The Classic FM-isation of R3 is almost complete

[Serial_Apologist]

Julius Caesar does it all the time.

I can picture your absolutely straight face as you deliver(ed) that line, jean!

[jean]

Is there a difference though between what is a literary (written) stylistic device for effect and normal spoken English?

Possibly the spoken style might aim to be even more immediate?

[jean]

Another sad decline is the use of the what I call the pluperfect to describe what happened before the past thing that I was just talking about.

E.g. Radio 3 announcers were more formal in their speech in the 1970s: the Third programme had been even more formal in this respect.

(Compare: Radio 3 announcers were more formal in their speech in the 1970s: the Third programme was even more formal in this respect.)

The question of how many time-periods you might find it useful to specify in a single sentence is an interesting one, which should maybe migrate to Pedants' Paradise or somewhere.

How do you feel about the near-absence in English of the future perfect, which if I remember (and I am aware of ff's presence at my shoulder) the French seem to be much more attached to than we are?

(I made my original comment on this thread from a feeling that in the matter of dumbing-down, one should choose one's battles.)

[kernelbogey]

The question of how many time-periods you might find it useful to specify in a single sentence is an interesting one, which should maybe migrate to Pedants' Paradise or somewhere.

My example was off the cuff, and I admit, unimpressive. But I have read sloppy use of the past tense in journalism where clarity would have been greater had the different time frames been defined by use of the pluperfect.

How do you feel about the near-absence in English of the future perfect, which if I remember (and I am aware of ff's presence at my shoulder) the French seem to be much more attached to than we are?

I'm sorry, but just now I don't have time to answer this but I'd appreciate an example and will return to it.

But pedantry... hmm, I think I'm supporting the idea of the careful use of English for maximum quality of communication.

[french frank]

Possibly the spoken style might aim to be even more immediate?

It might, though I'm not convinced that the device is used in what I would have called 'normal spoken English'. The question would be whether television presenters use that or a different form of spoken English.

How do you feel about the near-absence in English of the future perfect, which if I remember (and I am aware of ff's presence at my shoulder) the French seem to be much more attached to than we are?

In fact, I couldn't comment on either language. I hadn't been specially aware of the 'near-absence' of the form.

[pastoralguy]

I listened to some of Essential Classics this morning in the car - a programme I rarely listen to - and heard the mind-numbingly banal conversation of Sarah Walker and Richard Bacon (who he?); from which I had supposed that 'Suzy Klein talks to conductor Christian Curnyn' about Haydn would have been some relief. But (almost) the same banal level of conversation again, the employment of the modish 'historical present' to talk about the eighteenth century (the past tense is so last century, yeah?) that makes me despair again of the morning output of this station. Such a dreadful contrast with the elegance of CotW on Mozart, JC Bach et al in eighteenth century London. Why does the station have to talk down to its audience so much?

End of rant. I feel a bit better now.

Yes, that Richard Bacon 'chat' was, for me, a new low point. Apparently, he wants to 'learn about' classical music (whatever that is), and is using this programme as a means to an end. He was supposed to be on the show earlier this year but his wife was giving birth so he couldn't do it. This entailed much chat on Monday about the sprog that is only of any interest to the pertinent family - not a Radio 3 audience...

Anyway, he didn't like to first movement of Prokofiev's 'Classical' symphony. I'm sure Prokofiev is weeping buckets in heaven.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm sorry, but just now I don't have time to answer this but I'd appreciate an example and will return to it.

Pendant le weekend, peut-etre?

[jean]

In fact, I couldn't comment on either language. I hadn't been specially aware of the 'near-absence' of the form.

This is what I am thinking of (I think):

There are three uses of the French future perfect that don't correspond to the English future perfect:

1. In subordinate clauses that begin with the conjunctions aussitôt que, dès que, lorsque, quand, une fois que, and après que, the future perfect is used to express a future action which will be completed before the action in the main clause. In English, a present tense or past tense would be used here.

Quand je serai descendu, tu pourras me le montrer.
When I have come down, you can show it to me.

Nous le ferons aussitôt qu'elle sera arrivée.
We'll do it as soon as she arrives / has arrived.

(I must comment on that splendid pluperfect there.)

[kernelbogey]

There are three uses of the French future perfect that don't correspond to the English future perfect:

I think something had gone wrong with your post before you posted it, Jean....

2 & 3 appear to be missing, and I believe you had intended to include a link which has disappeared....

I think that I'm probably less interested in the nuances of the future and future perfect tenses; the examples you give present a delightful distinction in time between the events, though not necessarily to greater illumination of what will (or may) happen. Although 'When I have come down, you can show it to me' conveys a subtly different invitation from 'When I come down, you can show it to me'.

I've failed to think of a good example yet but it seems more important (to me) to be clear about relative timescales when reporting actual events.

However, here's a possible: 'He purchased a knife before the murder'; 'He had purchased a knife before the murder'. A subtle but significant difference, I suggest: the former implies intent, while the second avoids that imputation.

I agree with FF that these distinctions have primarily literary significance, however.

[jean]

I think something had gone wrong with your post before you posted it, Jean....

2 & 3 appear to be missing, and I believe you had intended to include a link which has disappeared....

The link is there, if you click on the quoted text.

I didn't include the second example, because although it's a very odd use of the future perfect, we do it too:

Pierre n'est pas ici ; il aura oublié.
Pierre isn't here; he must have forgotten.

It's quite common in English to say He will have forgotten, though possibly with more of a suggestion that the speaker had thought it likely before the event that he would forget.

The third example is very odd indeed, and seems to have little to do with the future, so I omitted that too:

Napoléon aura pris une décision importante.
Napoleon made / would make an important decision.

George Sand aura écrit le roman La Mare au Diable en quatre jours.
George Sand wrote / would go on to write the novel La Mare au Diable in four days.

However, here's a possible: 'He purchased a knife before the murder'; 'He had purchased a knife before the murder'. A subtle but significant difference, I suggest: the former implies intent, while the second avoids that imputation.

But you've been stressing the importance of distinguishing time-period, and this would be something in addition!

Besides, I'm not sure I don't see intent in your second example.

[Lento]

R3, Sunday 4th May, 8.10am, or thereabouts:

Presenter to phoner-in: “Now, tell us what first drew you to Vaughan Williams’ “The Lark Ascending” (or words to that effect)…..

….A minute or so later

Presenter: “Well, thank you for introducing this wonderful piece to us” (or similar).

Phoner in: “ It had to be played, didn’t it?”

Presenter: “It certainly did”.

Haydn Op 64 No 5, anybody?

[VodkaDilc]

R3, Sunday 4th May, 8.10am, or thereabouts:

Presenter to phoner-in: “Now, tell us what first drew you to Vaughan Williams’ “The Lark Ascending” (or words to that effect)…..

A dangerous question for R3, which surely risked the answer: "Because it topped the Classic FM Hall of Fame."

[DracoM]

Which was exactly what AMcG said in CD Review on Saturday a.m...........................

[pastoralguy]

Which was exactly what AMcG said in CD Review on Saturday a.m...........................

Wasn't he talking about the Specialist Classical Chart which is independent of Classic FM? (although both Cfm and Radio 3 now refer to it).

[HARRIET HAVARD]

The Lark may be ascending, but it's more than can be said for Breakfast. This mornings listener interview was toe curling: even by this programmes standards. The chestnut tree in my garden only has fruit once a year. This station manages to have chestnuts all the time. Some of the pieces played, are now played so often, they could pass for being the stations call sign.