The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

was to sing vs was to have sung Options
wanda
Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:53:05 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2009
Posts: 86
Neurons: 251
Location: Poland
That's me again ;)
There is this sentence: Dally was to have sung solo but she fell ill.
If I use the normal infinitive there (was to sing), in which respect will it change..?
Once again, I'd be very happy, if somebody were eager to explain it to me...
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:32:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
Same answer from me for this question as well. Looks like some of us can use your sense of propriety big time-- a slang
for--abundantly!
Shadowstar
Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:01:23 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/6/2009
Posts: 39
Neurons: 106
Location: United States
Sung is the past tense and past participle of sing. While was to have sung is correct for that sentence, was to sing would be a split infinitive.
rosicrucian
Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:02:48 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/25/2009
Posts: 142
Neurons: 425
Location: Philippines
I prefer "was to sing", they have the same thought but the sentence
becomes more simple.

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.-Albert Einstein
wanda
Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:28:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2009
Posts: 86
Neurons: 251
Location: Poland
[Isaac Samuel wrote:]
Same answer from me for this question as well. Looks like some of us can use your sense of propriety big time-- a slang
for--abundantly!


Well, you may call me stupid and half-witted, but I am not sure I get you Think
wanda
Posted: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:30:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2009
Posts: 86
Neurons: 251
Location: Poland
[rosicrucian wrote:]
I prefer "was to sing", they have the same thought but the sentence
becomes more simple.


As far as I've been taught, the sentence have DIFFERENT meaning... But I don't know exactly what that is... Think
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:11:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
wanda wrote:

"Well, you may call me stupid and half-witted, but I am not sure I get you"

Your quest for appropriateness (propriety) is something that some of us lack big time (abundantly/seriously).
This is a self deprecating statement made to compliment you.Applause Applause
md56
Posted: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:46:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/29/2009
Posts: 161
Neurons: 500
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
sang
Luftmarque
Posted: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:39:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/17/2009
Posts: 3,120
Neurons: 39,962
Location: Pau, Aquitaine, France
Shadowstar wrote:
Sung is the past tense and past participle of sing. While was to have sung is correct for that sentence, was to sing would be a split infinitive.


Both of the sentences are fine, I'd probably prefer "was to have sung" but "was to sing" is probably less stuffy.

Shadowstar: how can "was to sing" be a split infinitive when the infinitive is "to sing?" Wouldn't it have to be something like "was to sweetly sing" to be split?


}- Luftmarque لوفتمارك -{ Le doute n'est pas une condition agréable, mais la certitude est absurde.—Voltaire
Romany
Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:05:06 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,396
Neurons: 48,373
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
I have also been puzzling over the split infinitive thing: - I see no evidence of one at all.

And now: please forgive if this seems meddlesome - especially as it is not directed at the OP:-

Isaac: While I fully get (now you've explained it) the compliment you are trying to pay to Wanda, perhaps her mystification came from the fact that the word "propriety" is not used to equate to a "search for appropriatenes"?

Acting with propriety would mean conforming to good or proper moral standards. Its not a commonly used word in modern English, except in a jokey manner.

The phrase "search for appropriateness" then, when coupled with "propriety" is capable of being interpreted completely differently to what was intended. (BTW, "search for appropriateness" itself does not quite work.)

I sincerely hope this hasn't offended you, but I see from your posts that you have a keen interest in the English Language and for ways to express yourself. Your enthusiasm is what prompted me but, if I have poked my nose where its not wanted, then feel free to tell me to bugger off.(vulgar; slang term - means go away)
Geeman
Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:30:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,788
Neurons: 124,907
Location: Whittier, California, United States
wanda wrote:
That's me again ;)
There is this sentence: Dally was to have sung solo but she fell ill.
If I use the normal infinitive there (was to sing), in which respect will it change..?
Once again, I'd be very happy, if somebody were eager to explain it to me...

Instead of either option, how about "Dally was going to sing, but she fell ill." Either "was to have sung" or "was to sing" sound a bit awkward to me. To my ear, both intimate that Dally is not an active participant in the sentence. "Dally was to have sung/was to sing but..." both sound as if the point is that Dally's singing was arranged, but the appointment fell through because of the illness. On the other hand, "was going to sing" sounds more neutral on the issue of arrangement, and a bit more standard.
Isaac Samuel
Posted: Thursday, November 12, 2009 5:38:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/2/2009
Posts: 674
Neurons: 1,222
Location: United States
Romany:

This morning, there was a news caster in a popular radio broadcast (NPR) was using the word "eponymous" to illustrate "Ford Motors" while I only use it with " Alzheimer disease" and the like. The difference is so nuanced that the only option left for me is to compromise!

When I used the word "propriety" for "appropriateness" I did have some trepidation (if any consolation to you at all)
but I compromised because I have heard it used somewhere sometime by some credible source.

Being, not only by virtue of your birth but also as a teacher of ESL, you have the seminal (sexual connotation aside) right to chime in, but not to poke your nose--Mind your language please!Shame on you I am soooo excited!
hobbithopper
Posted: Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:06:42 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 11/14/2009
Posts: 1
Neurons: 3
Location: Ireland
Romany wrote:
I have also been puzzling over the split infinitive thing: - I see no evidence of one at all.

And now: please forgive if this seems meddlesome - especially as it is not directed at the OP:-

Isaac: While I fully get (now you've explained it) the compliment you are trying to pay to Wanda, perhaps her mystification came from the fact that the word "propriety" is not used to equate to a "search for appropriatenes"?

Acting with propriety would mean conforming to good or proper moral standards. Its not a commonly used word in modern English, except in a jokey manner.

The phrase "search for appropriateness" then, when coupled with "propriety" is capable of being interpreted completely differently to what was intended. (BTW, "search for appropriateness" itself does not quite work.)

I sincerely hope this hasn't offended you, but I see from your posts that you have a keen interest in the English Language and for ways to express yourself. Your enthusiasm is what prompted me but, if I have poked my nose where its not wanted, then feel free to tell me to bugger off.(vulgar; slang term - means go away)
Anxious Drool Applause Speak to the hand Brick wall Shame on you
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.