Okay, so I've been consolidating and typing up my notes today, most of which are on linguistics. I just thought of the lamest joke, but it's totally hilarious now because I'm so tired and utterly Chomskified. Okay, you know Robin, of Batman and Robin -- the Boy Wonder, I believe he is called? Well, I recall overhearing a recording of someone portraying him exclaim something of the form 0) [interjection conveying shock], Batman, [shocking news]! and I've recently taken to coming up with witty instances of it. My newest one is 1) Jiminy Cricket, Batman, I'm going to use a periphrastic modal construction! :rofl: Oh, that is SO funny. ((1) is the joke that I was talking about, by the bye.) As you can plainly see, by witty, I meant imbecilic. The problem is that I'm not sure whether it's the wittiest that it could be or not. See, there's the time thing to consider -- could I make it better, meaning, of course, worse, by considering when the sentence becomes true? Okay, the periphrastic modal constuction that Robin uses is (am) going to, which is equivalent to will. I am considering using have to or had to, which are equivalent to must and the 'past tense' of must, respectively. 2) Jiminy Cricket, Batman, I have to use a periphrastic modal construction! 3) Jiminy Cricket, Batman, I had to use a periphrastic modal construction! :rofl: Sorry, am I the only one being bringed to tears by this? Okay, just assume "in this sentence" is on the end of all of those. (1) becomes true when he says it (Hm, or does it?! ); (2) isn't true -- he could have used must; (3) was true before he said it (Hm, or was it? ). I think (1) is funniest, but I want your opinion! Sock it to me! And now this time thing is bugging me.