# I would thou wert



## TroubleEnglish

Does any of you understand this sentence?

*I would thou wert so happy by thy stay*

I took it from Romeo and Juliet. 

*I would want ...

I would hate ...

I would think ...*

Or what?

And what is the difference between 

*Thou wast*
*Thou wert*

I also read there was a possibility to say:

*Thou were*

Is it true or no?


----------



## PaulQ

TroubleEnglish said:


> I would thou wert so happy by thy stay


If you are going to quote a sentence - *quote the whole sentence, and give some context.*

It is essential to understand that, without context, even Modern English can be incomprehensible.

Lord Montague and his wife (Romeo's parents) are speaking with their nephew Benvolio (Romeo's friend and cousin) about Romeo's apparent depression when Romeo approaches them. Benvolio asks his uncle Montague to leave as Benvolio wants to know what is troubling Romeo:

Just before Lord Montague leaves, he says
_Montague: "I would thou wert so happy by thy stay to hear true shrift."_

I don't think that many people would understand it without an explanation - mainly because of the word "shrift" and _"by thy stay_". However, once the explanation had been given they would understand why it has the meaning that it does.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

PaulQ said:


> If you are going to quote a sentence - *quote the whole sentence, and give some context.*
> 
> It is essential to understand that, without context, even Modern English can be incomprehensible.
> 
> Lord Montague and his wife (Romeo's parents) are speaking with their nephew Benvolio (Romeo's friend and cousin) about Romeo's apparent depression when Romeo approaches them. Benvolio asks his uncle Montague to leave as Benvolio wants to know what is troubling Romeo:
> 
> Just before Lord Montague leaves, he says
> _Montague: "I would thou wert so happy by thy stay to hear true shrift."_
> 
> I don't think that many people would understand it without an explanation - mainly because of the word "shrift" and _"by thy stay_". However, once the explanation had been given they would understand why it has the meaning that it does.



But isn't it missing a verb between *"would"* and *"thou"*?

And also, can we say:

_Benvolio asks his uncle Montague to leave *as* Benvolio wants to know what is troubling Romeo:_

like

_Benvolio asks his uncle Montague to leave *because* Benvolio wants to know what is troubling Romeo _?


----------



## Uncle Jack

TroubleEnglish said:


> And what is the difference between
> 
> *Thou wast
> Thou wert*


"Wert" appears to have supplanted "wast" as the past indicative, perhaps the most famous example being in _To a Skylark_ by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1820):
Hail to thee, blithe Spirit!
Bird thou never wert,
That from Heaven, or near it,
Pourest thy full heart
In profuse strains of unpremeditated art.​
However, the translators of the Authorised Version of the Bible (1611) used "wast" for the past indicative and "wert" for the past subjunctive:
Who told thee that thou wast naked? [Genesis 3:11]
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. [Revelation 3:15]​It is the past subjunctive that you have in the quote from _Romeo and Juliet_.



TroubleEnglish said:


> But isn't it missing a verb between *"would"* and *"thou"*?


No. "Will" is a main verb, meaning desire or wish for. OED marks it as obsolete.

<Removed because this question has now got its own thread. Nat>


----------



## natkretep

Uncle Jack said:


> No. "Will" is a main verb, meaning desire or wish for. OED marks it as obsolete.


I suppose it survives in the phrase 'if you will'.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Uncle Jack said:


> "Wert" appears to have supplanted "wast" as the past indicative, perhaps the most famous example being in _To a Skylark_ by Percy Bysshe Shelley (1820):
> Hail to thee, blithe Spirit!
> Bird thou never wert,
> That from Heaven, or near it,
> Pourest thy full heart
> In profuse strains of unpremeditated art.​
> However, the translators of the Authorised Version of the Bible (1611) used "wast" for the past indicative and "wert" for the past subjunctive:
> Who told thee that thou wast naked? [Genesis 3:11]
> I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. [Revelation 3:15]​It is the past subjunctive that you have in the quote from _Romeo and Juliet_.
> 
> No. "Will" is a main verb, meaning desire or wish for. OED marks it as obsolete.
> 
> <Removed because this question has now got its own thread. Nat>





natkretep said:


> I suppose it survives in the phrase 'if you will'.



You mean we have *"will"* which is like *"want"* or *"wish"*? And in the past *"will"* will be *"would"*?

*I wish you were here* - I will you were here

We can say in the past:

*I wished you had been here - I would you had been here*

So, *"wert"* = *"had been"* ?

If so, why do they say:

*I would thou wert here*

and not

*I would thou hadst been here *?


----------



## Uncle Jack

"Will" is not a direct replacement for "wish"; the two words are used differently, and in any case OED says "wish for". However, the most noticeable difference is with tense, and "I wish you were here" becomes "I would you were here", with "will" matching the tense of "be". 

Regarding the subjunctive "wert", in modern English, we may still use the past subjunctive in this situation ("I wish he were here"), although these days the past indicative is often used instead, in BrE at any rate ("I wish he was here").

There is nothing wrong with "I would thou hadst been here", but it refers to a time in the past. "I would thou wert here" refers to now.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Uncle Jack said:


> "Will" is not a direct replacement for "wish"; the two words are used differently, and in any case OED says "wish for". However, the most noticeable difference is with tense, and "I wish you were here" becomes "I would you were here", with "will" matching the tense of "be".
> 
> Regarding the subjunctive "wert", in modern English, we may still use the past subjunctive in this situation ("I wish he were here"), although these days the past indicative is often used instead, in BrE at any rate ("I wish he was here").
> 
> There is nothing wrong with "I would thou hadst been here", but it refers to a time in the past. "I would thou wert here" refers to now.



How is

*I would you were here*

being understood?

Like

*I want you to be here*?

or like

*I wanted you to be here*?

And can this phrase be used now, in the modern English? Does it have sense or you gave just an analogy of what it was like before mixing Early English and the current one?

Just it's strange for me to use *"would"* with no other verbs. The *"would"* itself has always been like a link verb for me, which has another verb like:

*I would like you

I would hate you

I would wait for you*

But there it's missing.

Can I say then:

*I would you were here = I wished you were here*, if *"would"* is the past form of something or i dunno what...


----------



## Thomas Tompion

TroubleEnglish said:


> How is
> 
> *I would you were here*
> 
> being understood?
> 
> Like
> 
> *I want you to be here ?*[...]


There's more to it: you are not here and I am sorry that you aren't; I'd like you to be here.

_I want you to be here _can mean_ I wish you to come _(in the future).


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Thomas Tompion said:


> There's more to it: you are not here and I am sorry that you aren't; I'd like you to be here.
> 
> _I want you to be here _can mean_ I wish you to come _(in the future).



I completely fathom 

*I want you to be here*
_
and
_
*I wish you to come*

I don't fathom:

*I would you were here*

Is it used in the curernt English? What is the verb "would" in the modern English with such usage?

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel, it's possible to paint the text! Wooow! I shall use it...

*P.S. But the smile collection is disastrously poor...*


----------



## AnythingGoes

TroubleEnglish said:


> I don't fathom:
> 
> *I would you were here*
> 
> Is it used in the curernt English?


It's an archaic form which hasn't been used for centuries. In modern English you'd say _I wish you were here. _


----------



## TroubleEnglish

AnythingGoes said:


> It's an archaic form which hasn't been used for centuries. In modern English you'd say _I wish you were here. _



I adore everything what hasn't been availed of for centuries...

But okay, if you equal

*I would you were here*

to

*I wish you were here*

What analogy would be for

*I wished you had been here* ?


----------



## lingobingo

I haven’t read all the above (life’s too short), but in case it hasn’t already been said, I would  point out that the use of *would* to mean “I wish” normally does not state a subject – it’s like saying “if only”.

Would that that were true! (= I wish/if only it were)

Would that she had known (= I wish/if only she had)

Would that I could be of more help (= I wish/if only I could)​


----------



## AnythingGoes

lingobingo said:


> I haven’t read all the above (life’s too short), but in case it hasn’t already been said, I would  point out that the use of *would* to mean “I wish” normally does not state a subject – it’s like saying “if only”.
> 
> Would that that were true! (= I wish/if only it were)
> 
> Would that she had known (= I wish/if only she had)
> 
> Would that I could be of more help (= I wish/if only I could)​


----------



## Keith Bradford

lingobingo said:


> I haven’t read all the above (life’s too short), but in case it hasn’t already been said, I would  point out that the use of *would* to mean “I wish” normally does not state a subject – it’s like saying “if only”.
> 
> Would that that were true! (= I wish/if only it were)
> 
> Would that she had known (= I wish/if only she had)
> 
> Would that I could be of more help (= I wish/if only I could)​


I agree and would just point out that these are still used modern English, though not very often and perhaps only in mock-heroic statements.  But I've certainly said on occasions, with the back of my hand to my forehead: "Ah, would it were only true!"


----------



## heypresto

I'm sure I'm not the only one here to remember Robert Robinson in the TV quiz _Ask the Family_. He was fond of saying 'Ah, would that it were' to the occasional wrong answer.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

lingobingo said:


> I haven’t read all the above (life’s too short), but in case it hasn’t already been said, I would  point out that the use of *would* to mean “I wish” normally does not state a subject – it’s like saying “if only”.
> 
> Would that that were true! (= I wish/if only it were)
> 
> Would that she had known (= I wish/if only she had)
> 
> Would that I could be of more help (= I wish/if only I could)​





Keith Bradford said:


> I agree and would just point out that these are still used modern English, though not very often and perhaps only in mock-heroic statements.  But I've certainly said on occasions, with the back of my hand to my forehead: "Ah, would it were only true!"





heypresto said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only one here to remember Robert Robinson in the TV quiz _Ask the Family_. He was fond of saying 'Ah, would that it were' to the occasional wrong answer.




My nick hasn't been made out the way it is in vain...

1) But I want to know if this *"would"* is just remembered by all of you like *"I wish\If only"* without any explanations why it's constructed thus and so on or it is just a Past Tense for some archaic *"wish"*?

2) If

*I would you were here = I wish you were here
????????????????????? = I wished you had been here*


----------



## lingobingo

It meant “I wish”. Here’s an example cited in the OED, in a section whose heading includes the note: an expression of longing = ‘I wish’, ‘O that’ :

1885  Tennyson _Charge Heavy Brigade_ Epil. in _Tiresia & Other Poems_ 165  
I would that wars should cease, I would the globe from end to end Might sow and reap in peace.​


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Most educated people know what archaic language _means_ after years of exposure to language and literature, and in many cases, serious study. That doesn't mean we can talk it or explain it anymore then most native speakers have any idea about the grammar of modern English despite using it correctly.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_Would that it were _is far from obsolete.

There are 7 current examples in the British Corpus: 3 orally in meetings, 2 from works of fiction, 1 from Hansard, and so spoken in Parliament, and this example from a book on mountaineering:

_It is the place to go if you are staying in the valley and want a swimming-pool or a tennis-court, but hardly recommendable for anything more serious. The ski resort as such is not down in the valley at all, would that it were; rather, it is perched to devastatingly conspicuous effect on the side of a mountain to the west, up to which you can go either by car along a new road or by cable-car from the centre of Saint-Lar_y. The French Pyrenees. Sturrock, J. London: Faber & Faber Ltd, 1988.

There are 33 examples in the American Corpus, and I can think of one in the Coen Brothers' _Hail Caesar_ in which Ralph Fiennes famously tries to teach Alden Ehrenreich how to say _Would that it were so simple_, without much success.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

lingobingo said:


> It meant “I wish”. Here’s an example cited in the OED, in a section whose heading includes the note: an expression of longing = ‘I wish’, ‘O that’ :
> 
> 1885  Tennyson _Charge Heavy Brigade_ Epil. in _Tiresia & Other Poems_ 165
> I would that wars should cease, I would the globe from end to end Might sow and reap in peace.​





Thomas Tompion said:


> _Would that it were _is far from obsolete.
> 
> There are 7 current examples in the British Corpus: 3 orally in meetings, 2 from works of fiction, 1 from Hansard, and so spoken in Parliament, and this example from a book on mountaineering:
> 
> _It is the place to go if you are staying in the valley and want a swimming-pool or a tennis-court, but hardly recommendable for anything more serious. The ski resort as such is not down in the valley at all, would that it were; rather, it is perched to devastatingly conspicuous effect on the side of a mountain to the west, up to which you can go either by car along a new road or by cable-car from the centre of Saint-Lar_y. The French Pyrenees. Sturrock, J. London: Faber & Faber Ltd, 1988.
> 
> There are 33 examples in the American Corpus, and I can think of one in the Coen Brothers' _Hail Caesar_ in which Ralph Fiennes famously tries to teach Alden Ehrenreich how to say _Would that it were so simple_, without much success.




Fine, if

*I would = I wish*

Will it be fair to claim:

*I will would this = I will wish this*


----------



## heypresto

TroubleEnglish said:


> Will it be fair to claim:
> 
> *I will would this = I will wish this*



No. 'I will would this' makes no sense.

In what context would you say 'I will wish this'?


----------



## lingobingo

TroubleEnglish said:


> *I would = I wish*


This is not what I meant. See my post #13. Without a subject, “would [that]” means “I wish [that]” — as does “if only”.


----------



## Kevin Beach

"Would that" is a phrase used to express a strong wish or desire. Although in other contexts, "I would" can be used as the subjunctive, conditional or even the simple past tense of "I will", it seems to have a stand-alone meaning in this usage.

"Wert" is the second person singular subjunctive of the verb "to be". Like all second personal singular verbs, it is no longer used in Modern English, except perhaps in some BrE regional accents or dialects.


----------



## Forero

It's just like "I would rather you were here", but without the "rather" (which means something like "instead"). "Would" is past tense of "will" (as in "if you will"/"if the good Lord will"/etc.), but the meaning here is not past time but conditional, like "could" in "I could get used to that" meaning not "I was able to" but "I would be able to".

[If I could have whatever I would/wished] I would [wish] you were here.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Forero said:


> It's just like "I would rather you were here", but without the "rather" (which means something like "instead"). "Would" is past tense of "will" (as in "if you will"/"if the good Lord will"/etc.), but the meaning here is not past time but conditional, like "could" in "I could get used to that" meaning not "I was able to" but "I would be able to".
> 
> [If I could have whatever I would/wished] I would [wish] you were here.



Well, I really like your explanation because it's openig this mystery for me of "would".

Just if we say *"would"* with something we want to do like:

*I would do it

I would have it

I would sing it*

I understand it, because we have some verb going after *"would"*. But saying it without the verb like:

*I would it*

is a nonsense for me. I would what it?

*I would do it?*

or

*I would have it?*

or

*I would sing it?*

*"Would rather"* is a catastrophe, too. I personally don't see any verb here. For me it's like:

*I woud better it*

What better it?

*Would better do it

Would better have it

Would better sing it?
*
What would better?


If it's

*I would rather do it.*

It's okay. When it's

*I would rather you were here*

It's sad because I see it like

*I would better you were here* ...

But if you say:

*I would [wish] you were here.*

This is how it's really perceived by people or it's only your attempt to explain it somehow to me?

If *"would"* is an official and known by everybody contraction for *"would wish"*, then I can sleep placidly, if not - it's the Trouble Enlgish


----------



## AnythingGoes

If you want to be understood, you should not use "would" as you describe. Stick to normal, contemporary English.


----------



## heypresto

TroubleEnglish said:


> If *"would"* is an official and known by everybody contraction for *"would wish"*, then I can sleep placidly, if not - it's the Trouble Enlgish



I think I might cause you some sleeplessness . . .

I would wish you were here. 
I would you were here. 
I wish you were here. 

As AnythingGoes says, stick to normal, contemporary English.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

heypresto said:


> I think I might cause you some sleeplessness . . .
> 
> I would wish you were here.
> I would you were here.
> I wish you were here.
> 
> As AnythingGoes says, stick to normal, contemporary English.


And what's wrong with

*I would wish you were here*

It just doesn't *"sound"* or it is grammatically incorrect?

Why is

*I do*

completely normal,

So is

*I would do*

So is:

*I wish*

but not

*I would wish *?

_*I am feeling completely unhappy. 96% rules in English are explained with "because it's so". I don't know who  is guilty: either I being Russian and having grammar which has very meticulous explanation for 96% of the language or I not being American and thinking that English grammar has logic because of not knowing of existince of other languages like Russian grammar... I've started saying recently: "If you are happy and have no problem - start learning English, it's the perfect way to improve your depression."I am a perfectionist and I want to see the precise explanation to everything... Thinking about how to find some solutions of English grammar problems you start thinking of the permanent solution of a temporal problem.*_


----------



## PaulQ

TroubleEnglish said:


> But if you say:
> 
> *I would [wish] you were here.*
> 
> This is how it's really perceived by people or it's only your attempt to explain it somehow to me?



In broad terms, in Old English, there were no purely modal verbs You could say such things as
"I *can *Latin, I learned it at the monastery." Today we must say "I *can write *Latin, I learned it at the monastery."
And
"I *will *a horse to take me to London." Today we must say  "I *want/wish* a horse to take me to London."

This use of *will *had a past tense
He *wants *some apples -> He *will *some apples
He *wanted *some apples -> He *would* some apples


TroubleEnglish said:


> I am feeling completely unhappy. 96% rules in English are explained with "because it's so".


This is because you believe that there are "rules" in English. (See my signature.) Thinking that there are "rules" is like thinking that there are fairies - it is not very helpful and you need to find the real explanation for all that gold on your table.

There is a reason for everything but it often takes a lot of research (i) to find that reason and (ii) why that reason works in one case, and not in another.


----------



## AnythingGoes

TroubleEnglish said:


> And what's wrong with
> 
> *I would wish you were here*


The listener expects you to tell us under what conditions you would wish that, as in _I would wish you were here if you were somewhere else._ That's a consequence of an implicit rule of syntax, I suppose. As a native speaker, I don't know how these rules are taught to learners.

I'm pretty sure the same process applies to Russian learners: native speakers may have studied Russian grammar in school, but they're unlikely to know it well enough to explain why they choose to say something one way rather than another, or why a seemingly-logical sentence doesn't work.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

PaulQ said:


> In broad terms, in Old English, there were no purely modal verbs You could say such things as
> "I *can *Latin, I learned it at the monastery." Today we must say "I *can write *Latin, I learned it at the monastery."
> And
> "I *will *a horse to take me to London." Today we must say  "I *want/wish* a horse to take me to London."
> 
> This use of *will *had a past tense
> He *wants *some apples -> He *will *some apples
> He *wanted *some apples -> He *would* some apples
> This is because you believe that there are "rules" in English. (See my signature.) Thinking that there are "rules" is like thinking that there are fairies - it is not very helpful and you need to find the real explanation.
> 
> There is a reason for everything, but it often takes a lot of research to find that reason and why that reason works in one case, and not in another.



I found this:

_*a. To decide on or intend: He can finish the race if he wills it. *_

_in will ._

_We can change it for:_

_*To decide on or intend: He can finish the race if he wants it. *_

_Then there is no need to say:_

_"I *want/wish* a horse to take me to London." _

_instead of_

_ "I *will *a horse to take me to London."_

If we can replace *'will"* with *"want"* or *"wish"* it makes everything easier.

I completely understand the sentence:

*I want a horse to go somewhere.

I wish a car to drive*

*Then we can imagine our already favorite phrase:*

Would you were here

like

*(I) would you were* here (I forgot you could drop the noun)

this can be imagined liked

*I wanted you were here*

But now I am having a different question:

If even now we can use *"will"* like *"want"*, can we say:

*I willed the car to drive ?*

Or it will be *"would"*.

I mean *"would"* is used for *"will"* like the auxiliary verb - *"will"* or even for the usual verb - *"will"* which is like *"want"*



AnythingGoes said:


> The listener expects you to tell us under what conditions you would wish that, as in _I would wish you were here if you were somewhere else._ That's a consequence of an implicit rule of syntax, I suppose. As a native speaker, I don't know how these rules are taught to learners.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the same process applies to Russian learners: native speakers may have studied Russian grammar in school, but they're unlikely to know it well enough to explain why they choose to say something one way rather than another, or why a seemingly-logical sentence doesn't work.



No, no, no I don't care what the listener thinks at all. Just really really at all. I caer only about grammar.

Is

*I would wish you were here* 

gramatically correct or no? Or in theory, doesn't matter?

I think if we imagine it now, seeing *"would"* like a special word for the subjunctive mood - *"would"*, then it's perfectly perfect.

If we imagine it in the Middle Early English, it's not grammatically correct, because it's like:

*I wanted wish you were here*


----------



## heypresto

TroubleEnglish said:


> _Then there is no need to say:_
> 
> _"I *want/wish* a horse to take me to London." _
> 
> _instead of_
> 
> _ "I *will *a horse to take me to London."_


Yes there is. We would never say 'I will a horse to take me to London.'



TroubleEnglish said:


> I completely understand the sentence:
> 
> *I want a horse to go somewhere.*
> 
> *I wish a car to drive*



_I _don't. What do you mean by the first sentence? Do you want the horse to _move to_ somewhere else, or do you want a horse so that you can ride it somewhere?

What do you mean by 'I wish a car to drive'?



TroubleEnglish said:


> No, no, no I don't care what the listener thinks at all.



But you should. What's the point of speaking/writing if the listener/reader hasn't a clue what you're saying?


----------



## AnythingGoes

TroubleEnglish said:


> No, no, no I don't care what the listener thinks at all. Just really really at all. I ca*re* only about grammar.


I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities with respect to learning English. It's impossible to learn a language without learning its syntax, which is the set of rules that listeners apply when decoding an utterance.


----------



## Forero

AnythingGoes said:


> The listener expects you to tell us under what conditions you would wish that, as in _I would wish you were here if you were somewhere else._


The _would_ we are dealing with plays two roles at once.

1. It is conditional, like "I would like", "I would prefer", "Would you help?, "Would you please stop it?". The "understood" condition, though, is not "if you were somewhere else" but something more like "if I were to be so bold" or "If I could have anything I wanted".

2. It is a form of the verb _will_ in the old fashioned meaning, "want" or "wish".





TroubleEnglish said:


> Well, I really like your explanation because it's openi*n*g this mystery for me of "would". ...


"I would do it" used to mean "I wanted/wished to do it" and "I was willing to do it". The latter meaning turns up sometimes in modern poetry. The infintive, then was like a direct object.

In the same centuries, and in that same type of modern day poetry, "I would that" meant "I wanted that", "I would want that", "I would like that."


> *"Would rather"* is a catastrophe, too. I personally don't see any verb here. For me it's like:
> 
> *I would better it*
> 
> What better it?
> 
> *Would better do it*
> 
> *Would better have it*
> 
> *Would better sing it?*
> 
> What would better?


I think you are confusing "would rather" with "had better".

"Would rather" is a fossilized expression that just means "would instead". "Would sooner" is similar, and it means "would before [something else]" (e.g. "I would sooner leave than see you do that" = "I would [want to] leave before [wanting to] see you do that").

"I would rather you were here" is just that fossilized expression at work. In contrast, "I would rather a duck than a goose" sounds old fashioned but comes down to the same usage.

Sleep placidly. "Would" has lots of uses and is always ambiguous, but if you just remember that some of its meanings include the idea of "want" or "be willing", these sentences will not seem so catastrophic.

Exclamations that begin with "Would" have both "I" and "[to] God" understood (_will_ used to take both a direct object and an indirect object, so the following are equivalent:

_Would you were here!
Would God you were here!
I would God you were here!
I wish to God you were here!_


----------



## dojibear

TroubleEnglish said:


> How is
> 
> *I would you were here*
> 
> being understood?
> 
> Like
> 
> *I want you to be here*?
> 
> or like
> 
> *I wanted you to be here*?



You are confusing 2018 English with 1597 English. English grammar has *changed a lot* in 421 years.

You can talk about one, or the other, but don't mix them up. "I want you to be here" probably could not be said in 1597.


----------



## PaulQ

1484   Caxton tr. G. de la Tour-Landry _Bk. Knight of Tower_ (1971) viii. 21   Ye ar moche beholden to serue god, whan he *wylle* youre saluacion.
1539   R. Taverner tr. Erasmus _Prouerbes_ sig. F.viiiv   Whan that thynge can not be done that thou *woldest*, *woll *that thou cannest.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

heypresto said:


> Yes there is. We would never say 'I will a horse to take me to London.'
> 
> 
> 
> _I _don't. What do you mean by the first sentence? Do you want the horse to _move to_ somewhere else, or do you want a horse so that you can ride it somewhere?
> 
> What do you mean by 'I wish a car to drive'?
> 
> 
> 
> But you should. What's the point of speaking/writing if the listener/reader hasn't a clue what you're saying?




1) I think I know what you mean with *"I want a car to drive"*.

In English the phrase

*I want a car to drive*

can mean 2 things:

*1) I want to have this car and ride it

2) I want to see\know\be sure that the car drives.* In different words - *I want so a car would drive*

Just the problem is in my language we never say:

*I want a car to drive*

meaning

*I want so a car would drive .*

For us it will always mean

*I want to have this car and ride it .*

If we want to say

*I want so a car would drive*

we say

*I want so a car would drive*

There is no other variant

2) 


AnythingGoes said:


> I suggest you re-evaluate your priorities with respect to learning English. It's impossible to learn a language without learning its syntax, which is the set of rules that listeners apply when decoding an utterance.



I wanted to say that why to say here

_*I would wish you were here if you were somewhere else*_ 

to discuss only if the

_*I would wish you were here*_

correct?

Isn't it easier to write only that part the grammar of which is being discussed?

If we have the sentence:

*He has a 10 apples in ...*

Isn't it easier to just say that it's not correct because there shouldn't be the article "a" because it's plural without mentioning that you can't say it because it's not full and we don't know where the apples are, why he has them there, who gave them to hm and so on. Who cares about these details? Everybody knows that saying it somewhere the person will continue something after "in" but here he wants to know only about the grammar of the written part.

It's like taking some small sentence from all the story of Sherlock Holmes and saying that no, you can't say it, you don't know all the context, write here all the books to see what it's all about.

I am also using https://ell.stackexchange.com . And recently I got some very interesting comment.

I wrote something like:

"Can I say:

*When she came I had already done*."

And somebody told that it was incorrect. Guess why? Because I didn't mention what I had done...

What's the differnce what I had done- homework, tasks, a research or something else. I am asking about grammar, not about how to continue the sentence.

It's like:

*When you came I was cooing some pies.*

It's wrong. It's not correct because we don't know what the pies were with. With blueberries, strawberries, jam or what? It's a nonsense, guys...



Forero said:


> 2. It is a form of the verb _will_ in the old fashioned meaning, "want" or "wish".



Than what is the difference for:

*I  wanted*

and

*I would*

in the archaic English?



Forero said:


> "I would that" meant "I wanted that", "I would want that", "I would like that."



But it's the end of the world. How is it possible to equal

I would that

to completely different things at once:

*1) I wanted that

2) I would want that

3) I would like that*

The difference is like between:

*1) Cucumber

2) Computer

3) Cockroach*



Forero said:


> "I would rather a duck than a goose" sounds old fashioned but comes down to the same usage.



It's old because of the very "would rather" or because the main verb is missing here?

Would it be normal of still archaihc if we added it:

*I would want rather a duck than a goose*



Forero said:


> Exclamations that begin with "Would" have both "I" and "[to] God" understood (_will_ used to take both a direct object and an indirect object, so the following are equivalent:
> 
> _Would you were here!
> Would God you were here!
> I would God you were here!
> I wish to God you were here!_




The idea of this I haven't taken.

*Would you were here ---> I would (want) you were here
Would God you were here! ---> God would (want) you were here
I would God you were here! ---> ???
I wish to God you were here! ---> ???(it's like "I want to God you were here" or me)*





dojibear said:


> You are confusing 2018 English with 1597 English. English grammar has *changed a lot* in 421 years.
> 
> You can talk about one, or the other, but don't mix them up. "I want you to be here" probably could not be said in 1597.




If not, then my life is getting easier because I was going to ask what was the difference between:

*I would*(in the meaning of "wanted")* you were here*

and

*I wanted you to be here*


PaulQ said:


> 1539 R. Taverner tr. Erasmus _Prouerbes_ sig. F.viiiv Whan that thynge can not be done that thou *woldest*, *woll *that thou cannest.



How could it be *"cannest"* if everywhere it's written that for *"thou"* it was *"canst"*?

It seems to be that time everybody could write how they liked. If one guys likes *"cannest"*, he uses *"cannest"*. They other one may like *"canest"*, the third one -* "canst"*, the fourth one - *"cannst"* and so on. Welcome to English...


----------



## PaulQ

TroubleEnglish said:


> How could it be *"cannest"* if everywhere it's written that for *"thou"* it was *"canst"*?


English spelling was not regularised at that time, and the spelling reflected the way the word was pronounced in the local accent.


TroubleEnglish said:


> Welcome to English...


And was Russian different? I think that it was just the same.


----------



## heypresto

TroubleEnglish said:


> Just the problem is in my language we never say:
> 
> *I want a car to drive*
> 
> meaning
> 
> *I want so a car would drive .*


Firstly, what someone says in their native language has no bearing on how it's said in English. And secondly, No English speaker would ever say 'I want so a car would drive'. 


TroubleEnglish said:


> If we want to say
> 
> *I want so a car would drive*
> 
> we say
> 
> *I want so a car would drive*
> 
> There is no other variant


But nobody would want to say 'I want so a car would drive'. I'm sure there is a correct variant, but since I don't know what this means, I'm unable to suggest one.


----------



## dojibear

TroubleEnglish said:


> In English the phrase
> 
> *I want a car to drive*
> 
> can mean 2 things:
> 
> *1) I want to have this car and ride it*
> 
> *2) I want to see\know\be sure that the car drives.* In different words - *I want so a car would drive*



That is not correct. In modern English, "I want a car to drive" does not mean (1) and does not mean (2). It is not about "this car" at all. "A car" cannot mean "this car".

The sentence means "I want any car, and my purpose is me driving it."

I didn't read the rest of your post. When having a multi-person discussion, we discuss 1 idea at a time.


----------



## kngram

Dear TroubleEnglish,
It seems that your "I want so a car would drive" looks like the calque of the Russian sentence that could be interpreted as an English equivalent " I want a car to be driven", or in a preffered form " I want a car going ". In both cases, there are major problems of meaning. There is such sentence as "I want this car going" in common usage, which is the closest in meaning. 
Also, it seems that such book as, for example, 'The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language' by David Crystal would be a brief introduction to the interesting questions you put here.
Sincerely


----------



## AnythingGoes

kngram said:


> It seems that your "I want so a car would drive" looks like the calque of the Russian sentence that could be interpreted as an English equivalent " I want a car to be driven", or in a preffered form " I want a car going ". In both cases, there are major problems of meaning. There is such sentence as "I want this car going" in common usage, which is the closest in meaning.


"I want a car to be driven" is, I suppose, grammatical, but I can't imagine anyone saying it. "I want a car going" is ungrammatical.


----------



## kngram

In British English the pattern 'to want + object + adjective' is possible. For example, Do you want this pie hot? In the 'I want a car going', 'going' or 'a-going' is an adjective with the meaning 'in motion or activity'. So, the sentence is grammatical, but it has big problems with its semantics. Such pattern is nothing to do with a sentence like 'I don' t want a load of traffic going past my windows all night. '


----------



## TroubleEnglish

heypresto said:


> Firstly, what someone says in their native language has no bearing on how it's said in English. And secondly, No English speaker would ever say 'I want so a car would drive'.
> 
> But nobody would want to say 'I want so a car would drive'. I'm sure there is a correct variant, but since I don't know what this means, I'm unable to suggest one.



But how would you say that you want to get the result of a car in the point of driving\ you want to see that a car can drive or drives? Like:

*I want this car to drive ?*

Only this variant?

So, a native speaker wouldn't ever say:

*I want so you would be here *?

Alright, a different example. Let's imagine we have a circus. And the person says:

*I want a tiger to do it*

What does it mean?

*1) He wants to get a tiger to be able to do it himself*

*2) He wants it to be done by a tiger? (He won't do anything himself )*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

TroubleEnglish said:


> But how would you say that you want to get the result of a car in the point of driving\ you want to see that a car can drive or drives? Like:
> 
> *I want this car to drive ?*


If I've interpreted you correctly, I think we'd say something like: _I wish this car would go_.


TroubleEnglish said:


> Alright, a different example. Let's imagine we have a circus. And the person says:
> 
> *I want a tiger to do it*
> 
> What does it mean?


Without more context, I wouldn't know what it meant.



TroubleEnglish said:


> So, a native speaker wouldn't ever say:
> 
> *I want so you would be here *?


No, never, I'd say.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Thomas Tompion said:


> If I've interpreted you correctly, I think we'd say something like: _I wish this car would go_.
> Without more context, I wouldn't know what it meant.
> 
> No, never, I'd say.



But I gave 2 possible ways of understanding:

*1) He wants to get a tiger to be able to do it himself*

*2) He wants it to be done by a tiger? (He won't do anything himself )* 

They are suitable variants of understanding (we only need context) or my guesses are wrong here, too?


----------



## heypresto

What is the context here? What does 'it' refer to?



TroubleEnglish said:


> *1) He wants to get a tiger to be able to do it himself*


He wants to get a tiger to be able to do *what* by himself?



TroubleEnglish said:


> *2) He wants it to be done by a tiger? (He won't do anything himself )*


He wants *what *to be done by a tiger?

Note that sentences should always end with a punctuation mark.


----------



## Forero

TroubleEnglish said:


> 1) I think I know what you mean with *"I want a car to drive"*.
> 
> In English the phrase
> 
> *I want a car to drive*
> 
> can mean 2 things:
> 
> *1) I want to have this car and ride it*


Correct sentence, but not a possible meaning of "I want a car to drive." The nearest possible meaning is something like "I want a car for driving purposes." or "I want a car that I can drive."





> *2) I want to see\know\be sure that the car drives.*


Correct sentences, but not a possible meaning of "I want a car to drive." The meaning I think you have in mind is hard to express any other way in English, but it would be something like "I believe that a car should drive."

This is a possible but unlikely meaning because of the idea of a car driving.





> In different words - *I want so a car would drive*


This is probably not what you mean. "So a car would drive" cannot be the direct object of "I want".





> Than what is the difference for:
> 
> *I  wanted*


In archaic English, "I wanted" usually meant "I didn't have"/"I lacked".





> and
> 
> *I would*
> 
> in the archaic English?


It usually meant "I wanted".





> But it's the end of the world. How is it possible to equal
> 
> I would that
> 
> to completely different things at once:


It is just the polysemantic nature of "would". We live with the ambiguity and pay close attention to context.





> It's old because of the very "would rather" or because the main verb is missing here?


We still use "would rather" with essentially the old meaning. It is a fossilized expression and there is no verb missing since the main verb is "would".





> Would it be normal of still archaihc if we added it:
> 
> *I would want rather a duck than a goose*


That sounds odd.





> The idea of this I haven't taken.
> 
> *Would you were here ---> I would (wish) you were here
> Would God you were here! ---> God would (want) you were here*


No. "God" is the indirect object, not the subject.





> *I would God you were here! ---> ???*


Subject: "I"; indirect object: "God".





> *I wish to God you were here! ---> ???(it's like "I want to God you were here" or me)*


That does not mean anything to me.





> How could it be *"cannest"* if everywhere it's written that for *"thou"* it was *"canst"*?


"Cannest" is subjunctive; "canst" is indicative.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Forero said:


> Correct sentence, but not a possible meaning of "I want a car to drive." The nearest possible meaning is something like "I want a car for driving purposes." or "I want a car that I can drive." Correct sentences, but not a possible meaning of "I want a car to drive." The meaning I think you have in mind is hard to express any other way in English, but it would be something like "I believe that a car should drive."



By this you mean

*I want a car to drive*

doesn't mean

*I want to have a car to drive* ?

Can we say it through *"so that"*

*I want so that a car would drive*

I thought this is was the sense of:

*I want a car to drive*


----------



## heypresto

TroubleEnglish said:


> Can we say it through *"so that"*
> 
> *I want so that a car would drive*



No. That makes no sense.

I think it would be helpful if you could tell us, using other words, exactly what it is you are trying to say. What do you want 'I want a car to drive' to mean?


----------



## TroubleEnglish

heypresto said:


> No. That makes no sense.
> 
> I think it would be helpful if you could tell us, using other words, exactly what it is you are trying to say. What do you want 'I want a car to drive' to mean?



The fact of the matter is I have already been trying to use other words

*I want a car to drive*

is like

*I wish a car drove*

Can it be so or you use different construction for this sense?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

TroubleEnglish said:


> Can it be so or you use different construction for this sense?[...]


It's hard to answer because we don't know what 'this sense' is.

We made some suggestions as to what it might mean but that didn't seem to help much.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I suggest you try to explain what you mean by 'want so a car to drive' which makes no sense in English. Please give us a context in which you would express whatever idea it is. Tell us a story about the situation in which you would use such an utterance. I hadn't seen heypresto's when I wrote this but maybe it will sink in eventually if you read the same advice over and over!
All you are doing is repeatedly telling us what it means using another bungled attempt!


----------



## heypresto

TroubleEnglish said:


> *I want a car to drive*
> 
> is like
> 
> *I wish a car drove*
> 
> Can it be so or you use different construction for this sense?


No.

Let me offer two guesses as to what you might be trying to say with 'I want a car to drive'. 

_I would like a car that works/drives/goes well.

I would like a car to drive, not a van, motorcycle or lorry._

Does either of these say what you have in mind?


----------



## Keith Bradford

TroubleEnglish said:


> ... Can we say it through *"so that"*
> 
> *I want so that a car would drive *...



No, you're using the wrong verb.

*To drive* = to sit in the seat and operate it.  *I want a car to drive* = I want a car so that I can sit in the seat and operate it.
*To run* (of machinery) = to perform correctly.  *I want a car to run (well)* = I want a car which performs correctly.
[Cross-posted - This is a synonym of what HeyPresto just said.]


----------



## AnythingGoes

TroubleEnglish said:


> *I want so that a car would drive*


That is not a meaningful sentence.


----------



## kngram

Or, in other words, since you prefer, dear TroubleEnglish, to put somewhat theoretical questions:
The meaning of the verb in the pattern (to want + a car + infinitive of a verb) determines the type of syntax being used. In one case (I want a car to run well) , it is an adjectival complement of the noun, in the other (I want a car to drive well, or I need such a car so that I drive proficiently ), it is a subordinate clause  of purpose, where the main clause is 'I want a car.'


----------



## TroubleEnglish

Hermione Golightly said:


> I suggest you try to explain what you mean by 'want so a car to drive' which makes no sense in English. Please give us a context in which you would express whatever idea it is. Tell us a story about the situation in which you would use such an utterance. I hadn't seen heypresto's when I wrote this but maybe it will sink in eventually if you read the same advice over and over!
> All you are doing is repeatedly telling us what it means using another bungled attempt!





heypresto said:


> No.
> 
> Let me offer two guesses as to what you might be trying to say with 'I want a car to drive'.
> 
> _I would like a car that works/drives/goes well._
> 
> _I would like a car to drive, not a van, motorcycle or lorry._
> 
> Does either of these say what you have in mind?



Okay, I will try write a small story to reveal the sense I mean here

*I want the car to run*

_There was a powerful storm recently and Joe's car was destroyed. Now it is not running - it doesn't have any wheels, doors, there is nothing left even of the engine by the nature's force. Joe got really sad and lost any interest of life because it was his biggest hobby ever - his car, world adventures, travellings and so on. He is coming to the auto-service and pleading: Please, do whatever you can, I will give any money... The only thing I want is the car - *I want the car to run*. Can you raise it from the dead?_

*I want the car to run*

It's a huge competition of the world level. We have a lot of professional runners all over the Earth Planet. their skills are equal to their wish of the award for the victory of this competition. One of the guys said:
I will run only if I will get my own plane. I am the best runner and I must have the best award!
The other one said:
I want to have 1.000.000.000.000$ and in this case - I will run for you and win this tournnament.

When the third one was asked what he wanted to take part in this event, he said:

_*I want the car to run* ponting at the car around him he had always wanted to own._

The question was repeated:

_What do you want?_

_-The car_

_-With what aim do you want to have it?_

_-To run_

_-Say it completely, the future Champion!_

*-I want the car to run*


----------



## kngram

Sorry. And what?
The first example means 'I want this car to run well'. The explanation has been given.
The second means 'I want such a car that it could win in the competition'. A special case of usage of the definite article.


----------



## heypresto

TroubleEnglish said:


> There was a powerful storm recently and Joe's car was destroyed. Now it is not running - it doesn't have any wheels, doors, there is nothing left even of the engine by the nature's force. Joe got really sad and lost any interest of life because it was his biggest hobby ever - his car, world adventures, travellings and so on. He is coming to the auto-service and pleading: Please, do whatever you can, I will give any money... The only thing I want is the car - *I want the car to run*. Can you raise it from the dead?


This is OK, but more natural and more likely, would be something like 'I want the car to work', or 'I want the car fixed'.



TroubleEnglish said:


> It's a huge competition of the world level. We have a lot of professional runners all over the Earth Planet. their skills are equal to their wish of the award for the victory of this competition. One of the guys said:
> I will run only if I will get my own plane. I am the best runner and I must have the best award!
> The other one said:
> I want to have 1.000.000.000.000$ and in this case - I will run for you and win this tournnament.
> 
> When the third one was asked what he wanted to take part in this event, he said:
> 
> _*I want the car to run* ponting at the car around him he had always wanted to own._


That _almost_ works. He'd be more likely to say 'I want *that* car to run'. But even then, it's not very natural. But it's a rather contrived context. Without you having told us this story, we would never have guessed that that is what it meant.

Even more likely, and far more natural, would be simply 'I want that car'.


----------



## TroubleEnglish

heypresto said:


> This is OK, but more natural and more likely, would be something like 'I want the car to work', or 'I want the car fixed'.
> 
> 
> That _almost_ works. He'd be more likely to say 'I want *that* car to run'. But even then, it's not very natural. But it's a rather contrived context. Without you having told us this story, we would never have guessed that that is what it meant.
> 
> Even more likely, and far more natural, would be simply 'I want that car'.



So, both of my examples are correct in the sense I gave, it just always needs context?


----------



## heypresto

_All _sentences need context. That's why we _always_ ask for it.

You can see how much difficulty we had in understanding what 'I want the car to drive' meant. We guessed at several possible meanings, but we would never in a million years have thought of the 'runner saying what he'd like as a payment for taking part in a race' meaning you had in mind.


----------



## Ben Jamin

TroubleEnglish said:


> Does any of you understand this sentence?
> 
> *I would thou wert so happy by thy stay*
> 
> I took it from Romeo and Juliet.
> 
> *I would want ...*
> 
> *I would hate ...*
> 
> *I would think ...*
> 
> Or what?
> 
> And what is the difference between
> 
> *Thou wast
> Thou wert*
> 
> I also read there was a possibility to say:
> 
> *Thou were*
> 
> Is it true or no?


My guess (based on affinity with Norwegian) is that it means _ I would like that you enjoy (were happy [with]) your staying here and hearing a true confession. _


----------



## lingobingo

I would thou wert so happy by thy stay
To hear true shrift.

This means, in the context: It will be good if by staying here you get to hear the truth / to find out what happened.


----------



## L'irlandais

heypresto said:


> _All _sentences need context. That's why we _always_ ask for it.
> 
> You can see how much difficulty we had in understanding what 'I want the car to drive' meant. We guessed at several possible meanings, but we would never in a million years have thought of the 'runner saying what he'd like as a payment for taking part in a race' meaning you had in mind.


I wonder if English learners could post their TOEIC score or CEFR level when asking a question about Shakespearien English?  This is not the first time we have been led a merry dance about x,y, z, when the OP in fact is asking something very basic.  The answer to the OP is #36 and a smattering of #34.
European language levels - Self Assessment Grid | Europass

Many of us have tried to seriously answer the question about « would thou wert » when in fact the OP hasn’t really understood this is not a question about modern English grammar.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Ben Jamin said:


> My guess (based on affinity with Norwegian) is that it means _ I would like that you enjoy (were happy [with]) your staying here and hearing a true confession. _


A translation into modern English : "I hope you're lucky enough to hear the true story by sticking around." 
https://www.biloxischools.net/cms/lib07/MS01910473/Centricity/Domain/440/No%20Fear%20Shakespeare%20-%20Romeo%20and%20Juliet.pdf


----------



## Hulalessar

TroubleEnglish said:


> But okay, if you equal
> 
> *I would you were here*
> 
> to
> 
> *I wish you were here*
> 
> What analogy would be for
> 
> *I wished you had been here* ?



There is no "analogy". That is because essentially "would" is the past tense of "will". It does though have a very wide application - see this webpage: WOULD | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


----------



## Hulalessar

TroubleEnglish said:


> _*I am feeling completely unhappy. 96% rules in English are explained with "because it's so". I don't know who  is guilty: either I being Russian and having grammar which has very meticulous explanation for 96% of the language or I not being American and thinking that English grammar has logic because of not knowing of existince of other languages like Russian grammar... I've started saying recently: "If you are happy and have no problem - start learning English, it's the perfect way to improve your depression."I am a perfectionist and I want to see the precise explanation to everything... Thinking about how to find some solutions of English grammar problems you start thinking of the permanent solution of a temporal problem.*_



No language follows rational rules. All languages are equally odd but seem normal to their native speakers. A native English speaker learning Russian may ask why it has no verb "to be" in the present tense and no articles - the answer is: "Because it is so."

Your "problem" is that you are a native speaker of a synthetic language and that more analytic languages like English can seem difficult to get hold of. It is all comparative as native speakers of English can find even more analytic languages like Thai or Chinese frustratingly imprecise when learning them.

Whatever the language the question to ask is not "Why is it so?" but "What can and must you do?"


----------



## berndf

TroubleEnglish said:


> *I would you were here = I wished you were here*, if *"would"* is the past form of something or i dunno what...


_I wished you were..._ is the same grammatical form in Late Modern English as _I would thou wert..._, in Early Modern English, yes. Both verbs are in past subjunctive in both versions.

In Early Modern English, the past subjunctive had still a wider range of applications than today. Today past subjunctive is essentially restricted to express a hypothetical condition. In Early Modern English is could still express some other cases of the modus irrealis, like in other Germanic languages. Compare German
_Ich wollte du wärst... (= I would thou wert...)
Ich wünschte du wärst... (= I wished thou wert...)_
Both versions are possible.


----------



## lingobingo

Surely_ I *would* thou wert_ was the equivalent of _I *wish* you were_?

1600    Shakespeare _Henry IV, Pt. 2_  iii. ii. 163: I would thou wert a mans tailer, that thou mightst mend him.

And from _Timon of Athens_: Timon: Would thou wert clean enough to spit upon!


----------



## berndf

lingobingo said:


> Surely_ I *would* thou wert_ was the equivalent of _I *wish* you were_?


_Would_ is past subjunctive, _wish_ is present indicative. What has changed is that past subjunctive is not used in that context any more. In the attestations you quoted past subjunctive is correct in Early Modern English.

So,_ I wished you were_.. is the formal equivalent and _I wish you were..._ is the practical equivalent.


----------



## Forero

For me, "I would thou wert" sounds odd fashioned but still perfectly understandable. But the rest of the sentence is hard to decipher.

On reading the sentence in question I imagined that _happy_ meant "happy", but after reading Ben Jamin's post I can see the sentence has to mean what his source says it means. "Happy" in other words, did not originally have to do with mirth but with haphazardness and happenstance.


----------



## berndf

Forero said:


> On reading the sentence in question I imagined that _happy_ meant "happy", but after reading Ben Jamin's post I can see the sentence has to mean what his source says it means. "Happy" in other words, did not originally have to do with mirth but with haphazardness and happenstance.


Or more simply put: This was before the separation of of the semantic concepts _happy_ and _lucky_.
In Elizabethan times,_ happy_ meant both _happy_ and _lucky_ and_ lucky_ meant _bringing luck_.


----------



## Forero

berndf said:


> Or more simply put: This was before the separation of of the semantic concepts _happy_ and _lucky_.
> In Elizabethan times,_ happy_ meant both _happy_ and _lucky_ and_ lucky_ meant _bringing luck_.


That makes sense, but I was talking about which meaning probably came first historically ("lucky"). I find it easier to imagine happiness coming from luck than luck coming from happiness., and none of the other "hap" words (without -py or -pi-) I can think of has anything to do with being mirthful.


----------



## berndf

Forero said:


> That makes sense, but I was talking about which meaning probably came first ("lucky").


I see. And I agree. It is actually not infrequent in European languages that the word describing the notion of happiness is derived from the concept of good fortune. The Dutch and German equivalents of _lucky_ derived from the same cognate root (_gelukkig_ and _glücklich_) actually hold both meanings even today.


----------



## Forero

What I call "conditional", a term I learned studying Spanish and French, is, as far as I can tell, the same thing as older past subjunctive in a main clause. It is often, but not always, accompanied by an "if" clause in past subjunctive.

Part of the ambiguity I mentioned is that past subjunctive and past indicative look alike for most verbs, so that we have to use various devices to make "conditional" and the subordinated past subjunctive more obvious. For example, dropping "if" and moving "should", "were", or "had" forward to replace the "if" is a sure sign that past subjunctive is meant.

But in a main clause, the most we can do if we want to "translate" to "modern" is to use the ambiguous "would"/"should"/"might"/etc. and hope the rest of the context helps. Unfortunately, we can't say "would will" or "should will" because modal "will" lacks an infinitive. So we have to look for another verb, like "hope".

Unfortunately, "hope" no longer allows a "that" clause in subjunctive and we have to add another ambiguous past tense modal.

So "I would you were" = "I would hope you would/might be" / "I should hope you would/might be", approximately. Somehow, we just tolerate the ambiguity.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Hulalessar said:


> No language follows rational rules?"


It is simply not true. Actually the foundations of any language are fully rational and have a purpose. Otherwise we could never communicate anything except emotional outbursts. However, the foundations are often not clearly visible, because languages have also a random component that blurs the original rationality. I can recommend you a book written by Guy Deutcher "The unfolding of language"


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> It is simply not true. Actually the foundations of any language are fully rational and have a purpose. Otherwise we could never communicate anything except emotional outbursts. However, the foundations are often not clearly visible, because languages have also a random component that blurs the original rationality. I can recommend you a book written by Guy Deutcher "The unfolding of language"



Unless adopting a position of extreme scepticism, we can accept that human experience is that things do things and things have things done to them. All languages reflect that and can distinguish between "the dog chases the cat " and "the cat chases the dog". It is also possible in every language to communicate whether what you are talking about took place in the past, is taking place while you speak or is expected to take place in the future. My point is that whether or not there is such a thing as a universal grammar or humans are born with a language instinct, at the level where language operates it consists of arbitary conventions which cannot be analysed rationally or logically.

Take articles. Many languages function perfectly well without them. Those that have them do not use them in exactly identical ways. Compare:

English: _There are dogs in the garden_.
Spanish: _Hay perros en el jardín_.
French: _Il y a des chiens dans le jardin_.

English and Spanish agree that when you are talking about dogs (but not all dogs) you have not referred to before that no article is needed. French requires an indefinite article.

English: _Dogs are dangerous_.
Spanish: _Los perros son peligrosos_.
French:  _Les chiens sont dans le jardin_.

When talking about dogs generally English does not require any article. Spanish and French agree that a definite article is needed.

English:_ The dogs in the garden are dangerous._
Spanish: _Los perros en el jardín son peligrosos_.
French:  _Les chiens dans le jardin sont dangéreux_.

All three languages agree that when referring to certain specified dogs the definite article is needed.

None of the above can be explained by rational analysis. In the first instance you cannot argue that, say, French is more logical because it takes the trouble to insert a word that makes it clear that not all dogs are being talked about. It is simply the case that French requires the "des" - if you ask why the answer is: "Because it is so."


----------



## berndf

Hulalessar said:


> at the level where language operates it consists of arbitary conventions which cannot be analysed rationally or logically.


You make this sound as if they were contradictions. Communication systems always are conventions and as such always arbitrary. The inner logic of such a convention *is* its rationality.


Hulalessar said:


> None of the above can be explained by rational analysis.


All three are logical within the framework of there definitions. Definitions cannot be right or wrong they can only be more or less useful. And all three are useful.


----------



## Forero

Hulalessar said:


> ... French: _Il y a des chiens dans le jardin_.
> 
> English and Spanish agree that when you are talking about dogs (but not all dogs) you have not referred to before that no article is needed. French requires an indefinite article.


All three languages apparently need an audible indication of plurality for "dogs but not all dogs"





> French:  _Les chiens *sont *dans le jardin_.


All three of these languages require a verb here.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Hulalessar said:


> Unless adopting a position of extreme scepticism, we can accept that human experience is that things do things and things have things done to them. All languages reflect that and can distinguish between "the dog chases the cat " and "the cat chases the dog". It is also possible in every language to communicate whether what you are talking about took place in the past, is taking place while you speak or is expected to take place in the future. My point is that whether or not there is such a thing as a universal grammar or humans are born with a language instinct, at the level where language operates it consists of arbitary conventions which cannot be analysed rationally or logically.
> 
> Take articles. Many languages function perfectly well without them. Those that have them do not use them in exactly identical ways. Compare:
> 
> English: _There are dogs in the garden_.
> Spanish: _Hay perros en el jardín_.
> French: _Il y a des chiens dans le jardin_.
> 
> English and Spanish agree that when you are talking about dogs (but not all dogs) you have not referred to before that no article is needed. French requires an indefinite article.
> 
> English: _Dogs are dangerous_.
> Spanish: _Los perros son peligrosos_.
> French:  _Les chiens sont dans le jardin_.
> 
> When talking about dogs generally English does not require any article. Spanish and French agree that a definite article is needed.
> 
> English:_ The dogs in the garden are dangerous._
> Spanish: _Los perros en el jardín son peligrosos_.
> French:  _Les chiens dans le jardin sont dangéreux_.
> 
> All three languages agree that when referring to certain specified dogs the definite article is needed.
> 
> None of the above can be explained by rational analysis. In the first instance you cannot argue that, say, French is more logical because it takes the trouble to insert a word that makes it clear that not all dogs are being talked about. It is simply the case that French requires the "des" - if you ask why the answer is: "Because it is so."


There are not many arbitrary conventions in most known languages.  There are conventions that arose through spontaneous eliminating of a large number f grammatically possible word orders and lexical choices ". Well, there are certain arbitrary conventions coined by people who had the power of doing so, for example the ban on double negation in English. Most of grammatical forms can be, however, explained on the basis of the history of the language, so the claim that 92% of English language structure and lexis are inexplicable simply is not true.


----------



## Hulalessar

Ben Jamin said:


> There are not many arbitrary conventions in most known languages.  There are conventions that arose through spontaneous eliminating of a large number f grammatically possible word orders and lexical choices ". Well, there are certain arbitrary conventions coined by people who had the power of doing so, for example the ban on double negation in English. Most of grammatical forms can be, however, explained on the basis of the history of the language, so the claim that 92% of English language structure and lexis are inexplicable simply is not true.



I am not saying that languages do not have rules - of course they do. It is also the case that if you ask a question of the type:_ Why does French do this when Spansh does not? _you may be able to provide a historical explanation. And natural languages may have features which have been consciously grafted onto them.

What I am getting at is that for any language when you look at it as it is at any given time the meanings assigned to the sounds/marks on paper and the way the sounds/marks on paper are required to be organised are arbitrary. We cannot say, for example, that the way Chinese does things is more logical or rational than the way Quechua does things. All you can do is say that Chinese does things this way and Quechua does them that way. You have to home in on what you can and must do. You cannot take Chinese as a benchmark to describe Quechua.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Hulalessar said:


> I am not saying that languages do not have rules - of course they do. It is also the case that if you ask a question of the type:_ Why does French do this when Spansh does not? _you may be able to provide a historical explanation. And natural languages may have features which have been consciously grafted onto them.
> 
> What I am getting at is that for any language when you look at it as it is at any given time the meanings assigned to the sounds/marks on paper and the way the sounds/marks on paper are required to be organised are arbitrary. We cannot say, for example, that the way Chinese does things is more logical or rational than the way Quechua does things. All you can do is say that Chinese does things this way and Quechua does them that way. You have to home in on what you can and must do. You cannot take Chinese as a benchmark to describe Quechua.


I agree with your explanation. But it is important to remember that "arbitrary" is not the same as "illogical".


----------

