Reply With Quote
Sure it does. A lot of them end up on the Jerry Springer show.
The house thing is very, very old school. I don't know it still goes on, but it was super common back in the day (well, except if you're a mormon, I guess, then you kept in the family). Talk about hands-on education.No, that's creepy dude.
@ it being under the guise of sex ed. That's a dog whistle.
And the parents doing the house initiations are creepy AF too, tbh.
You're really going to say you never had that awkward moment with your parents when you're watching a movie and there's a sex scene and you want to hit the FWD button?
Did your folks talk to you about sex at all? If not, sorry to hear that.
Sure it does. A lot of them end up on the Jerry Springer show.
I'll take your word for it.
Trump wishes known sex trafficker well and derp gets triggered by woman who was on In Living Color 20 years ago....
I'm not saying this is the usage this woman intended here (impossible to tell with that extremely poor written article) but the use of the modal verb "would" as "past habitual" is very common, tbh.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/learnin...h/4455867.htmlWe also use “would” in everyday speech to talk about repeated actions in the past. This usage is called “past habitual.” Here’s an example:
When I was little, I would play hopscotch with my friends.
Last edited by DAF86; 07-22-2020 at 02:31 AM.
As pointed out in that link, the proper use of past habitual entails stating the time period in the first part of the sentence. Which is not the case here.
For that sentence to be past habitual, it would need to read like "Whenever they watch, I would watch it with them", or "Last year they watched, so I would watch it with them".
We also use 'would' all the time to point to things we would've done but did not. After all, it's the past of will.
ie: "I wish I would have done that in Y way".
More than a ty answer, I think it's missing the question (I don't care to dig deeper, but anybody that does, feel free). The context of the sentence leads one to believe she was asked how she deals with her teenage kids watching porn.
Yourtube... self porn
that doesn't even rhyme
Yourtube, bring lube
I don't think that's a hard fast grammatical rule whatsoever. But the time period of the past is well implied there all the same.
This shouldn't even be a debate. This is how people talk. You're way to desperate to sperm shield.
“You can’t stop them, so I would watch it with them.
Weird hill to die on tbqh
So imploring that theres some kind of incest/child sex abuse in a family due to a comment. Weird tbqh
Trump on accused sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell: "I wish her well."
derp:_____________________________________________ _______
How is the past time period implied?
And I didn't make up the rules, it's right there on the link DAF provided:
There are two rules for this usage. The first is that we must state the time period in the first part of the sentence -- “When I was little” for example. Second, we only use “would” this way with action verbs, such as “play” in the hopscotch example. We do not use it with stative verbs, such as: live, be, know, think, understand or want.
SHE WATCHES PORN WITH BABIES BEFORE SHE EATS THEM!
The time period was implied; and she wasn't going to whatever site you're going on and looking for a rule that counters how people talk anyways.
DAF86 is right. Her meaning is readily apparent.
Don't worry; you're not the only sperm shielder to make this argument.
Furthermore, lol @ "the time period is implied". Only in your head this phrase: "You can’t stop them, so I would watch it with them." implies any time period.
That's not how it works derp. Like hater said, strange hill to die on.
The time period is the past. Just because whoever didn't write an air-tight synapses doesn't make your contention not re ed.
Furthermore, lol @ "the time period is implied". Only in your head this phrase: "You can’t stop them, so I would watch it with them." implies any time period.
That's not how it works derp. Like hater said, strange hill to die on.
lmao, it's an actual quote. Because you keep trying to make up it doesn't make it any less of a quote.
You inferred.
How long do you want to argue about this?
It's one person's explanation.
Your explanation of her use of the word doesn't even make a lick of sense.
No, it's not an 'explanation'. It's an actual quote.
I'm done here, I don't care if you understand or not, I'm fairly confident anybody else reading this thread have plenty to draw their own conclusions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions