot my 11 times tables" be "obviously" wrong?  



> Two possibilities exist for this assertion of "incorrectness":
> 1) you think the people who say this actually are able to recall but are, for some reason denying it
> or
> 2) you think they are saying to themselves: "I am using _forget_ in this manner to move the act  of information leaving my mind to the present by ignoring the time gap  between the time the information was really forgotten and the time of this  utterance because if it was a long time ago that the information left and I haven't made the effort to, or succeeded in recalling it, you might think I am incompetent."



This is the fallacy of "excluded middle."  Certainly neither of those would be the reason for you being incorrect (but, actually I don't even understand the first one).  You equated ignoring the gap as being equivalent to just presently not being able to recall which.  That is completely missing the point.  Ignoring the time gap is just that, ignoring the time gap.  That just doesn't mean the same thing as being in a state of not being able to recall.  "Forget" is still active here, not stative at all.  And no, of course, people are not actively thinking all that.  It's just a subconscious reaction or in this case, has been an accepted expression is such a situation, where one would not wish to suggest something had been forgot long ago.   



> I just added the red for clarity of discussion
> Does this mean you feel "to bring back" or "to recall" something is not an "act"?
> 
> Your assertions there do not take note of the fact that the _single word_ "remember" is used to describe a state *or* an act. Your logic comes across, to me at least, as similar to "When a light is on it is in the real state, but when it is off, it is not really in a state - it's only a pseudo-state"!  I see _on_ and _off_ both as states.  That's why I have not accepted any logic based on the above line of, um , reasoning.



Why would you think that I would think that remember is not an act?  Yes, state *or* act, but not state *and* act.  The two aspects are not used at the same time, that's all.  If I remembered your name, I  now remember it.  There is no conflict at all.  To remember something does not necessitate the act of remembering first.  One need not to have forgotten something first to be in the state of remembering.  "Remember" as an act and "remember" as a state are mutually exclusive.  The two concepts are not present in the same word at the same time.  I just still remember your name from the time you told it to me.  I never had to recall it back to memory.  

As far as the light example is concerned, when the light is on, it's in that state.  When the light is off, it's in that state.  Notice the verb "is" doesn't change.  States are defined by the verb.  Both are legitimate states.  But, notice, if I try to negate one state: "The light is not on," that does not translate to the other state of being off.  The light could have brunt out, or have been removed.    There is no such state that is opposite to the light being on.  There are no antonym states.  The idea of an opposite state must refer back to the original state.  One can only say: "The light is not on."  Likewise, one can only say, "I cant' remember."  There is no opposite state called "forget."  One could use the word "disremember," and believe it or not, that's a real word, but it just refers back to the state of remember too.



> This is consistent with your view of "states" and your use of the word "forget".  The key issue for people trying to _explain how the word is used_ (both grammarians and learners of English) is _why so many people clearly don't find it silly_ in the "I forget which" examples.  As you rightly say "Of course, this usage of "forget" is done  subconsciously."  However, calling 90%+ of the users in print, the other posters who accept this usage, and dictionaries "wrong" is  plainly absurd and an abdication of one's responsibility to "explain"



No, it is not consistent with my views of states in the use of "forget."  To forget something or to be in that so called state of "forget" *requires* that something had to have been forgotten.  Unlike "remember," where the two concepts need not be together at the same time.  With "forget" taken to be a state, one absolutely *must *have had to have forgotten something first.  Thus, the two concepts are bound in the same word.  To try to spell it out, to use forget statively literally means: "I lost the information about your name and now its missing."  The act and the state are together.  No state can contain its own cause and be stative.  This is the reason why saying, "I have forgotten your name for a year now," is absurd.  The act of forgot cannot morph into the state of forget.  In the sentence, "I have remembered your name for a year now," there is no conflict at all, the act of remembering is just not there.  You just remember that person's name.    

As far as dictionaries are concerned, I was only able to find two out of the 30 listed on Onelook that even gave state examples of "forget," though most gave what seemed to be stative definitions.  This shows there is confusion and inconsistency regarding "forget" as stative.  Most dictionaries are just giving the definition for the result of having forgotten something when they say something like unable to remember. 




> While that may be the case in some examples, I totally reject it as anything like a general statement. In a lot of the examples in the Ngrams, it is clear that the  information is* not *central to the discussion at hand and the  speaker/author simply wants the listener/reader to know that it was  either A or B and not any other possibility. For example in this: "I was  introduced by either my chemistry teacher or my physics teacher, I  forget which, to Feynman's famous quote  _'__Everything_ that living things do can be understood in terms of the _jiggling_ and _wiggling_ of _atoms_,'" - it is not relevant to my listener _which_ teacher it was, and it was some decades ago. In contrast,  "On my latest trip through the Southwest, we had just filled up near Kanab, in Glendale or Orderville, I forget which, when the "check engine" light came on." That could have been last week.  In neither case does the listener need to know - it's not really relevant to what happened to the engine - and there is no indication of the speaker feeling "incompetent" for not being able to provide an_ in_essential detail in the story.



I'm just giving one possible reason, but certainly in both of your examples one is not trying to focus on being in some state of forget, but just ignoring the time gap.  By ignoring the time gap one minimizes the act of forgetting -- "...I forget which" and quickly moves on.  Why would anyone want to be expressing he or she is in some "state" of continual "forget"?   And, if that is the person's intent, it is just illogical.  No such state exists.



> Regardless of what you or I might think about whether remembering and forgetting are like opposites (and what we consider logical or grammatical) , it is clear that a very large number of people are using, and have used for over 200 years, the _single word_ "forget", on different occasions, sometimes to refer to a state and sometimes, obviously more commonly, to refer to an act.  They see the state as "being unable to recall the information" and the act as "losing the information".  A grammar book that does not acknowledge this would be, in my opinion, incomplete  A grammar book that says "This usage is simply incorrect" would go straight in the circular file.



Well, that says it all.  Even if a grammar book declared it to be incorrect, you would still not accept it as such.  So, what's the point?

What if a person just wanted to use "forget" to mean he was in a state of "forget" concerning his 11 times tables?  So, what makes that wrong to you?  There has to be a reason for sensing that doesn't make sense.  If forget can be stative, why in the world should it not always work in all situations?  Why even bother with the word "forgot" at all?   And, why does "I have forgotten your name ever since I met you,"  make no sense at all.  It's because "forget" isn't stative.  All verbs always work in all tenses.


----------



## Mark Teacher

> being unable to recall the information



Using "forget" to simply mean "being unable to recall" is probably the best argument for viewing "forget" as being used statively, but is that a true state?  If I am unable to call my friend, am I in what is properly termed a state because I can't do something?  Think of all the things you can't do.  I am unable to climb Mt. Everest, so am I eternally in a state of not being able to do that, or go to the moon, or any of a million other things?  "For-get" in its active aspect means information is leaving, can we just switch that around at whim and have it also mean unable to get information back?  You have a sink with water in it, you pull the plug, the water goes down the drain: that's forget.  Now you try to pump the water back up into the sink, but can't: that's unable to recall.  Could the same exact word mean both of those two things?


----------



## sunyaer

Let me take out the whole paragraph from the article _The English Present Tense _By Ronald W. Langacker (University of California, San Diego), which I have referenced earlier in this thread.

"What about the play-by-play mode of speech used by sportscasters? ...In the context of a sporting event, they are also quite stereotyped, hence the announcer has a good idea of what is likely to transpire at any instant. It is therefore possible to shadow the events fairly closely, sometimes even anticipating and describing them simultaneously with their occurrence. The goal at least is to come as close as possible to coincident description. The conventions of play-by-play reporting rest on either the fiction that this is feasible or else the tolerance of a certain time-lag."

Rather than interpreting "I forget" as "I forgot", "I forget your name" can be understood as: when you say "I forget your name", you are in a position of the *sportscaster *describing the action (forget) of yourself (the player), in which you are anticipating and describing your action simultaneously with its occurrence. 

We can look back ("I forget" as "I forgot") or look forward (anticipating) in understanding "I forget", the latter making "I forget" seem as being stative.


----------



## JulianStuart

OK, I said I would have nothing _further_ to say, but this is only a succint recapitulation of what I have _already_ said about the key points.





Mark Teacher said:


> Using "forget" to simply mean "being unable to recall" is probably the best argument for viewing "forget" as being used statively,


 Yes - the starting point for this discussion, with "I forget which" as the exemplar. 





Mark Teacher said:


> You have a sink with water in it, you pull the plug, the water goes down the drain: that's forget.  Now you try to pump the water back up into the sink, but can't: that's unable to recall.  Could the same exact word mean both of those two things?


Useful analogy. I see it as possible with the word "remember"!  Just run the clock backwards in your analogy. When you pump the water back up to the sink, that is (the act of) remembering. When the water is retained in the sink, that is (the state of) remembering.


----------



## Mark Teacher

sunyaer said:


> *the tolerance of a certain time-lag.*
> 
> Rather than interpreting "I forget" as "I forgot", "I forget your name" can be understood as: when you say "I forget your name", you are in a position of the *sportscaster *describing the action (forget) of yourself (the player), in which you are anticipating and describing your action simultaneously with its occurrence.
> 
> We can look back ("I forget" as "I forgot") or look forward (anticipating) in understanding "I forget", the latter making "I forget" seem as being stative.



We always forget in the past, forget can only mean another way of saying forgot.  If there is a time lag that one wants to ignore that "seems" to extend into the future due to the speed of the action, then that time lag is ignored as well.  Nobody can actually change the entropy driven passage of time or reverse the principles of causality through one's language.  The act of forgetting must always occur in the past.  The act forget is the act of forget; it represents information loss.  Nobody can be in the state of the act.


----------



## Forero

To me "I forget your name" is dismissive, as if I can't help forgetting your name (happens all the time, doesn't it). "I forgot your name" and "I have forgotten your name" are just statements of fact. "I forgot your name" recounts an event in the past, whereas "I have forgotten your name" says the forgetting is present history (suggesting I need some help remembering your name).


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> OK, I said I would have nothing _further_ to say, but this is only a succint recapitulation of what I have _already_ said about the key points. Yes - the starting point for this discussion, with "I forget which" as the exemplar. Useful analogy. I see it as possible with the word "remember"!  Just run the clock backwards in your analogy. When you pump the water back up to the sink, that is (the act of) remembering. When the water is retained in the sink, that is (the state of) remembering.



I'm certain you could see the flaw in your reverse analogy if you just wanted to.  In your reverse analogy there is no attempt to reverse the flow of the water.  I'll need to add one more term, "forgotten," to draw a proper parallel reverse analogy.  

 Water goes down = forgetting
Water is down = forgotten
 Water can't go back up = unable to remember (stative forget).  The water here is attempting to change direction.  How can the same word mean both going down and not being able to go back up?  You analogy must have all the same elements.

Your reverse analogy:
 Water goes up, remembering 
 Water is retained, remembering.  No problem, and anyway the act of remembering and the state of remembering are not contained within the same word at the same time*.   

 Here is a proper reverse analogy:* 
 water is pumped up = remembering (like forgetting)
water is retained = remembered (like forgotten)
 water cannot be drained back down = cannot be forgotten or disremembered.  

 So the word "remember" would also have to mean *unable to forget *for there to be a parallel, just like "forget" must mean *unable to remember.* 

*Condensed version of both forget and remember:*
 forget = act +unable to remember = state ~ Is there any one state word that can mean both?
 remember = act +unable to forget = state ~ Is there any one state word that can mean both?


----------



## Mark Teacher

Forero said:


> To me "I forget your name" is dismissive, as if I can't help forgetting your name (happens all the time, doesn't it). "I forgot your name" and "I have forgotten your name" are just statements of fact. "I forgot your name" recounts an event in the past, whereas "I have forgotten your name" says the forgetting is present history (suggesting I need some help remembering your name).



Agreed!  So, "forget" here is still dynamic.  Can you challenge yourself and try to give an example of "forget" supposedly stative that cannot be interpreted to be either dismissive or an ignoring of the time gap?


----------



## sunyaer

Forero said:


> To me "I forget your name" is dismissive, as if I can't help forgetting your name (happens all the time, doesn't it).
> 
> ...



Agreed.


----------



## Mark Teacher

sunyaer said:


> Agreed.



So now we have two usages of "forget" that may seem stative, but are actually dynamic.

*Consider this*: I can say, "I don't remember your name," to mean I have forgotten it, but can I say, "I don't forget you name," to mean I have remembered it?    I can easily negate the state of "remember,"  but I cannot do this with the so called state of "forget." 

*Also, consider this*:
"Don't forget to _______."    (act)
"Don't remember to _______."   (state)


----------



## sunyaer

Mark Teacher said:


> So now we have two usages of "forget" that may seem stative, but are actually dynamic.
> ...



Yes, still dynamic. When you say "I forget your name", you are describing the act of "forgetting"  simultaneously with its occurrence. (Refer to my post #86) Think about this: "I forget your name, it is almost coming to my lips, but still slipping my mind."


----------



## Einstein

Mark Teacher said:


> *Also, consider this*:
> "Don't forget to _______."    (act)
> "Don't remember to _______."   (state)


This in itself doesn't prove much. If I don't want someone to do something, I will hardly remind him of it by saying "don't remember". But I might easily say to someone else, "I hope he doesn't remember to call Susan" (because he is supposed to call her, but I would rather he didn't). Admittedly it's not as common as "I hope he forgets", but it's perfectly logical; it suggests that for the moment he's probably not thinking about calling her and I hope it doesn't come to mind.


----------



## Mark Teacher

Einstein said:


> This in itself doesn't prove much. If I don't want someone to do something, I will hardly remind him of it by saying "don't remember". But I might easily say to someone else, "I hope he doesn't remember to call Susan" (because he is supposed to call her, but I would rather he didn't). Admittedly it's not as common as "I hope he forgets", but it's perfectly logical; it suggests that for the moment he's probably not thinking about calling her and I hope it doesn't come to mind.



Yes, I fully agree.  I might even say, "I hope he/she doesn't remember my phone number," but you see that is not imperative, nor are your examples.  States don't usually take imperative commands, acts do.   Further examples: "Stop singing," "Don't run in the house"; but "Don't like me," or "Don't own me money," don't work.  Thanks for your comments and interest though.


----------



## Mark Teacher

sunyaer said:


> Yes, still dynamic. When you say "I forget your name", you are describing the act of "forgetting"  simultaneously with its occurrence. (Refer to my post #86) Think about this: "I forget your name, it is almost coming to my lips, but still slipping my mind."



Yes, I agree Sun (may I call you Sun?)  But, you also said "the latter (anticipating) making 'I forget' seem as being *stative*."  This I don't agree with.


----------



## Mark Teacher

"forget . . . pt. forgot, pp. forgotten, *arch. and dial.* forgot fail to remember."

Can anyone explain what arch. and dial. mean in the above?  Thanks in advance.


----------



## Liam Lew's

As you might know the abbreviations stand for archaic and dialectal. I don't understand how it's meant either, but I haven't carefully analysed the whole quote.

Please remember to name the source when you quote something. 
You've quoted a member on another forum, who has in turn quoted the Oxford dictionary of English Etymology.
Indeed the end of the quote provides some good etymological points about "forget" being partially stative. It says that one of the senses of "forget" is miss one's hold on the mind.

For everybody else, you'll find the post on the other forum here.


----------



## JulianStuart

Mark, in your first post you said, and subsequently the Ngrams confirmed this,





Mark Teacher said:


> ... you have to be aware there is much historical  usage of "forget" in the stative.


You dismissed the opinions of dictionaries, other posters and evidence of extensive usage with words to the effect that "usage is not relevant to grammar" 
In your second post to the thread you said


Mark Teacher said:


> “Forget” cannot be a stative verb for the simple reason that ...*no state can begin with an act. *





> re•mem•ber _/rɪˈmɛmbɚ/_  v.
> 
> to recall to the mind;
> to keep in mind; remain aware of:


No-one has yet rejected the idea that the word remember is used for both the _act_, and then _the state_ thereafter. So there is at least one state that _can_ begin with an act.  I see this assertion as the main weakness in your "logic" position and it hampers the development of a useful explanation (i.e., grammar rule) of the extensive usage of "I forget ..." in a stative mode to mean "I currently am unable to recall". To claim it is used in that mode is _obviously not intended to simultaneously claim_ that _it is a full-fledged "stative verb" outside such usage._  Most of your points seem aimed at addressing the latter claim, that no-one has actually made.


Mark Teacher said:


> So the word "remember" would also have to mean *unable to forget *for there to be a parallel, just like "forget" must mean *unable to remember.*


I would submit it _does_ mean "_Currently_ unable to forget"!  In the real world, as well as the musical world, "Unforgettable" means "I can't get you out of my mind!" i.e. I am in the state of remembering, whether I want to be or not

Well, this thread is almost exactly the same number of posts as the "one at the other site" (Thanks Liam!) and has much the same flavour.  I expect the outcome will be the same!


----------



## Mark Teacher

Liam Lew's said:


> As you might know the abbreviations stand for archaic and dialectal. I don't understand how it's meant either, but I haven't carefully analysed the whole quote.
> 
> Please remember to name the source when you quote something.
> You've quoted a member on another forum, who has in turn quoted the Oxford dictionary of English Etymology.
> Indeed the end of the quote provides some good etymological points about "forget" being partially stative. It says that one of the senses of "forget" is miss one's hold on the mind.
> 
> For everybody else, you'll find the post on the other forum here.



I didn't give the source because I just wanted to know what the abbreviations meant!   That's different from posing it for debate purposes.  But now, yes, that's very telling.  Such usage is considered both *archaic *and *dialectal*.  Is there anything that could be more evident that "forgot" meaning "not able to recall" in not standard English?    

It says "miss or lose one's hold on the mind."   So, just what is "miss" supposed to mean?  If "miss" is supposed to mean "without," as in I_'m missing my glasses,_ then how does that make sense in the above sentence: "_to be without _one's hold on the mind"?  And, besides, "miss" is just not part of the word; "for" meant _lose_.  The word was never changed to "missget."  

In the following it is crystal clear just what "forget" was meant to mean.  A later perversion of the obvious intended meaning cannot defeat what the syllables factually meant in the word and STILL mean all the time.  

*forget* [OE] From a formal point of view, _forget_ is exactly what it seems -- a combination of _for_ and _get_. However, this is not the modern English preposition _for_, but a prefix that in former times was a live building block of the language, denoting *negation or exclusion*. So here, _forget_'s Germanic ancestor *_fergetan_ meant literally 'not get', hence 'lose one's hold on' and metaphorically 'lose one's memory of'.

-- Ayto, John. _Word Origins: The Hidden Histories of English Words from A to Z_. A&C Black Publishers: London, 2005.


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> Mark, in your first post you said, and subsequently the Ngrams confirmed this,
> You dismissed the opinions of dictionaries, other posters and evidence of extensive usage with words to the effect that "usage is not relevant to grammar"
> In your second post to the thread you said
> 
> No-one has yet rejected the idea that the word remember is used for both the _act_, and then _the state_ thereafter. So there is at least one state that _can_ begin with an act.  I see this assertion as the main weakness in your "logic" position and it hampers the development of a useful explanation (i.e., grammar rule) of the extensive usage of "I forget ..." in a stative mode to mean "I currently am unable to recall". To claim it is used in that mode is _obviously not intended to simultaneously claim_ that _it is a full-fledged "stative verb" outside such usage._  Most of your points seem aimed at addressing the latter claim, that no-one has actually made.
> I would submit it _does_ mean "_Currently_ unable to forget"!  In the real world, as well as the musical world, "Unforgettable" means "I can't get you out of my mind!" i.e. I am in the state of remembering, whether I want to be or not
> 
> Well, this thread is almost exactly the same number of posts as the "one at the other site" (Thanks Liam!) and has much the same flavour.  I expect the outcome will be the same!



Usage that doesn't make sense IS irrelevant to grammar.  That is why double negatives are not considered grammatical, though many people use them.  

There was no outcome on the other site.

Julian, we have been through this over and over and over and over  "Remember" does not use the stative remember and the dynamic remember in the same word *at the same time*.  If I say, "I remember" your name, that in no way means I forgot it and then remembered it again (recalled back memory). 

Again, in order to remember something, *one did not need to have forgotten something first*.  But, in order to forget something, *one did indeed need to forget something first*.  Thus, the act and the state are not contained in "remember" at the *same time;* but in "forget" the act and the state do, in fact, have to be contained within the same word.  This is an impossibility, and exactly why its use in the present perfect makes no sense: _I have forgotten your name for a long time now_.  The act of forgetting and the state of forgetting are contradicting one another making the sentence sound very strange and awkward.  It's an illogical statement.

I see nothing wrong with saying "unforgettable"; that clearly shows "forget" to be dynamic.  I can't forget (dynamic) -- I can't preform that dynamic act.  The information will always remain in my mind.


----------



## JulianStuart

Mark Teacher said:


> Usage that doesn't make sense IS irrelevant to grammar.


 If it is used by >90% of the speakers (as the stative use in "I forget which", "I forget his name", etc.) , then it is the "pronouncement" on grammar (or the pronouncer) that is irrelevant.


Mark Teacher said:


> There was no outcome on the other site.


 Exactly



Mark Teacher said:


> Julian, we have been through this over and over and over and over  "Remember" does not use the stative remember and the dynamic remember in the same word *at the same time*.  If I say, "I remember" your name, that in no way means I forgot it and then remembered it again (recalled back memory).


 Only now do you introduce the "at the same time" herring.  "I forget which" does not use the stative and active "forget" at the same time either!!!! I never said either remember or forget use both modes at the same time - your fiction. Is it even possible to use one word in both modes at the same time, I wonder.



Mark Teacher said:


> Again, in order to remember something, *one did not need to have forgotten something first*.  But, in order to forget something, *one did indeed need to forget something first*.  Thus, the act and the state are not contained in "remember" at the *same time;* but in "forget" the act and the state do, in fact, have to be contained within the same word.  This is an impossibility, and exactly why its use in the present perfect makes no sense: _I have forgotten your name for a long time now_.  The act of forgetting and the state of forgetting are contradicting one another making the sentence sound very strange and awkward.  It's an illogical statement.


 I don't know where you get the idea that "in "forget" the act and the state do, *in fact*, have to be contained within the same word."  _I_ call _that_ illogical  You must have missed the part about "I forget which" (etc) being *the* stative usage, and where no-one is claiming that forget is always stative (thus an example using "I have forgotten ..." is irrelevant)!!!  I presume you are unable to live with the concept that "Sometimes the word forget is and sometimes it isn't used in a "stative" way - at different times." 

E.g., I always forget the combination of a new safe within a day of purchase.  The current one is 77-22-12 or 77-22-21, I forget which.



Mark Teacher said:


> I see nothing wrong with saying "unforgettable"; that clearly shows "forget" to be dynamic.  I can't forget (dynamic) -- I can't preform that dynamic act.  The information will always remain in my mind.


I did not say there was anything wrong with saying unforgettable, so I am not sure why you are justifying it!! That comment does not, however, address the proposition I raised - that _remember_ can mean being in a state in which you are unable to forget, the counterpart to "forget" (in the usage "I forget which" - not in general usage) describing a state in which you are unable to remember. * There is no act involved when someone says "I forget which" .*


----------



## Mark Teacher

JulianStuart said:


> If it is used by >90% of the speakers (as the stative use in "I forget which", "I forget his name", etc.) , then it is the "pronouncement" on grammar (or the pronouncer) that is irrelevant.
> Exactly



As already explained before in the quote that Sun was so kind to provide, that in such a use it is most likely that the time gap is just being ignored, and the word "forget" is actually still being used dynamically.  This view is clearly supported by your own claim that "forget" would be incorrectly used in "I forget my 11 times table," for the only justification for "forget" being disallowed in that sentence is that the time gap is too obvious to ignore.   



> Only now do you introduce the "at the same time" herring.  "I forget which" does not use the stative and active "forget" at the same time either!!!! I never said either remember or forget use both modes at the same time - your fiction. Is it even possible to use one word in both modes at the same time, I wonder.



I never said YOU claimed it, and I introduced this "red herring" a long time ago.  I said that "remember" doesn't exist in both aspects at the some time.  There is no way for it not too.  One cannot be in a state of "forget" without having forgotten something first.  This does not hold for "remember."  One can most certainly remember something without the necessity of having had to have remembered something first.  It's just the logic of the  words.



> I don't know where you get the idea that "in "forget" the act and the state do, *in fact*, have to be contained within the same word."  _I_ call _that_ illogical  You must have missed the part about "I forget which" (etc) being *the* stative usage, and where no-one is claiming that forget is always stative (thus an example using "I have forgotten ..." is irrelevant)!!!  I presume you are unable to live with the concept that "Sometimes the word forget is and sometimes it isn't used in a "stative" way - at different times."
> 
> E.g., I always forget the combination of a new safe within a day of purchase.  The current one is 77-22-12 or 77-22-21, I forget which.



Again for the umpteenth time: It is impossible to get to this so-called stative use of _forget_, without having had to have forgotten something first.  *The act cannot be disassociated from the state*.  Your first example sentence is dynamic, as you intended it to be; and your second sentence dynamic too.  One is just ignoring the time lag.

Obviously, "forget" can be used in something other than a stative sense.  It is a dynamic verb: _I forget my wallet every time I leave the house.  
_


> I did not say there was anything wrong with saying unforgettable, so I am not sure why you are justifying it!! That comment does not, however, address the proposition I raised - that _remember_ can mean being in a state in which you are unable to forget, the counterpart to "forget" (in the usage "I forget which" - not in general usage) describing a state in which you are unable to remember. * There is no act involved when someone says "I forget which" .*



You seemed to be claiming "unforgettable" was being used statively. Aside from it being an adjective and not a verb, it is describing that the act of forgetting cannot be accomplished. There is nothing wrong with its usage* from my perspective (so I agree with you), *but it is not being used statively -- it's not even a verb -- it's only indicating that the state of *remember *cannot be left*.   "Unforgettable"* has no relivance to the issue. 

 "I forget" as stative, meaning *unable to remember*," has already been painstakingly addressed in my _water in the sink _analogy.  You must have known something first, then have forgotten it, but are unable to get that information back.  This is in no way a parallel to *unable to forget*, which merely means information contained within one's mind is not able to be lost - you just can't unplug the sink.  You see mirror image parallels where none exist.


----------



## boozer

Wow, what a nice short thread.  I think most people would agree that remembering can be a state - the state of being (being is a state, no doubt) able to recall some information. Once you leave this state (the state of remembering) you must, logically, enter a new state - the state of not remembering or... forgetting. The fact that 'the act of leaving the state of remembering' and 'the state of not remembering' itself bear the same name is just a coincidence. The same goes for the word 'remember', which expresses both the act and state of remembering. In that sense, remember and forget seem to be a perfectly symmetrical pair of antonyms.


----------



## Forero

I suppose "I forget your name" might mean "Your name escapes me right now" / "I don't at this time remember your name" / "I don't really know your name yet".

But in the original context it still sounds to me more like something that keeps happening or happens over a period of time than like something about the present moment.


----------



## sunyaer

boozer said:


> ...
> The fact that 'the act of leaving the state of remembering' and 'the state of not remembering' itself bear the same name is just a coincidence.
> 
> ...



'the act of leaving the state of remembering' is the entry point to ''the state of not remembering'. Basically, they are not the same thing.



Forero said:


> I suppose "I forget your name" might mean "Your name escapes me right now" / "I don't at this time remember your name" / "I don't really know your name yet".
> 
> But in the original context it still sounds to me more like something that keeps happening or happens over a period of time than like something about the present moment.



In what context could  "I don't really know your name yet" be meant?

In the original context, "Your name escapes me right now" / "I don't at this time remember your name" make more sense to me. There is no implication for the sense of something happening over a period of time.


----------



## boozer

sunyaer said:


> 'the act of leaving the state of remembering' is the entry point to ''the state of not remembering'. Basically, they are not the same thing..


Indeed, they correspond to the stative and action senses of 'forget'.


----------



## JulianStuart

Forero said:


> But in the original context it still sounds to me more like something that keeps happening or happens over a period of time than like something about the present moment.



Thank you for highlighting the original question!

A consensus on the OP was reached early on in the thread, and your comment is in line with it - it sounds disrespectful to say "I forget your name" because it might be interpreted by the listener, who is obviously present, as though it carries the same intended meaning as the use of forget in the first sentence:





> I am so bad with numbers that  regularly forget the combination of a new safe within a day of purchase. The current one is 77-22-12 or 77-22-21, I forget which.



However, most of this thread has been discussing whether the use of forget in the second sentence, as described in dictionaries and documented in usage patterns ("I forget X" where X is "which", "his name", "his address" etc.), carries an intended meaning other than "I currently am unable to remember X".  To me, this meaning is the only possible one in all the examples I have seen.  Thus, the word is being used _differently_ in the two situations. Boozer has just decrbed the situation as "symmetrical" to the way in which "remember" is used diffeently in different situations. We (and others above) are comfortable with this as an explanation for the two uses of forget in the situations under discussion (i.e., not in all situations).  

I have to confess I have been baffled by the complexity of Mark's analogy (as perhaps Occam would have been), so here's my "waterless, pumpless, gravityless" version.

There are two notional compartments in the brain where information resides: one where the speaker can "see" it (or has free access to it) and another where they _currently_ can't see or access it.  

When you _remember_ (the act) something  the information moves from the inaccessible compartment to the accessible one.  

Correspondingly, when you _forget_ (the act) something it moves from the accessible to the inaccessible compartment.  

The information moves in opposite directions for the two acts - hence the _concept_ of forget being the opposite of remember and vice versa.

Now, we have the situation where we want to describe the _state_ where the information is accessible (retained, we continue to be aware of its presence in the accessible compartment) and we use the eek same word, "remember" for this _state_, as we do for the _act_.  The word remember is also used to describe information that may never have left, but which was acquired in the past (a.k.a. all information enters the "system" once).  Thus the state refers to the presence of the information in the accessible compartment, whether or not it was previously forgotten.  In that state, we are currently able to recall the information. 

Then the converse state is where the information is inaccessible: the "I am currently unable to recall X" situation.  What word makes sense to use for this state? The concept of opposites above suggests that "I forget" should be widely used as the opposite of "I remember" but in many instances, probably the vast majority, that use is eschewed. It is clearly common and logical to say "I have forgotten X". However, for some reason, when you look at the data, you find that "I forget X" is much more common (10x) in situations where X is of a _certain_ type of information!  The question at hand is: Why is this?  Mark seems focused on justifying why he _feels_ they are "incorrect" or "illogical", from a prescriptivist perspective (usage be damned) while I have been trying to understand the observation and seek an explanation from a descriptivist perspective.  

These two perspectives frequently don't reach resolution and that's why I said the outcome will be the same as in the other discussion - stalemate!  Let the readers decide for themselves


----------



## Mark Teacher

boozer said:


> Wow, what a nice short thread.  I think most people would agree that remembering can be a state - the state of being (being is a state, no doubt) able to recall some information. Once you leave this state (the state of remembering) you must, logically, enter a new state - the state of not remembering or... forgetting. The fact that 'the act of leaving the state of remembering' and 'the state of not remembering' itself bear the same name is just a coincidence. The same goes for the word 'remember', which expresses both the act and state of remembering. In that sense, remember and forget seem to be a perfectly symmetrical pair of antonyms.



Remember is a state, the act of forgetting is leaving that state.  One is then in the state of forget.  One then goes into an act of remembering and then goes back to a state of remember.   Simple?  Yes.   

No.   When in the state of forget, one had to have forgotten something, but the state of remember does not require that something had to have been remembered first (even if it was).  *That's the BIG difference*.  If I say "I remember your name," that does not mean I "remembered" it first.  So, the act and the state remain independent.  Even if you factually did have to remember the name first, that act is not reflected in the word "remember" because it is not required to have remembered something first to be remembering something.  On the other hand,  If I say "I forget you name," I absolutely *had* to have forgotten it first.  The act and the state are not independent; they are inseparable.  That is why a person cannot logically be in a state of forget, though it is possible to be in a state of remember.  This is why one can say "I've always remembered your name," but cannot say, "I've always forgotten your name."  The act of remember does not have to be associated with the state of remember, but the act of forget does have to be associated with the state of forget.   I can easily say "I don't remember," to mean I forgot; but it's impossible to say "I don't forget," to mean I remembered.  Remember can be a state segregated from its causal act.  Forget, if a state, would not be able to be segregated from its causal act.  There is no way a person can say, "I don't forget your name," to mean "I remember your name" because the act and the state of forget cannot be separated.  The statement just makes no sense.  This can be seen in the present perfect as well; One can say, "I have always remembered your name," but cannot say, "I have always forgotten your name."  With remember, the act of remembering can be disassociated from the state because the act is not requisite to the state; but with forget, the act of forgetting cannot be disassociated from the state because the act is requisite to the state.   

The whole issue is just that simple: remembered (act) and remember (state) can be separated, but forgot (act) and forget (state) cannot be separated.


----------



## sunyaer

JulianStuart said:


> ...
> 
> - it sounds disrespectful to say "I forget your name" because it might be interpreted by the listener, who is obviously present, as though it carries the same intended meaning as the use of forget in the first sentence:
> 
> ...



How would the listener interpret "I forget your name", leading to disrespectful sense?


----------



## Loob

Hi sunyaer

I agree with the suggestion that's been made by both Julian and Forero that "I forget your name" sounds dismissive/disrespectful. Copyright, too, way back in post 11, commented that the socially-expected form would be "I've forgotten your name".

I'm fairly sure that when I say things like "It was either John or Fred, I forget which" the sub-text is .... _"and it doesn't really matter that I can't remember"._

That is, to me, why I wouldn't say "I'm sorry, I forget your name".  It would imply that forgetting your name is not a big deal.


----------



## Cagey

This thread is being put to rest. 

There is general agreement about one aspect of the original question -- the 'tone' of "I forget your name."   (Thank you, Loob, for the summary.  )

There will apparently never be consensus on the other aspect the question -- whether 'forget' is a ever a stative verb, and what that means for the grammatical acceptability or otherwise of the construction "I forget your name."

This thread is closed. 

Thank you to everyone who participated.

Cagey, moderator.


----------

