I'm not going to teach you grammar, but I would advise you to teach yourself, since you've demonstrated that you don't know how preferences should be expressed, ... — Sapientia

Interesting point of English usage.

It's a very common locution among American sportscasters to say something like:

"If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores."

Now this is a bit of an odd usage in everyday English but it's still legal. If expanded via the pedantic transform (PT), we get:

"If he hadn't fallen flat on his face, he would have scored."

A political usage might be: "If Hillary doesn't set up that private email server, she becomes president." Any native speaker of English will understand that as an informal way of saying, "If she hadn't set up the server she'd have become president."

It was in that vein that I colloquialized

"In the case that I ever said something you disapprove of, I would prefer that you delete my post in its entirety rather than alter what I wrote."

to

"If you don't like what I say, delete me or ban me."

I confess that to me, your objection seems disingenuous since my meaning is perfectly clear. I truly can't tell why you are continuing to troll me about this. Are you stating that you genuinely did not understand the meaning of what I wrote? Is English your first language? That's a serious question. What I wrote is colloquial English. Not the King's English as they say, but perfectly understandable to any native speaker.

ps -- I clicked your handle. You're in England. Aha! You are not a native speaker of American English. What I wrote is a very common informal locution on this side of the pond.

As George Bernard Shaw allegedly said, The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language."

One more thing specifically relevant to this thread - unilaterally changing the name of a thread that is not offensive or misleading is particularly petty. It spends your credibility capital when you should save it for when you really need it. — T Clark

But to give this some important context, the discussion was under consideration for deletion. I thought that the least I could do is tidy it up a bit.

"If you don't like what I say, delete me or ban me."

I confess that to me, your objection seems disingenuous since my meaning is perfectly clear. I truly can't tell why you are continuing to troll me about this. Are you stating that you genuinely did not understand the meaning of what I wrote? Is English your first language? That's a serious question. What I wrote is colloquial English. Not the King's English as they say, but perfectly understandable to any native speaker.

ps -- I clicked your handle. You're in England. Aha! You are not a native speaker of American English. What I wrote is a very common informal locution on this side of the pond.

As George Bernard Shaw allegedly said, The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language." — fishfry

It's bizarre to me that anyone would see that and interpret it as anything other than an instruction, such as, "If you see a roundabout, then turn around and come back".

It's bizarre to me that anyone would see that and interpret it as anything other than an instruction, such as, "If you see a roundabout, then turn around and come back". — Sapientia

Haha. I left my spanner on the bonnet of the lorry!

So, how would you give an instruction then? If you had wanted to instruct us to delete or ban you if A then how would you give that instruction other than to say: If A, delete me or ban me?

I mean I accept Americans might say, "If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores", which is effectively a grammatical simplification and easy to understand, but that's a completely different construction to the one you used because the second clause of the conditional is in a different grammatical mood not just tense, i.e. indicative vs. imperative. Maybe the colloquialism has to do with the part of America you're from because in standard American English the imperative mood is used to give instructions and orders and the indicative mood is used for questions and statements just as it is in standard British English. That should be the case regardless of whether the conditional construction is used. The differences in standard British and American English in terms of grammar are fairly tiny compared to those in dialects of some other languages. Anyway, I'm mostly curious because I teach English and I haven't come across this before and it leaves me wondering as I mentioned above how you would express an instruction if not with an imperative.

(Of course, effectively your particular instruction was a request but leaving that aspect aside, it's the grammar I'm mostly curious about).

it leaves me wondering as I mentioned above how you would express an instruction — Baden

Since I am not the OP (hence I had no dog in this fight) I thought it was perfectly clear that I was making the general point that a forum operator should either delete a post or let it stand as is; but never change a poster's words. Obviously that was not clear to some though I remain baffled as to how anyone could misconstrue my intention.

Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter now. I'm just asking a question about the grammar.

Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter now. I'm just asking a question about the grammar. — Baden

I'm happy to discuss the grammar. I was officially instructing the moderation staff that if in the future I say something objectionable to them, I would prefer my post to be deleted rather than altered. Isn't that what I said? And since I can't control what the staff does, it's clear that I'm expressing a preference rather than a command. I can't make them do anything one way or the other.

Since I haven't said anything objectionable (and in the past I've gone so far out on that limb without having my post being deleted that I can't imagine what it would take) it's clear that my request was hypothetical.

I do in fact feel strongly that forum moderators should delete but never alter posts.

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

And since I can't control what the staff does — fishfry

I think the grammar is exactly as you and @Sapientia interpret it; it's the bit of context given here that makes the difference. No Americanism. "Charge me or release me!" "Either let me do my job or fire me!" would be other examples of giving instructions to people you're not empowered to give instructions to.

Permissives can do weird stuff with expressing preferences too. "You can change my post if you want, but I'll never post here again." Again, I'm not even in a position to give permission, and this is actually a threat. "What should we watch?" "You can put on whatever you like." That one cedes my portion of the decision-making power to you, perhaps implying I don't have a preference-- but it could also be interpreted as taking all the power before handing it all to you, or implying that my preference would trump yours if I had one.

Imperatives are also a natural choice for perfecting conditionals: if you're negotiating, and you say, "Throw in another hundred and you've got a deal," it suggests I can make the deal if and only if I throw in another hundred (which could be false, but it's what you want me to think).

Sure, from the pragmatics point of view, I get it. I just wondered if there was a deeper reason for the original apparent chasm of disagreement. And apparently not.

I'll take any excuse to play at linguistics.

Oh, yes, me too. :)

I was officially instructing the moderation staff that if in the future I say something objectionable to them, I would prefer my post to be deleted rather than altered. Isn't that what I said? — fishfry

No, that's not what you said, and that was the problem. That might have been what you meant, but it was certainly not what you said. I'm still not convinced that you understand, to be honest. You're now claiming that you were instructing the moderation staff, after all? That's what we were arguing over, remember? I explained that your original formulation was in the form of an instruction, and you reacted as though I was off my trolley or trolling and insisted that it expressed a preference.

Ironically, the formulation in the quote above does not constitute an instruction, but a preference. This is clear, as, unlike your original formulation, it contains "I would prefer". In this case, one would have to read between the lines to understand that you meant to instruct or request, rather than merely express a preference.

Do you often express instructions in the form of a preference and vice versa? And if so, why do you end up baffled when you're misunderstood?

I also doubted his explanation, and still do, but I thought I'd give him the benefit of the doubt to some extent, given that I've never even been to America.

But, to pick it apart further:

It's a very common locution among American sportscasters to say something like:

"If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores."

Now this is a bit of an odd usage in everyday English but it's still legal. If expanded via the pedantic transform (PT), we get:

"If he hadn't fallen flat on his face, he would have scored."

A political usage might be: "If Hillary doesn't set up that private email server, she becomes president." Any native speaker of English will understand that as an informal way of saying, "If she hadn't set up the server she'd have become president." — fishfry

Now, I'm not American, but I'm evidently a native speaker of English, and I have in fact spent my entire life living in England, yet my "pendantic transform" would make them:

"He'll score, so long as he doesn't fall flat on his face"

&

"If Hillary doesn't set up that private email server, she'll become president"

Do Americans really mix up present and past tense like that? Do they really use "doesn't" when they mean "hadn't"? That's crazy.

Also, none of those examples are preferences or instructions - whether before or after the "pedantic transform" - so there seems to be a bit of leap going on here.

Do Americans really mix up present and past tense like that? Do they really use "doesn't" when they mean "hadn't"? That's crazy. — Sapientia

Think of it as a past tense counterfactual expressed in the historical present. No one is mixing up their tenses. It's colorful. It's also a way of avoiding the subjunctive mood, and expresses greater certainty.

Think of it as a past tense counterfactual expressed in the historical present. No one is mixing up their tenses. It's colorful. It's also a way of avoiding the subjunctive mood, and expresses greater certainty. — Srap Tasmaner

So, when would the sportscaster be saying, "If he doesn't fall flat on his face, he scores"? To me, that would only make sense if it was said beforehand and in accordance with my interpretation. If the sportscaster had actually meant, "If he hadn't fallen flat on his face, then he would have scored", then that would only make sense if it was said afterwards, and I would think that the sportscaster has terrible grammar.

On second thought, I think I might get what you're saying. Like, if the sportscaster said it afterwards, but is speaking as though he's reliving the moment, thus the lack of past tense. That's one way I could make sense of it.

Yes, it's not inconceivable that someone would express themselves in the form of an instruction in inappropriate situations. You have to be careful not to do that in the workplace to your colleagues, and especially your superiors, as it will likely come across as rude, and you might get reproached for it. In fact, I recall this happening at my work about a month ago.

Like, if the sportscaster said it afterwards, but is speaking as though he's reliving the moment, thus the lack of past tense — Sapientia

There you go. It's more immediate and by using the indicative instead of the subjunctive, it sounds more like a statement of fact, more certain.

In general terms, I think you can't read off the use being made of a sentence, in a given context, from its surface grammar, anymore than you can read off a sentence's logical form from its surface grammar. That use would be something like the mood of the utterance. (For instance, Kevin Spacey can instruct you to go to lunch by repeatedly asking, "Will you go to lunch?")

I thought "delete me or ban me" was the same rhetorical construction as "You can slander my name all over the place, but don't step on my blue suede shoes". Elvis is not asking to be slandered. He's saying that, awful as it would be to be slandered, it would be preferable to having a person step on his blue suede shoes. Similarly, "I would hate to be banned. But I'd prefer (even) being banned to being edited."

The most important point as far as I'm concerned is that we wouldn't actually ban someone solely on the basis of a protest statement like that. We're looking to keep people here and posters have the right to get annoyed at us if they think it's appropriate. Banning is a last resort for lost causes.

Banning is a last resort for lost causes. — Baden

An epigram!

Heh... and I wasn't even trying.

"...don't step on my blue suede shoes". — Cuthbert

If we're talking about grammar, then that's an instruction. Otherwise it can be whatever you want it to be. Let's not confuse syntax and semantics.

Elvis is not asking to be slandered. — Cuthbert

Again, if we're talking about grammar, then strictly speaking he's clearly not asking anything at all, since it wasn't a question. Although I'm guessing your usage is figurative, as in, "He was asking for it".

Anyway, not even Elvis gets special treatment around here. I'll bloody well step on his blue suede shoes if I think the situation calls for it.

Me too like to play at linguistics. Me too want special treatment and blue suede shoes.

Let's not confuse syntax and semantics. — Sapientia

Me always uses both together in posting behaviours, so solly for conflusion. You step blody well in great big British Christopher Robin Wellington boots... question? Me like to evade sin taxes with some antics.

>:O

If we're talking about grammar, then that's an instruction. — Sapientia

An instruction is a type of speech act, not a grammatical form. @Cuthbert is obviously right.

Sure, from the pragmatics point of view, I get it. I just wondered if there was a deeper reason for the original apparent chasm of disagreement. And apparently not. — Baden

Excessive literalism on the part of some. "So shoot me!" is not a command for you to shoot me, nor is it a request. It means "The hell with you if you don't like what I say," or something like that.

A lot of people do this lately, use excessive literalism to make a debating point. Remember when Trump said, "Maybe Putin has Hillary's emails." I recognized that as a sarcastic joke. I thought it was funny. The next day liberals said, "Oh Trump is calling on a foreign head of state to hack the Democrats." It's absurd.

Is there a name for using excessive, disingenuous literalism in order to make a debating point?

I found this online. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/220507/word-for-deliberately-taking-the-literal-rather-than-implied-message


"What is the word for understanding someones implied meaning, but being completely pretentious about it and taking their words for what they literally said?"

The consensus was disingenuous literal-mindedness. Guess there's not an exact word for it.

(Edit) I don't mean to imply that any particular individual here is deliberately misconstruing my words. Only that I personally find it difficult to imagine otherwise.

Pertaining to this:

In my opinion I would rather have a post of mine deleted than changed. If you don't like what I write, delete me or ban me. But don't change my words. The original title was perfectly clear and refers to a quote of Einstein. And the moderators of this site are clearly no Einsteins. — fishfry

I'll weigh in because I'm an expert in all that is American. So you know, when this issue first arose, I posted in the mod section that I thought the dustup between Fishfry and Sap was unnecessarily combative, and I thought Sap was being testy. (Yes, we bitch at each other). It's clear now there was a significant miscommunication. I like Fishfry didn't get it.

I don't know if it has to do with grammar as much as American bravado or defiance, but it's not to be taken literally. It simply seeks to emphasize how important it is to Fishfry that you not fuck with his posts. As in "Coach, play me or trade me." If the Coach said, "I'll neither play you nor trade you except as I see fit," the player would think, "Why is this peckerhead ignoring my plea [ yes, definitely a plea, not a directive] to get some playtime."

When Sap took it literally and said (as I took it), "Don't tell me what to do; I'll change shit as I see fit because you're like everyone else," I thought "Damn, who pissed in Sap's Cheerios this morning?" I truly did. I'm now relieved to learn though that Sap and Baden are rational and tempered, despite their functional illiteracy.

Carry on - as you guys say.