let alone

[plin]

Hi,


Please correct as needed.




I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone


if it wasn't

if it weren't

if it had not been.



Also, please replace "let alone" with a word or words having the same meaning. Thanks.

[Pete]

Hi,


Please correct as needed.




I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone


if it wasn't

if it weren't

if it had not been.



Also, please replace "let alone" with a word or words having the same meaning. Thanks.I'd choose:
- if it had not been.

You might replace "let alone" with "all the more".

[plin]

>I'd choose:
- if it had not been.

>You might replace "let alone" with "all the more".



Thanks Pete,

Out of curiosity, does it make sense to replace "let alone" with "let's not think/say"? Likely not, is it?


I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let's not think/say if it had not been.

[Pete]

>I'd choose:
- if it had not been.

>You might replace "let alone" with "all the more".



Thanks Pete,

Out of curiosity, does it make sense to replace "let alone" with "let's not think/say"? Likely not, is it?


I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let's not think/say if it had not been.
I don't think so. "Let's not say" seems like a negative thought to me; I'd use it before suggesting a situation that would make something seem even worse, not something that would make it seem better. Also, if you make the second part of the sentence a complete independent clause like this, you must make the separator a semicolon, not a comma. For example:
- He barely passed the course even with a B on the final exam; let's not say what the result would have been if the exam grade had been D.

[Rusty]

I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone

I have been trying to figure out what the sentence means. Here is how I understand it. Is this OK?
I could see how nice the city is even though it was raining; not to say how nice it would have looked if it had not been raining.

[danmahaffey]

Me, too. I'm glad Pete picked that one.<img>

[plin]

Quote:
I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone


>I have been trying to figure out what the sentence means...


Are you trying to be humorous, Rusty? Because if you are, the smiley is missing in your comment.:)


Seriously, what you said is what I meant but I thought that "let alone" was a fairly common idiom; that it may have its variants like "all the more," mentioned by Pete, but that it simply means "not to mention." This is why I erroneously tried to put the meaning of "let's not say" to it. If this is the case, the following examples should be fine, shouldn't they?


She eats lots of fruit and legumes, let alone (not to mention) vegetables.

The city is nice on a rainy day, let alone (not to mention) on a sunny one.

In these two example I would leave the coma in place as opposed to a semicolon to make sense of the sentences; otherwise I would be saying to leave the vegetables and the nice city on a rainy day alone.


Sentence in question:

I could see how nice the city is even if was raining, let alone (not to mention) -it's beside the point to mention the said fact- if it had not been (raining).


I am not arguing about what I know or don't know here, just need some
clarity about this.


Corrected "it's besides the point" to "it's beside the point"


http://www.bartleby.com/68/27/3627.html

[plin]

>Also, if you make the second part of the sentence a complete independent clause like this, you must make the separator a semicolon, not a comma.

Pete:

If you read the sentence carefully, and if a semicolon is used, you will notice that the sense of the sentence is lost. "let alone" becomes a kind of imperative form like "leave it (the city) alone if... but the end of the sentence loses its sense.




I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone if it had not been raining.

[Rusty]

Quote:
I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone


I have been trying to figure out what the sentence means. Here is how I understand it. Is this OK?
I could see how nice the city is even though it was raining; not to say how nice it would have looked if it had not been raining.

Are you trying to be humorous, Rusty? Because if you are, the smiley is missing in your comment
(No, I wasn't being funny, Plin, I was confused by the modal, could: was it meant to be a present possibility or a past ability?)

[danmahaffey]

Quote:
I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone


I have been trying to figure out what the sentence means. Here is how I understand it. Is this OK?
I could see how nice the city is even though it was raining; not to say how nice it would have looked if it had not been raining.


(No, I wasn't being funny, Plin, I was confused by the modal, could: was it meant to be a present possibility or a past ability?)
Let me interject. I think what is happening here is that the sentence seems awkward or slightly eccentric to a few of us native speakers. All of the technical aspects of the sentence appear correct, yet the combination feels wrong. It doesn't "ring true."

In a situation like this, where the listener or reader has but a fraction of a second to grasp the sentence before the next sentence occurs, a form that requires decomposition and analysis is a stumbling block to understanding.

This sentence contains these "bumps"
is occurs in a tense different from could see
even if has the sense of even though yet if carries an unexpected aspect of doubt
let alone is an idiom that some people use, but it's uncommon, so some of us must pause to make sure we really know what it means
the clause introduced by let alone does not truly stand in opposition to the main clause, but tries bravely to, so we don't know whether it should be subjunctive or past perfectHere is my fix for the complete sentence:

I could see how nice the city was even though it was raining, let alone if it had not been.

English does not have a tense meaning "is then" as occurs in the sentence above, meaning "I saw it in the past, it is nice in the past, it is still nice." So we have to make to with was which places the emotion in the past alongside the action could see.

Does this exercise have a textbook solution?

[plin]

>(No, I wasn't being funny, Plin, I was confused by the modal, could: was it meant to be a present possibility or a past ability?)

I could see how nice the city is even...


I was trying to state a past fact (seeing the city). I wanted to say the city was, which makes sense with "could." I could not use "can" because I was expressing a past fact and could not use was because the city still stands. This is how I originally saw this sentence.

[plin]

>English does not have a tense meaning "is then" as occurs in the sentence above, meaning "I saw it in the past, it is nice in the past, it is still nice." So we have to make to with was which places the emotion in the past alongside the action could see.


Thanks, danmahaffey, for your analysis. If we can make do with "was," then the sentence should be less complicated that what it looks, even though "slightly eccentric." I know there are better ways to rewrite anything; it didn't occur to me to do that in this case. Again, thanks.

[ponpoco256]

I cannot see why the subjunctive "had been" is used.

(EX) The city is very nice, even when it rains, let alone when it is sunny.
(EX) Yesterday I read a travel book on Sweden, and I could see how nice Stockholm would be, even when it rained, let alone when it was sunny.

ponpoco

[danmahaffey]

Plin, English is not easy, especially in its distant, dusty corners. Even accomplished, fluent speakers make mistakes routinely. Don't feel bad about getting close to grammatically correct yet falling short of a goal that you know exists but can't quite grasp. If I felt that way, I'd be miserable most of the time.

The capacity of the language to be expressed, and to be understood, in spite of error is one of its strengths.

Good luck.

[danmahaffey]

I cannot see why the subjunctive "had been" is used.

(EX) The city is very nice, even when it rains, let alone when it is sunny.
(EX) Yesterday I read a travel book on Sweden, and I could see how nice Stockholm would be, even when it rained, let alone when it was sunny.

ponpoco I like both your sentences.

Note that your tenses and structures vary just slightly from the sentence plin wrote, indeed just enough to make your sentences well formed.

And, for the record, had been is past perfect tense, indicative mood, rather than present or past tense, subjunctive mood (were).

[plin]

>>I cannot see why the subjunctive "had been" is used.



Hi ponpoco! It's good to see your postings again. You may remember this part from my original posting:


Please correct as needed.




I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone


if it wasn't

if it weren't

if it had not been.



I believe that for this particular sentence "if it had not been" fits best and Pete seemed to agree with it but I am a weakling when it comes to making the case for technicalities of English grammar. I hope danmahaffey's opinion will suffice. Otherwise, let's wait for Pete to make the case for it. I rather steer clear on this one. I don't like potential minefields.:D

[ponpoco256]

I like both your sentences.

Note that your tenses and structures vary just slightly from the sentence plin wrote, indeed just enough to make your sentences well formed.

And, for the record, had been is past perfect tense, indicative mood, rather than present or past tense, subjunctive mood (were).
Hello Dan

Thanks for the compliment. As for "the past perfect", I understand English past perfect form is used in two ways. One use is to describe a "past before past" event, and the other is to suppose an unreal past event, i.e, past perfect subjunctive. Correct me if this understanding of mine is wrong.

ponpoco

[ponpoco256]

Hi ponpoco! It's good to see your postings again. You may remember this part from my original posting:
Please correct as needed.
I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone
if it wasn't
if it weren't
if it had not been.
I believe that for this particular sentence "if it had not been" fits best and Pete seemed to agree with it but I am a weakling when it comes to making the case for technicalities of English grammar. I hope danmahaffey's opinion will suffice. Otherwise, let's wait for Pete to make the case for it. I rather steer clear on this one. I don't like potential minefields.:DHi Plin

Thank you for your response. Well, the previous post was not addressed particularly to you. I just wondered why some people here chose "let alone if it had not been". In my opinion, it should be "let alone if it wasn't". In the construct "even A, let alone B", A and B are almost coordinative, so it is common that they have parallel structures. "Even on a rainy day, let alone on a sunny day", "even when it rains, let alone when it is sunny". So a grammatically un-paralleled collocation such as "even if it was raining, let alone if it had not been" sounds very weird to me.

As for the choice between "is" and "was" for "how nice city is/was", I understand why you chose "is". But I agree with Rusty and Dan in this point. You use "could" in the meaning of "was able to", so the tense of the whole sentence is defined to be in "past". Maybe you chose "is" because you thought "the city is nice" is a permanent truth. We can use the present tense for a statement in a clause subordinated to a main clause in the past tense when the statement is a permanent truth. An example is "Galileo believed that the Earth rotates around the Sun". But in English, this sort of use of the present tense sounds natural only when the statement is evidently always true. Suppose yesterday you thought that "Paris <is> a nice city". We can suppose a case that this statement that "Paris <is> a nice city" turns to be false today, if we imagine such a case that the city was completely ruined this morning by any attack of terrorists. So it would be safer to say "I could see how nice the city was" than to say "I could see how nice the city is".

paco

[danmahaffey]

Hello Dan

Thanks for the compliment. As for "the past perfect", I understand English past perfect form is used in two ways. One use is to describe a "past before past" event, and the other is to suppose an unreal past event, i.e, past perfect subjunctive. Correct me if this understanding of mine is wrong.

ponpoco You're welcome. Your understanding of past perfect seems fine. Subjunctive mood is an odd duck in English, having fallen into almost total disuse.

It had not rained before we left home, so we didn't think to bring an umbrella. If it had not rained on our walk, we would be dry now.

In the first sentence had not rained is past perfect indicative. In the second, it is past perfect subjunctive. Or so I believe. The forms are identical, and appear identical in nearly every use of the subjunctive, except in the notorious was/were case and a few other uses of be.

Some would say that indicative versus subjunctive is a distinction without a difference. I say also, if ESL students learn was/were/be exceptions, they can ignore any other consideration of subjunctive, and live a happy life.

[plin]

<... An example is "Galileo believed that the Earth rotates around the Sun". But in English, this sort of use of the present tense sounds natural only when the statement is evidently always true. Suppose yesterday you thought that "Paris <is> a nice city". We can suppose a case that this statement that "Paris <is> a nice city" turns to be false today, if we imagine such a case that the city was completely ruined this morning by any attack of terrorists. So it would be safer to say "I could see how nice the city was" than to say "I could see how nice the city is".>

paco



Interesting way of looking at this, Paco.



"Galileo believed that the Earth rotates around the Sun". So the tense in "rotates" sounds natural because the Earth always rotates around the sun.


Let's look at it from a differente angle:

She believed that her uncle hates many people.


Can we say, based on your comment, that the sentence above doesn't have a sense of continuity (her
uncle hates many people but not everybody), and as such, having the present form "hates" makes it incorrect and it's therefore imperative to replace "hates" with "hated"?


Now, the sentence reads: She believed that her uncle hates everybody.


Because "everybody" (no exceptions) shows a sense of continuity in her uncle's hatred, can we now say that the present form "hates" is applicable in this sentence? Or do you mean by "always," thousands or millions of years in every case? After all, unless we talk about the afterlife, even the Earth will eventually stop being what it is or does.

[ponpoco256]

Can we say, based on your comment, that the sentence above doesn't have a sense of continuity (her
uncle hates many people but not everybody), and as such, having the present form "hates" makes it incorrect and it's therefore imperative to replace "hates" with "hated"?
Now, the sentence reads: She believed that her uncle hates everybody.
Because "everybody" (no exceptions) shows a sense of continuity in her uncle's hatred, can we now say that the present form "hates" is applicable in this sentence? Or do you mean by "always," thousands or millions of years in every case? After all, unless we talk about the afterlife, even the Earth will eventually stop being what it is or does.
Hello Plin

I'm afraid my previous posting might be inappropriate. What I wanted to say was just that native speakers have a tendency to choose the tense of the subordinate clause so that it matches the main clause's tense even in the case they believe the statement is still now true. I am sorry but I have to say I can't grasp what you want to argue about by comparing "many body" and "everybody". I don’t think the statement "Someone hates everybody" can be a permanent truth just because the object is not "many people" but "everybody".

ponpoco

[plin]

>I'm afraid my previous posting might be inappropriate. What I wanted to say was just that native speakers have a tendency to choose the tense of the subordinate clause so that it matches the main clause's tense even in the case they believe the statement is still now true. I am sorry but I have to say I can't grasp what you want to argue about by comparing "many body" and "everybody". I don’t think the statement "Someone hates everybody" can be a permanent truth just because the object is not "many people" but "everybody".




That's not surprising. I am not very good at coming up with examples to illustrate a point. I do understand exactly what you said at the beginning of your comment.

This is what I meant to say in my previous posting; not that it is necessarily relevant. You may choose to ignore it if you like. Thanks, ponpoco.


A love-hate relationship in a lifespan: "Always" doesn't apply because there is discontinuity in the hatred or love; so, the past form forms "hated" or "loved" would be fine in a particular sentence.

A loving relationship in a lifespan: "Always" applies because there is continuity in the said condition in someones's life throughout; so, "loves" would be fine in a sentence as opposed to "loved."

[ponpoco256]

This is what I meant to say in my previous posting; not that it is necessarily relevant. You may choose to ignore it if you like. Thanks, ponpoco.


A love-hate relationship in a lifespan: "Always" doesn't apply because there is discontinuity in the hatred or love; so, the past form forms "hated" or "loved" would be fine in a particular sentence.

A loving relationship in a lifespan: "Always" applies because there is continuity in the said condition in someones's life throughout; so, "loves" would be fine in a sentence as opposed to "loved."
Hello Plin

I think I now come to understand what you wanted to say. My guess is you are saying that we should use the present tense for the subordinate clause in a sentence framed by the past tense when the statement in the subordinate is about a habitual activity. Right? If it is so, I agree with you.

Let's compare two sentences below for example.
(1) Last week I went to a Japanese restaurant with my friend. I was surprised to know Japanese people ate raw fish.
(2) Last week I went to a Japanese restaurant with my friend. I was surprised to know Japanese people eat raw fish.
If the speaker intends to say about the Japanese food custom, "eat" would be better than "ate".

Let's take another pair.
(3) Last week I went to a Japanese restaurant with my friend. I was surprised to see Japanese people ate raw fish.
(4) Last week I went to a Japanese restaurant with my friend. I was surprised to see Japanese people eat raw fish.
In this case, we might use both "ate" and "eat", but the choice will make the meaning of the sentence different. We might take the sentence #3 as "the speaker was surprised at the sight that Japanese people ate raw fish in the restaurant". On the other hand, we might take the sentence #4 as "the speaker was surprised to know Japanese (in general) have a custom of eating raw fish". Please note that "see" can be used synonymously to "know" or "undertand".

ponpoco

[plin]

>I think I now come to understand what you wanted to say. My guess is you are saying that we should use the present tense for the subordinate clause in a sentence framed by the past tense when the statement in the subordinate is about a habitual activity. Right?


Yes, according to this: "But in English, this sort of use of the present tense sounds natural only when the statement is evidently always true."

I, very much appreciate you explanation in detail.





Now, ponpoco, I want to ask you the following question: Why did you seem to think that, "if it had not been" was not an appropriate answer? I actually think that the three forms are acceptable. "If it wasn't" is fine because it's the most common; "if it weren't" is grammaticaly correct, though more formal. "If it hadn't been (raining) is logical, it seems. But again, what's your take on this?


I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone


if it wasn't

if it weren't

if it had not been.

[ponpoco256]

Now, ponpoco, I want to ask you the following question: Why did you seem to think that, "if it had not been" was not an appropriate answer? I actually think that the three forms are acceptable. "If it wasn't" is fine because it's the most common; "if it weren't" is grammaticaly correct, though more formal. "If it hadn't been (raining) is logical, it seems. But again, what's your take on this?
I could see how nice the city is even if it was raining, let alone ( ).
-- if it wasn't
-- if it weren't
-- if it had not beenHello Plin again.

The answer is very simple. "If it weren't" and "if it hadn't been" are adverbial clauses used to suppose unreal (never-to-be-realized) conditions. If there were such a city where rain continues forever, you might be allowed to use "if it weren't (raining)" [unreal condition for the present time] or "if it hadn't been (raining)" [unreal condition for a past time]. But I don't think there is such a place in this world where rain never stops. Even at a place in the tropical rainforest zone, there should be some sunny days in a year.

ponpoco

[plin]

>The answer is very simple. "If it weren't" and "if it hadn't been" are adverbial clauses used to suppose unreal (never-to-be-realized) conditions.


I didn't think that it would have to rain eternally over the city in order to use "if it weren't" correctly. Examples:

It was raining yesterday (over a city or anywhere). --If the weather conditions today were like yesterday's, I wouldn't go out.

If it were raining today, like yesterday, I wouldn't go out.

The rain stopped yesterday; I wish it weren't the case; we need more rain.


"(never-to-be-realized)" --This concept is completely new to me. Is there an additional source where this can be further verified? Thanks, ponpoco.

[ponpoco256]

"If it were raining today, like yesterday, I wouldn't go out."
This means "It is not raining today, so I'll go out", because "it were raining today" implies that "it is raining today" is unreal (counterfactual).

"This city would be nice if it were not raining"
This means "It is raining, so the city is not nice", because "it were not raining" implies that "it is not raining" is unreal.

By the way, "even if" is a phrase leading a concessive adverbial clause and it commonly does not go with a subjunctive (unreal) statement. So "let alone if", when it is used in parallel to "even if", commonly cannot go with a subjunctive statement. If you use "let alone if it were not raining" in spite of this, we have to take that you are insisting that the phenomenon of "it is not raining" is unreal in the city.

ponpoco

[plin]

If we keep going like this, Englishpage will run out of memory capacity. :) But I truly appreciate your efforts in explaining things, ponpoco. Thanks again, and have a good day.


Plin.

[ponpoco256]

If we keep going like this, Englishpage will run out of memory capacity. :) But I truly appreciate your efforts in explaining things, ponpoco. Thanks again, and have a good day. You are welcome and you too have a nice day!

ponpoco