[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

... I might run this one past a pro linguist on another forum!

And that might be Nick-H at IndiaMike? Or would it be Golghar?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Err... that Nick-H? He ain't no linguist!



Golghar knows his stuff; done it for a living. I had dinner with him once. Nick-H was there too.

[tilt]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Err... that Nick-H? He ain't no linguist!


*SNIP*

LOL Thad, your Clark Kent is quite strong I guess

Cheers

[Thad E Ginathom]

Order of Adjectives

Wow, who knew? Well, apparently, native English speakers tend to instinctively get it right

The order of adjectives, ... ... ... has to be: opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose.

It is something that we know about our language but don't know that we know.

Why the green great dragon can't exist (BBC)

Please read the BBC article for the origins of this information

[hemanth.anand]

Is this grammatically correct? I somehow feel that something is not proper in this sentence.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

Is this grammatically correct? I somehow feel that something is not proper in this sentence.

It's not. What is the message, though?

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

Attachment 1561244
Is this grammatically correct? I somehow feel that something is not proper in this sentence.

Maybe if time travel is involved

[hemanth.anand]

Originally Posted by mayankk

It's not. What is the message, though?

One of my friends asked me this. All I could understand was that someone wants to convey that by the time her flight arrives, he would've waited for more than 2 hours.

[noopster]

Sounds correct to me though convoluted. There are some tenses that grammarians have fun with- this looks like one of them.

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by hemanth.anand

Is this grammatically correct? I somehow feel that something is not proper in this sentence.

It is correct.

It is a form used to convey that in the future, you'll realize something has happened in the past:

1. i.e. when her plane arrives (in the future)
2. at that time you'll realize that you had been waiting for over 2 hours (the waiting that happened in the past)

It is a cute (cute as in trying to be smart, not cute as in sweet) way of saying something that can be expressed simpler in colloquial speech, along the lines of: "Her plane will arrive after two hours", particularly since the action of waiting will not influence or alter the arrival time of the plane.

See this page which, interestingly enough, has the same example you've quoted: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/...ontinuous.html

Technically, this verb structure is called "Future Perfect Continuous", although for the life of me I could never remember these complex tenses (it tenses me up).

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Forget her! You are just not meant to meet that day.
Go somewhere else! Meet someone else!

Aww, c'mon, don't tell me you don't believe all those romantic movies! At least one of them ought to be true!

Found the most appropriate TV Tropes entries for this situation: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AirVoyance and http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...aceForYourLove

[Thad E Ginathom]

It's wrong in the If I wouldn't start here sense. It is not a question of the backwards and forwards of the tenses being resolvable. Indeed, at a glance, we all know what the writer is saying.

Some suggestions, in increasing order of simplicity (and silliness)

You will have been waiting over two hours by the time her plane arrives.

You have two hours to wait before her plane arrives.

You will get there two hours before she does.

You will be bored out of your head when she finally arrives.

Forget her! You are just not meant to meet that day.

Go somewhere else! Meet someone else!

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

You will have been waiting over two hours by the time her plane arrives.

Listening to it, this somehow doesn't seem right. Isn't it "You would have been waiting for over two hours by the time her plane arrives"?

Am always confused between 'will' and 'would' in such situations

[noopster]

I once said, "Didn't he used to be CEO at XYZ?" in a conversation with a colleague and she gave me tremendous grief for it. I later showed her an identical usage by Wodehouse hoping she'd be convinced but no dice.

Colloquial or not I don't know but if it's good enough for the master, I will continue to use it.

[binand]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Listening to it, this somehow doesn't seem right. Isn't it "You would have been waiting for over two hours by the time her plane arrives"?

Am always confused between 'will' and 'would' in such situations

Contrived but perhaps clarifies:

"Yesterday I reached the airport before 7 PM to pick up my wife whose flight arrived at 9 PM"
"You would have been waiting for over two hours by the time her plane arrived"
"Yes, I had waited for over 3 hours by the time she cleared customs"

"Tomorrow I plan to reach the airport before 7 PM to pick up my wife whose flight will arrive at 9 PM"
"You will have been waiting for over two hours by the time her plane arrives"
"Yes, I will have waited for over 3 hours by the time she clears customs"

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by noopster

Didn't he used to be

I'm fine with that one. But feel the flow! it is not a headache to say or hear, whereas the above example is.

This all makes me think that fluency is not necessarily the same thing as grammar

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Listening to it, this somehow doesn't seem right. Isn't it "You would have been waiting for over two hours by the time her plane arrives"?

Am always confused between 'will' and 'would' in such situations

Past and future. One refers to something that will happen, and one refers to something that did happen.