| Author |
Message |
christopher
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 3:15 pm
Post subject: auxillary modal verb |
|
|
"By doing these things, we can achieve a realistic-looking explosion.
All of this is realizable inside the VRML 2.0 standard. The typical
approach would have the controlling Java program change the translation
field of each element, one after each other, at every tick of a
TimeSensor. For example, if there were three elements in the explosion
and the TimeSensor "ticked" every tenth of a second, the Java program
will wait 0.1 seconds, and then proceed to change the translation field
of all three elements."
"The typical approach would have ..." I don't know why the author use
'would' here as it is present and real (not hypothetic). Why don't use
'will' instead? I know that hypothetic situation or condition sentence
or past habit usually use 'would' but in this case, it doesn't belong
either one case.
Please give me some clues!!
Thanks,
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 4:03 pm
Post subject: Re: auxillary modal verb |
|
|
On 2 May 2005 02:15:41 -0700, "christopher" <conjecture@geocities.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | "By doing these things, we can achieve a realistic-looking explosion.
All of this is realizable inside the VRML 2.0 standard. The typical
approach would have the controlling Java program change the translation
field of each element, one after each other, at every tick of a
TimeSensor. For example, if there were three elements in the explosion
and the TimeSensor "ticked" every tenth of a second, the Java program
will wait 0.1 seconds, and then proceed to change the translation field
of all three elements."
"The typical approach would have ..." I don't know why the author use
'would' here as it is present and real (not hypothetic). Why don't use
'will' instead? I know that hypothetic situation or condition sentence
or past habit usually use 'would' but in this case, it doesn't belong
either one case.
Please give me some clues!!
Thanks,
Chris
|
Because he's saying 'if we wrote this program, this is how it would
work'. Using 'will' suggests absolutely certainty, which anybody
who's ever programmed anything knows usually preceeds a total
screw-up.
DC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 4:46 pm
Post subject: Re: auxillary modal verb |
|
|
"Django Cat" <nospam@please.com> wrote in message
news:rhub71p8f94tsa5g013j3ela7oa6e7lq1h@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On 2 May 2005 02:15:41 -0700, "christopher" <conjecture@geocities.com
wrote:
"By doing these things, we can achieve a realistic-looking explosion.
All of this is realizable inside the VRML 2.0 standard. The typical
approach would have the controlling Java program change the translation
field of each element, one after each other, at every tick of a
TimeSensor. For example, if there were three elements in the explosion
and the TimeSensor "ticked" every tenth of a second, the Java program
will wait 0.1 seconds, and then proceed to change the translation field
of all three elements."
"The typical approach would have ..." I don't know why the author use
'would' here as it is present and real (not hypothetic). Why don't use
'will' instead? I know that hypothetic situation or condition sentence
or past habit usually use 'would' but in this case, it doesn't belong
either one case.
Please give me some clues!!
Thanks,
Chris
Because he's saying 'if we wrote this program, this is how it would
work'. Using 'will' suggests absolutely certainty, which anybody
who's ever programmed anything knows usually preceeds a total
screw-up.
|
The problem seems to be the mismatch between the opening present tense "can"
and the later conditionals. If the writer is in effect giving instructions
as to how the explosion can be simulated -- a tried-and-tested "recipe" as
it were -- then use present tense throughout: e.g. the third sentence now
runs "For example, if there are to be three elements in the explosion and
the TimeSensor "ticks" every tenth of a second, the Java program will wait
0.1 seconds, and then proceed to change the translation field of all three
elements."
If, however, it's a speculative suggestion as to how the explosion might be
simulated, then "would"/"could"/"were" etc. make the better choice.
Just be consistent, anyway.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 7:42 pm
Post subject: Re: auxillary modal verb |
|
|
On Mon, 02 May 2005 10:46:09 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Django Cat" <nospam@please.com> wrote in message
news:rhub71p8f94tsa5g013j3ela7oa6e7lq1h@4ax.com...
On 2 May 2005 02:15:41 -0700, "christopher" <conjecture@geocities.com
wrote:
"By doing these things, we can achieve a realistic-looking explosion.
All of this is realizable inside the VRML 2.0 standard. The typical
approach would have the controlling Java program change the translation
field of each element, one after each other, at every tick of a
TimeSensor. For example, if there were three elements in the explosion
and the TimeSensor "ticked" every tenth of a second, the Java program
will wait 0.1 seconds, and then proceed to change the translation field
of all three elements."
"The typical approach would have ..." I don't know why the author use
'would' here as it is present and real (not hypothetic). Why don't use
'will' instead? I know that hypothetic situation or condition sentence
or past habit usually use 'would' but in this case, it doesn't belong
either one case.
Please give me some clues!!
Thanks,
Chris
Because he's saying 'if we wrote this program, this is how it would
work'. Using 'will' suggests absolutely certainty, which anybody
who's ever programmed anything knows usually preceeds a total
screw-up.
The problem seems to be the mismatch between the opening present tense "can"
and the later conditionals. If the writer is in effect giving instructions
as to how the explosion can be simulated -- a tried-and-tested "recipe" as
it were -- then use present tense throughout: e.g. the third sentence now
runs "For example, if there are to be three elements in the explosion and
the TimeSensor "ticks" every tenth of a second, the Java program will wait
0.1 seconds, and then proceed to change the translation field of all three
elements."
If, however, it's a speculative suggestion as to how the explosion might be
simulated, then "would"/"could"/"were" etc. make the better choice.
Just be consistent, anyway.
Alan Jones
|
Ah, but the 'can' refers to "by doing these things". Then we go on to
hypothesise about 'the typical approach'...
DC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 7:56 pm
Post subject: Re: auxillary modal verb |
|
|
"Chris" quotes:
| All of this is realizable inside the VRML 2.0 standard. The typical
| approach would have the controlling Java program change the translation
| field of each element, one after each other, at every tick of a
| TimeSensor. For example, if there were three elements in the explosion
| and the TimeSensor "ticked" every tenth of a second, the Java program
| will wait 0.1 seconds, and then proceed to change the translation field
| of all three elements.
And asks:
| Quote: | "The typical approach would have ..." I don't know why the author use
'would' here as it is present and real (not hypothetic). ...
|
For no strong logical reason, that word is "hypothetical".
The simple present, "the typical approach has", is certainly possible.
But the sentence can be viewed as hypothetical: in effect, it means
(or would mean (if you took that view)) "a program using the typical
approach, if you wrote one that way, would have..." So this is correct
either way; it's a matter of style.
What's not correct is that the conditional, having been chosen, is
carried only part way through the following sentence, creating a wrong
sequence of tenses. It should be "would wait", not "will wait".
"Will wait" could only be correct if the first part of the sentence
used "are three elements" and "ticks", which in turn would only make
sense if the previous sentence used the simple present. And even
then, "would wait" would still be possible, since the "for example"
may be viewed as introducing an element of conditionality.
--
Mark Brader | Up until now, you have been told never to use
Toronto | the Goto. I use it. I use a revolver too, but
msb@vex.net | I don't give it to my children. --a Prof. Baird
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aokay (David G. Bryce)
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 7:09 am
Post subject: Re: auxillary modal verb |
|
|
On 2 May 2005 02:15:41 -0700, "christopher"
<conjecture@geocities.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "By doing these things, we can achieve a realistic-looking explosion.
All of this is realizable inside the VRML 2.0 standard. The typical
approach would have the controlling Java program change the translation
field of each element, one after each other, at every tick of a
TimeSensor. For example, if there were three elements in the explosion
and the TimeSensor "ticked" every tenth of a second, the Java program
will wait 0.1 seconds, and then proceed to change the translation field
of all three elements."
"The typical approach would have ..." I don't know why the author use
'would' here as it is present and real (not hypothetic). Why don't use
'will' instead? I know that hypothetic situation or condition sentence
or past habit usually use 'would' but in this case, it doesn't belong
either one case.
Please give me some clues!!
Thanks,
Chris
|
Chris,
Other posters' replies discuss various things but not this: please
remember that many speakers/writers of English, whether native or
not, mangle the language. Do the best to discover their meaning but
don't fret. Sometimes you'll be right, sometimes wrong.
aokay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in