# insist (that) he keep the coat on



## Lazarillo

I have read the sentence “Rocannon insisted he keep it on” (from ‘Rocannon’s World’, by Ursula K. LeGuin). This construction startled me as something new and kind of confusing.
   Is there any difference between these constructions?:

   A) She insisted that he kept the coat on.
   B) She insisted he keep the coat on.

Also, in case A, is it possible to omit 'that'?

Thank you, foreros.

L


----------



## Kaia

Lazarillo said:
			
		

> I have read the sentence “Rocannon insisted he keep it on” (from ‘Rocannon’s World’, by Ursula K. LeGuin). This construction startled me as something new and kind of confusing.
> Is there any difference between these constructions?:
> 
> A) She insisted that he kept the coat on.
> B) She insisted he keep the coat on.
> 
> Also, in case A, is it possible to omit 'that'?
> 
> Thank you, foreros.
> 
> L


 
Hi Lazarillo, I'll try to give an explanation of what _I think_ happens in these two sentences:

You can have these contructions:

a) _He insists that she come_ ( This "that she come" is called "that-noun clause" in Grammar, because you can replace it by a noun for instance "he insists *on* her coming" and you can do away with "that") so your sentence would turn to "He insists she come" 

b) _He insists that she should come_ (This sentence could be paraphrased in this way "He suggests that she should come") In both sentences you can erase "that" and "should", so your sentences would be turned into "He insists she come/ he suggests she come" (subjunctive).

In your sentences there is a different meaning of the verb "to insist".
Sentence A): the meaning of "insisted" means "to say firmly that sth is true, especially when other people do not believe you". So he is saying that _was wearing that coat at that moment_.

In sentence B) he is stating that he "suggested" (that) he (should) wear that coat.

In sentence A you can omit "that".


----------



## ampurdan

I think that both Lazarillo's sample sentences convey Kaia's b meaning, only that "he insisted he keep it on" it's the famous subjunctive construction, not necessary in English.


----------



## Paul Wessen

Hola, Ampurdan!

I must disagree with you.  In example  A  the subjunctive is necessary, therefore change _kept_ to _keep_ although I will admit that most English-speakers do not have the foggiest idea that they are using it.

If we omit the *that*, then both sentences are equally correct.

Happy Christmas  --------------  Paul


----------



## Kaia

Paul Wessen said:
			
		

> Hola, Ampurdan!
> 
> I must disagree with you. In example A the subjunctive is necessary, therefore change _kept_ to _keep_ although I will admit that most English-speakers do not have the foggiest idea that they are using it.
> 
> If we omit the *that*, then both sentences are equally correct.
> 
> Happy Christmas -------------- Paul


 

Hola Paul, what do you think of the idea of the different meanings of "insist" in Lazarillo's sentences A and B?


----------



## Le Pamplemousse

Kaia,

In your reply about sentence A, I agree that it could be true with the meaning for "insist" that you provide, though the form of "keep" in that instance would need to be changed to the past perfect "had kept".

Another way to do it might be to interpret the second clause of sentence A as a result clause (needing to add a few words):

"She insisted so diligently that he kept the coat on."

I agree that sentence B is quite correct.


----------



## Kaia

Le Pamplemousse said:
			
		

> Kaia,
> 
> In your reply about sentence A, I agree that it could be true with the meaning for "insist" that you provide, though the form of "keep" in that instance would need to be changed to the past perfect "had kept".
> .


 
I don't understand this Le Pamplemousse. Why "Past perfect"?

In Spanish :

> Ella insistió en que él *tenía puesta/tuvo puesta (?) *la chaqueta en *ese* momento
o
< Ella insistió en que él *había tenido puesta (?)* la chaqueta en *aquel* momento


----------



## Le Pamplemousse

Well, in sentence A "She insisted that he kept the coat on", we have the primary clause in the perfect tense, and the secondary clause also in the perfect tense.  In order for someone to "insist" something, as "to say firmly that sth is true, especially when other people do not believe you", the thing on which you are insisting has to be before the insisting of it, given that something cannot have been completed at the same time you are saying it.  Therefore, the secondary clause must happen before the primary clause, leading us to the past perfect. 

I'm not a Spanish expert, but "tener puesto" means "to wear", right?  "Keep" and "wear" are two entirely different verbs, because "keep" implies a continuation of an event.

"She insisted that he was wearing the coat." (meaning she said it to be true that he was wearing it at the time)
"She insisted that he wear the coat." (English subjunctive, meaning she suggested that he wear it)
"She insisted that he had worn the coat." (She said it to be true that he had worn it at some point before her insisting)
"She insisted that he continued to wear the coat." ("continue to wear" = "keep", here, and it isn't gramatically correct; it would have to be "had continued")

Sorry if this is confusing, but I hope it gives some help.

One question - does "insistir en que" take the subjunctive in Spanish?


----------



## ampurdan

Yes, "ella insistió en que no se quitara el abrigo/ en que continuara llevando el abrigo" (request).

But: "ella insistió en que había llevado/llevaba el abrigo" (remark).


----------



## Lazarillo

Thank you all very much, but I am afraid I am still more confused than before. From the context of the sentence, it is clear that Rocannon repeatedly told his companion not to take off his (Rocannon's) coat. I'll try to organize the ideas (for my own mental health!) in a series of questions:

 Kaia, your first answer gives a lot of clues, but also, from your later question to Paul it seems that you are not 100% sure about the different meanings of _insist_. Do you think this difference comes from the construction and that it could happen with other verbs?

Considering what is clear from the original sentence (that Rocannon repeteadly told his companion not to take off his own coat), would the following sentence mean the same?:
_Rocannon insisted (that) he kept it on.

_Following this idea, and considering the examples you use and what I think of it myself, would the verb _kept _in the sentence above change to _keep _if the principal verb was the present simple form _insist_?
_Rocannon insists (that) he keeps it on.

_If the answer is yes, is Ms LeGuin's sentence wrong?

Although this is very appealing to me I cannot wait for the answer now -Christmas duties summon me off!


 Thank you all very very much. I hope to be back early tomorrow morning and read interesting opinions as usual in this great forum.

 By the way, read Ms LeGuin if you like SciFi. She is the best!

L


----------



## Lazarillo

Thank you all very much, but I am afraid I am still more confused than before. From the context of the sentence, it is clear that Rocannon repeatedly told his companion not to take off his (Rocannon's) coat. I'll try to organize the ideas (for my own mental health!) in a series of questions:

 Kaia, your first answer gives a lot of clues, but also, from your later question to Paul it seems that you are not 100% sure about the different meanings of _insist_. Do you think this difference comes from the construction and that it could happen with other verbs?

Considering what is clear from the original sentence (that Rocannon repeteadly told his companion not to take off his own coat), would the following sentence mean the same?:
_Rocannon insisted (that) he kept it on.

_Following this idea, and considering the examples you use and what I think of it myself, would the verb _kept _in the sentence above change to _keep _if the principal verb was the present simple form _insists_?
_Rocannon insists (that) he keep it on.

_If the answer is yes, is Ms LeGuin's sentence wrong?

Although this is very appealing to me I cannot wait for the answer now -Christmas duties summon me off!


 Thank you all very very much. I hope to be back early tomorrow morning and read interesting opinions as usual in this great forum.

 By the way, read Ms LeGuin if you like SciFi. She is the best!

L


----------



## Lazarillo

Sorry. I wanted to change my discourse a little bit just when I was sending it. I thought it would work but now I see it has been posted twice -the first being wrong! Please, should one moderator eliminate the first sending?

Thank you!

L


----------



## Kaia

Le Pamplemousse said:
			
		

> I'm not a Spanish expert, but "tener puesto" means "to wear", right? "Keep" and "wear" are two entirely different verbs, because "keep" implies a continuation of an event.


 
Well, *usar* = to wear; *tener puesto =* to wear; *dejarse puesto*= keep on

However my question to Le Pamplemousse was referred to the tense of the verb in the "that-noun clause".

Lazarillo> I'm sure about the two meanings of the verb "to insist", however, as I said in my first reply to your answer "that was my idea"...and of course it was "my interpretation". Anyway the context was not enough for me to understand the entire meaning of the sentences.

I gave some clues, maybe we can -together- get a solution to your question.


----------



## Kaia

Le Pamplemousse said:
			
		

> Well, in sentence A "She insisted that he kept the coat on", we have the primary clause in the perfect tense, and the secondary clause also in the perfect tense. In order for someone to "insist" something, as "to say firmly that sth is true, especially when other people do not believe you", the thing on which you are insisting has to be before the insisting of it, given that something cannot have been completed at the same time you are saying it. Therefore, the secondary clause must happen before the primary clause, leading us to the past perfect.


 
I agree in your explanation LP, in English I was taught this you are saying.  But maybe I am thinking in Spanish, thus my confusion.



> I'm not a Spanish expert, but "tener puesto" means "to wear", right? "Keep" and "wear" are two entirely different verbs, because "keep" implies a continuation of an event.


 
I replied to this in my previous post.



> One question - does "insistir en que" take the subjunctive in Spanish?


 
It depends, again on the meaning of "insistir".  If you take this verb in the sense of "to make a suggestion (a firm one)" you must use the subjunctive:

_Ella insiste en que Juan use el abrigo._
_Ella insitía en que Juan usara/usase el abrigo._
_Ella insistirá en que Juan use el abrigo._
_Ella había insistido en que Juan usare/se el abrigo._

If you take the other meaning, that of "state something firmly"

_Ella insiste en que Juan usaba/usó/estaba usando el abrigo en el momento del crimen._

In this last case and because you are stating a *fact*, you need the indicative mood.

If I'm forgetting something, please ask again.


----------



## Le Pamplemousse

Lazarillo,



> Considering what is clear from the original sentence (that Rocannon repeteadly told his companion not to take off his own coat), would the following sentence mean the same?:
> _Rocannon insisted (that) he *keep it on.
> _



Again, this sentence needs the English subjunctive, and the "kept" should be changed to "keep".



> Following this idea, and considering the examples you use and what I think of it myself, would the verb _kept _in the sentence above change to _keep _if the principal verb was the present simple form _insists_?
> _Rocannon insists (that) he keep it on.
> _


This sentence is correct, another use of the subjunctive (which, to be honest, if I wasn't trying to learn several other languages, I wouldn't know what it was)

Thus, the original sentence, "Rocannon insisted he keep it on", is correct.  The use of "that" in English in this sort of clause is arbitrary.  The sentence is fine with or without it.


----------



## ampurdan

Paul Wessen said:
			
		

> Hola, Ampurdan!
> 
> I must disagree with you. In example A the subjunctive is necessary, therefore change _kept_ to _keep_ although I will admit that most English-speakers do not have the foggiest idea that they are using it.
> 
> If we omit the *that*, then both sentences are equally correct.
> 
> Happy Christmas -------------- Paul


 
Thanks, Paul. Now I'll have some work trying to gather info about when these subjunctives are compulsory.

So, Pamplemousse, I must deduce from your remarks that a sentence like "She insisted (that) he kept it on" is always wrong, no matter which sense we apply on "to insist".

The correct sentences would be:

"She insisted (that) he had kept it on" and 
"She insisted (that) he was wearing it" ("was keeping it on"?)


----------



## DaleC

Lazarillo said:
			
		

> I have read the sentence “Rocannon insisted he keep it on” (from ‘Rocannon’s World’, by Ursula K. LeGuin). This construction startled me as something new and kind of confusing.
> Is there any difference between these constructions?:
> 
> A) She insisted that he kept the coat on.
> B) She insisted he keep the coat on.
> 
> Also, in case A, is it possible to omit 'that'?


 
A = Ella insistió en(?) que mantenía, mantuvo, puesto el abrigo él. 
B = Ella insistió en(?) que mantuviera puesto el abrigo él. 

So yeah, there's all the difference between them.  

With regard to the sentence you quote, one could say by way of explanation that the nonreality of the action, 'keep' is expressed implicitly by the conjunction of the use of the verb insist with the appearance of 'keep' in a dependent clause. 

It *is* possible to omit 'that' in case A. This is a very interesting point. English speakers omit 'that' so commonly before sentential direct objects, but here retention would actually be more likely than omission. This is due not to some clear rule, but to a stew of incidental factors. This is something that would almost never be noticed by any native speakers, but it's a very worthy question. My guess is that the combination of the lexical choice, 'insist' with the fact that the dependent sentence is in the past somehow exerts pressure toward retention of 'that'. That's just my extemporaneous speculation as a native speaker and an *amateur* linguist who has studied grammar and foreign languages for decades.


----------



## Lazarillo

Well, my Christmas dinner is over and I am back before I thought .

Your comments have been very helpful. Now I can see the differences between the sentences and notice my misinterpretations and lack of knowledge.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> So, Pamplemousse, I must deduce from your remarks that a sentence like "She insisted (that) he kept it on" is always wrong, no matter which sense we apply on "to insist".



If I understood all your comments, this is not true. They just have different meanings:

A) _She insisted (that) he keep it on_ = _She insisted on his keeping it on_ = _She insisted (that) he continued to wear it_ = Ella insistió en que siguiera llevándolo puesto (Thank you, Kaia, Le Pamplemousse and DaleC). This is what Ms LeGuin meant.

B) _She insisted (that) he kept it on_ = _She firmly stated (that) he was still wearing it_ = Ella insistió en que seguía llevándolo puesto.

C) _She insisted (that) he had kept it on_ = _She firmly stated (that) he had been wearing it all the time_ = Ella insistió en que había seguido llevándolo puesto (Graciès, ampurdan).

I this right?

L


----------



## Le Pamplemousse

I maintain that the first sentence in B) is always wrong, no matter which "insist" is used.

If it were possible to use it given the verb "to keep", I would say that this would be correct (but it is not): *"She insisted (that) he was keeping it on."  
Rather, if the verb is changed to "to wear", such as in the second part of B), it would make perfect sense: "She firmly stated (that) he was wearing it."  The imperfect (provided that "keep" is not used), pluperfect (past perfect), and English subjunctive are all correct in the second clause, but not the simple past.


----------



## Paul Wessen

LAZARILLO:  B) _She insisted (that) he kept it on_ = _She firmly stated (that) he was still wearing it_ = Ella insistió en que seguía llevándolo puesto.

PAMPELMOUSSE: I maintain that the first sentence in B) is always wrong, no matter which "insist" is used.

Sorry, Pampelmouse, but I must _insist (jeje)_ that Lanzarillo is right.  Consider this situation:   The day after the murder, the detectives are standing around discussing yesterday's testimony of the witnesses, of which Lady Blake is one.  Lady Blake is famous for her keen eye and fabulous memory.  They are discussing a suspect, George, who may or may not have been wearing his coat when the police arrived.  Detective: "Well now, we have three witnesses who say that George was not wearing a coat when we got here."  Police Inspector:  "That may be, young man, but Lady Blake _insists_ that he _kept it on_ until after we left."

A year later, recounting the case to friends at his club, he would say:  "Lady Blake _had insisted_ that he _had kept_ it on the whole time.

------------   Paul


----------



## Le Pamplemousse

> Sorry, Pamp*le*mouse, but I must _insist (jeje)_ that Lazarillo is right. Consider this situation: The day after the murder, the detectives are standing around discussing yesterday's testimony of the witnesses, of which Lady Blake is one. Lady Blake is famous for her keen eye and fabulous memory. They are discussing a suspect, George, who may or may not have been wearing his coat when the police arrived. Detective: "Well now, we have three witnesses who say that George was not wearing a coat when we got here." Police Inspector: "That may be, young man, but Lady Blake _insists_ that he _kept it on_ until after we left."
> 
> A year later, recounting the case to friends at his club, he would say: "Lady Blake _had insisted_ that he _had kept_ it on the whole time.


 
Well, first of all, neither "Lady Blake insists that he kept it on until after we left" nor "Lady Blake had insisted that he had kept it on the whole time" are the same as the sentence I claim is never correct. The first one you provide uses the present tense in the first clause and the simple past in the second. The second one you provide uses the pluperfect in both clauses. Furthermore, I don't believe your second sentence is correct. When you use the pluperfect, you must have some sort of past action to relate it to. Your sentence gives no such action. "Lady Blake insisted that he had kept it on" would be the way to go unless you add more information to that sentence, like "Before I arrived there, Lady Blake had insisted that he had kept it on the whole time" or something.

The thing about the verb "to keep" is that it can't really just be happening at one certain time. One would never say simply "I keep my jacket on." That statement has to be qualified by some sentence or clause describing time, such as "I always keep my jacket on" or "I kept my jacket on for fours hours" or something like that. The sentence "She insisted that he kept the jacket on" combines two simple past tense clauses, meaning that both are completed past actions. However, since the keeping on of the jacket needs to happen for more than an instant, you need to use the pluperfect. 
"She insisted that he had kept the jacket on the whole time."
"She insists that he kept the jacket on the whole time."

In order to insist something (meaning say that it's true even though no one believes you) the thing upon which you are insisting has to have happened before the insisting of it, and cannot have happened at the same time as.

I apologize that there isn't a simple answer to this conundrum, and I hope there is less confusion as time goes on rather than more.


----------



## Lazarillo

Now that there is some light in my head, I think I understand you, Le Pamplemousse. What is wrong in the first sentence in B could be equivalent to this in Spanish: "*Ella insistió en que él siguió llevándolo puesto".
I never thought my doubt was such a loaded subject. I will need to reread all your comments to get rid of a persistent sense of unclearness, but I think I have learnt a lot already.

Thank you very much. And I am glad Ms LeGuin was right!

L


----------



## DaleC

I have to disagree with Pamplemousse on two points. Beware: a particular letter reference, e.g., "(A)", may refer to different sentences across the different posts. 

And with #21(B) -- which is an ambiguous sentence (it has at least two interpretations), Lazarillo has happened upon big (subtly sophisticated) issues: defaulting from the progressive aspect; and lexically dependent additional modality senses; . 

*First disagreement. *It is a mistake to claim (to insist  ) that it is always "wrong" to fall back to, or "default" to, a simple tense when precision would call for a perfect tense. Since this imprecision is practiced so regularly, it cannot be considered incorrect. Unfortunate, perhaps, but not incorrect. (I will use the description "default to" the simplest conjugation, but another description among linguists would be "neutralize the distinction between" the two meanings expressed by the respective conjugations.) 

It would be a good research topic, when speakers use the present perfect or past perfect and when they "let it slide". 

One must also bear in mind it is widely observed that defaulting to the simple tense is more common in AE than in BE. 

#1 [QUOTE-Lazarillo]A) She insisted that he kept the coat on.
B) She insisted he keep the coat on.[/quote]
#8 


			
				Le Pamplemousse said:
			
		

> in sentence A "She insisted that he kept the coat on", we have the primary clause in the perfect tense -- no, in the simple present, but this does not bear on the merit of your argument --, and the secondary clause also in the perfect tense. In order for someone to "insist" something, as "to say firmly that sth is true, especially when other people do not believe you", the thing on which you are insisting has to be before the insisting of it, given that something cannot have been completed at the same time you are saying it. Therefore, the secondary clause must happen before the primary clause, leading us to the past perfect.


So, yes, it would be more precise to say for #1(A), "She insisted that he *had *kept the coat on". But not necessary, at least when "insist" means "insist on the truth of", because the meaning of insist and the fact that both clauses are in the past tense precludes a nonperfect interpretation. 
#14 


			
				Kaia said:
			
		

> I agree in your explanation LP, in English I was taught this you are saying.


 

*Second disagreement. *While it is correct that "keep" has to be qualified by a time adverbial, this qualification does not have to appear in the sentence along with "keep". It may instead be presupposed, given by the context. 

#18 


			
				Lazarillo said:
			
		

> A) _She insisted (that) he keep it on_ = _She insisted on his keeping it on_ = _She insisted (that) he continued to wear it_ = Ella insistió en que siguiera llevándolo puesto (Thank you, Kaia, Le Pamplemousse and DaleC). This is what Ms LeGuin meant.
> 
> B) _She insisted (that) he kept it on_ = _She firmly stated (that) he was still wearing it_ = Ella insistió en que seguía llevándolo puesto.
> 
> C) _She insisted (that) he had kept it on_ = _She firmly stated (that) he had been wearing it all the time_ = Ella insistió en que había seguido llevándolo puesto (Graciès, ampurdan).


#21 


			
				Le Pamplemousse said:
			
		

> The thing about the verb "to keep" is that it can't really just be happening at one certain time. One would never say simply "I keep my jacket on." That statement has to be qualified by some sentence or clause describing time, such as "I always keep my jacket on" or "I kept my jacket on for fours hours" or something like that.



Again, it is likely that such time specifications either will have been uttered earlier in the discourse or will be obvious from the context of the events in which the discourse takes place. 

21(B) can mean what Lazarillo suggested. This is a case of the little noticed but very common phenomenon of *defaulting from the progressive aspect back to the simple aspect *(aspect is a linguistic term rarely used in texts for laypeople). A second, and very clear, example of this default is 

"As she spoke, I watched her hands". This really means, 
"As she was speaking, I was watching her hands". 

But the "cruder" version is at least as natural in real life usage -- I even think it's quite a bit more likely. The more precise version is certainly good usage, but in most circumstances it would be considered overkill, i.e., precise to excess. Notice that 21(B) has two defaultings: from perfect tense AND from progressive aspect. 

But there's yet another complication, the second of the two I mentioned. If you were to say "He *was keeping *the coat on" or "She insisted that he *was keeping *the coat on", as opposed to "he *was still wearing *. . ." or "he *continued to wear *. . .", then you would be adding a meaning: the modality of *intention*: 

"He was keeping the coat on" would usually be interpreted (understood) to mean, 
"He was intentionally keeping it on", "He was keeping it on on purpose". 

But 21(B) can also mean the same as 21(C), "had kept it on" as opposed to "had still been wearing it". 

Regards, 
Dale


----------



## Outsider

Lazarillo said:
			
		

> I have read the sentence “Rocannon insisted he keep it on” (from ‘Rocannon’s World’, by Ursula K. LeGuin). This construction startled me as something new and kind of confusing.
> Is there any difference between these constructions?:
> 
> A) She insisted that he kept the coat on.
> B) She insisted he keep the coat on.
> 
> Also, in case A, is it possible to omit 'that'?
> 
> Thank you, foreros.
> 
> L


This has been discussed in the forum a few times, for example here. Beware that the answer I gave in that thread appeared to be wrong.


----------



## Le Pamplemousse

> It is a mistake to claim (to insist  ) that it is always "wrong" to fall back to, or "default" to, a simple tense when precision would call for a perfect tense. Since this imprecision is practiced so regularly, it cannot be considered incorrect. Unfortunate, perhaps, but not incorrect.


 
Well, there is where opinion enters into the equation. Just because something is "practiced so regularly" doesn't mean it should be accepted as correct grammar. The past perfect ("She insisted that he had worn the coat"), past progressive/imperfect (She insisted that he was wearing the coat"), and conditional ("She insisted that he would wear the coat") must all be considered grammatically correct in indirect discourse of this type, with a simple past verb in the first clause (I changed "keep" to "wear" to avoid the other argument). Thus, I believe that this "falling back to a simple tense" is incorrect grammar, despite the fact that some people may use it in everyday speech.

It also brings up the topic of written vs. spoken language. If someone were to use such a sentence with a simple past verb in the second clause, I would not correct him/her, because I would have understood what he/she had meant and doing so would be quite pompous and arrogant. However, if I were reading a paper and someone used this construction, I would most certainly correct it.



> *Second disagreement. *While it is correct that "keep" has to be qualified by a time adverbial, this qualification does not have to appear in the sentence along with "keep". It may instead be presupposed, given by the context.





> The thing about the verb "to keep" is that it can't really just be happening at one certain time. One would never say simply "I keep my jacket on." That statement has to be qualified by *some sentence* or clause describing time, such as "I always keep my jacket on" or "I kept my jacket on for fours hours" or something like that.


 
So, your second disagreement isn't really a disagreement. We are in agreement that the time construction could be in another sentence.



> This has been discussed in the forum a few times, for example here. Beware that the answer I gave in that thread appeared to be wrong.


 
Very true, Outsider, but the topic has shifted away from the subjunctive discussion.


----------



## Lazarillo

Hello again! I said it -it *is* a loaded subject.


			
				DaleC said:
			
		

> 21(B) can mean what Lazarillo suggested.


Excuse me DaleC. I do not find any As or Bs in post #21. Did you mean post #18 (the one with my three examples)? I am just an enthusiast of grammar and English language, and your post is so technical and thorough that I feel even more stupid than before. I promiss I will do my homework and reread all the posts and try to be able to get my own opinion. However, first thing I *must* learn before I accomplish it is to know whether the presence of the verbs "insist" and "keep" are important or not in what we are discussing, i.e., if this structure is somewhat conditioned by the presence of these precise verbs.


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> This has been discussed in the forum a few times, for example here. Beware that the answer I gave in that thread appeared to be wrong.


I followed the thread and I understood what is there. I understand the difference between "She be the one" or "She is the one". That's a beginning.

Thank you all. No matter how difficult it be, I enjoy it!

L


----------



## Le Pamplemousse

> I promis*e* I will do my homework and reread all the posts and try to be able to get my own opinion. However, first thing I *must* learn before I accomplish it is to know whether the presence of the verbs "insist" and "keep" are important or not in what we are discussing, i.e., if this structure is somewhat conditioned by the presence of these precise verbs.


 
Well, since the original point of this thread was to help you, we should probably get back to that, eh?

The verb "to insist" has no bearing on the sentences grammar-wise. It just means a few different things.

Now, for "keep":

In the construction we are discussing, here are the ways you express certain time constructions. In my little situation here, we have a boy named Jack. He is walking around in the cold. His mother, who is at home, is worried that he could freeze.

1) She hoped that he had worn the jacket. (the wearing before the hoping)
2) She hoped that he was wearing the jacket. (the wearing at the same time as the hoping)
3) She hoped that he would wear the jacket. (the helping after the hoping)

Now, concerning the verb "to keep", both #1 and #3 would be fine ïn the second clause (had kept it on, would keep it on) provided that there is a duration of time construction somewhere in the paragraph/sentence/story, but not in #2 (was keeping it on). In #2, if the verb "to wear" is replaced by the verb "to keep", the sentence reads: "She hoped that he was keeping the jacket on." This sentence means that at the same moment as she was hoping, he was (or was not) "keeping" the jacket on. However, since "keep" in this sense means "continue to wear", it cannot be done in a single moment. It has to be done for a duration of time.

"She hoped that he was still wearing the jacket" is what I would use in that context.


----------



## Lazarillo

Thanks, Le Pamplemousse, also for correcting my mistakes and being sensitive about my needs. Lesson 1 learned.
Now comes Lesson 2:


			
				DaleC said:
			
		

> And with #21(B) (#18(B)?) -- which is an ambiguous sentence (it has at least two interpretations), Lazarillo has happened upon big (subtly sophisticated) issues: *defaulting from the progressive aspect; and lexically dependent additional modality senses*


Can anyone expalin that in a clearer way?

Thank you all for your patience.

L


----------



## DaleC

You're right, I meant post #18, not post #21. 



			
				Lazarillo said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaleC*
> _And with #21(B) (#18(B)?) -- which is an ambiguous sentence (it has at least two interpretations), Lazarillo has happened upon big (subtly sophisticated) issues: *defaulting from the progressive aspect; and lexically dependent additional modality senses*_
> 
> Can anyone expalin that in a clearer way?



Maybe somebody else can. I freely admit my message could have been written more clearly -- probably not by me. 

Nevertheless, the answers to your new questions ARE in my same message -- they're further down. For the first question, I gave a simple example, and as to the second question, I meant the "keep" is a special case. I wrote: 



> *18*(B) can mean what Lazarillo suggested. This is a case of the little noticed but very common phenomenon of *defaulting from the progressive aspect back to the simple aspect *(aspect is a linguistic term rarely used in texts for laypeople). A second, and very clear, example of this default is
> 
> "As she spoke, I watched her hands". This really means,
> "As she was speaking, I was watching her hands".


Doesn't this pair of sentences define my terminology well enough? In any case, the conjugation "BE VERB-ing" denotes the progressive aspect. 

And I noted that the difference between "he kept it on" and "he was keeping it on" was that the latter contains the extra meaning of *intention*; and I wrote that intention is one of the *modalities*. "Lexical" means "of vocabulary". So "lexical dependence" or "lexical conditioning" means that a difference between two sentences is due to different lexical choices (i.e., due to having chosen different *words*) instead of due to syntax (construction of a sentence). Specifically, it is not usually the case that "is VERB-ing" adds the meaning of intention to "VERB-ed"; "keep" is a special case. 

I welcome other requests for clarification.


----------



## Lazarillo

Thank you, DaleC. 

I didn't mean to say that your explanation was not clear -well, it was not clear _for me_! Regarding the "phenomenon of defaulting from the progressive aspect back to the simple aspect", the examples are very illustrative, and my not understanding was due to information overload (again, in my particular case). Sorry. 

As we put it in Spain, the matter '_lo tengo cogido con alfileres_'... I need more hours of study! But it has been up to now a very interesting and intensive course.   I'll be out a few days on holiday and I hope to have time to think about it and surely new questions will arise.

Thanks again,

L


----------

