"You're not one of us."
"I don't think I'm one of them, either...I'm one of mine."
- Terry Pratchett, Small Gods
I'm having trouble with my Would.
"Would" - second form of the auxiliary defective verb "will", used to express...oh all sorts of things. Like:
"Would you believe it?!" (exclamation of amazement)
"I would have thought so." (slightly uncertain agreement)
"I wouldn't do that if I were you." (warning)
"Would you like another?" (polite question)
"If you would sing, I would listen." (conditional of the second type)
Now, usually with auxiliaries, shifting from the first form (ie "Will") to the second form ("would") indicates a shift of the action into the past, or a suggestion of uncertainty, or extra politeness, or some other kind of "distancing" - and shifting from the second form to the first has the opposite effect. But try shifting "would" to "will" in the above sentences and see what happens.
In the third sentence you can't do it at all, In three of them the result is meaningful but it means something unrelated. Only in the last sentence does something like the same sense remain.
"Will" is quite simple - just insert it into present tense sentences and they magically become future tense:
I see the movie ... I will see the movie
I am seeing the movie ... I will be seeing the movie
I have seen the movie ... I will have seen the movie
I have been seeing the movie ... I will have been seeing the movie
"Would", by rights, ought to refer to the past of the future referred to by "Will", but seeing as this past-of-future reference is so little needed, it seems to have become detached from it's logical meaning, and is used to fill in a lot of little semantic gaps not easily covered by other words.
More fun and games with the jobcentre. Here's a condensed version of what we said:
Advisor: Why didn't you start the course?
Kapitano: I'm too busy setting up a real job to waste time on a wanky course that fails to find me a pretend one.
Adv: You don't know the course is pointless.
Kap: Yes I do. I've done it before.
Adv: No you haven't.
Kap: Yes, I have.
Adv: Oh yes, so you have. But you didn't finish it, so maybe the bit you missed wasn't pointless.
Kap: Your logic is astounding.
Adv: Well anyway I'm booking you to start it again on the 28th.
Kap: I'll be gone by then.
Adv: Yes but I've got to book you. It's the rules.
I've met people who called themselves Hindus, but who after only a few minutes conversation admitted they didn't believe in the religion at all - they just thought it was a joyous, colourful set of rituals and festivals. And these were people who were raised to be Hindus.
I've known self-described devout Buddhists who knew there was an eightfold path and a fourfold truth (or was it the other way around, they weren't sure) but knew and cared little about the life of Gautama, the Tao or I Ching. They meditated when not too busy, believed in reincarnation and karma, and behaved thoroughly decently with everyone. Their "Buddhism" made them genuinely happy.
A lot of Muslims have become tediously devout lately, for obvious reasons. But I used to know plenty who, so long as there were clerics to handle the theology for them, did drinking and drugs in moderation with their liberated girlfriends - and/or enjoyed being the exotic center of attention in the men-only sauna.
But when was the last time you heard someone say, "I'm a Christian - oh I don't believe in hell or even god really, but the clothes are lovely and the festivals are great and the people are all so friendly,"...?
No, me neither. If you want universal brotherhood, there's Baha'i. If elaborate courtesy is your thing, I recommend Confucianism. If you want an overpoweringly personal deity or a universe-shaped mother figure, go for Judaism or Wicca respectively. Jainism lets you run around naked in public - though only because you don't own any clothes.
But the only possible reason for wanting to call yourself a christian is the least important aspect of any religion - believing in the cosmogony. Because it doesn't seem to have any attractions. Anyway, if you're vaguely curious what sparked this little essay, go here. in particular, here.
Wheels are finally turning in Moscow. The process of getting a visa to travel and the mysteriously separate process of getting a visa to work are at least in motion. How do I know? Because the school now want my photo. Twice.
In true bureaucratic (indeed, Stalinesque) fashion, they can't make do with one photo printed out twice. No, they need the same photo sent twice. And the two have to be compared, to make sure they show the same person.
A shame you're having troubles with your wood.
ReplyDeleteThere are drugs for that, you know.