Re: Stats Gone Wild! Plus Triple-Play Bonus

On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:45:02 -0700, ctbishop@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Charles
Bishop) wrote:

>In article <h12q24138ru3ra250kklrep5le2079sn7l@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, M C Hamster
><davolson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>>No.  Here's the definition of "hence", from M-W Online:
>>
>>1: from this place : away
>>2 archaic : henceforth b: from this time <four years hence>
>>3: because of a preceding fact or premise : therefore
>>4: from this source or origin
>>
>>"This place", in my original sentence,  represents the time the column
>>was written, not the present.  It does not need to refer to the
>>present, only some place that I have designated as the place from
>>which I am dating the time.
>>
>>That fact is made clear by my full phrase that the odds "in fact are
>>even greater now, 5 years hence".  This removes any ambiguity that
>>"this place" might refer to the present rather than the time, since
>>"now" and "5 years from now" are contradictory.
>
>I'm with you, I think. But, shouldn't the phrase have been "in fact
*were*
>even greater, 5 years hence"? The tenses make it seem as if it'c current,
>rather than then, and makes hence sound odd.

"The odds were even greater now, 5 years hence"?  But we're now
talking about today, so the odds are today's odds.  Using "were" means
the odds are no longer today's odds, but have passed.

But if it means getting you on my side in this debate, whatever you
say, chief.  I need all the help I can muster.

-- 
M C Hamster  "Big Wheel Keep on Turning" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival