Talk:forever
Early Usenet occurrences
Earliest occurrences on Usenet via Google Groups:
- forever: fa.human-nets - 12 May 1981 by DERWAY@MIT-ML
- I could go on forever about New Jersey Bell... couldn't we all!
- forever and ever: fa.sf-lovers - 13 Jun 1981 by JPM@MIT-AI
- "God Emperor of Dune" is Frank Herbert's bloated codicil to the already overextended "Dune" Trilogy, whose climactic statement is that the human race will go on forever and ever, populating universe after universe, thanks to the intricate machinations of the proliferated cast of characters.
- for ever: net.misc - 18 Feb 1982 by houxt!4341jhf
- Besides, who wants to wait for ever for output.
- forever after: net.sf-lovers - 1 Jan 1983 by CMU-CS-IUS
- Ben Kenobi escapes, and after a fierce struggle he does such injury to Vader that forever after Vader must wear a mask and that noisy life-support system.
- for ever and ever: net.religion - 26 Aug 1983 by Jonathan White
- Smith also blew it when he prophesied in Doctrine and Covenants that he would possess the house he built at Nauvoo "for ever and ever".
- forever and a day: net.social - 22 Sep 1983 by Nancy Hill
- Otherwise, I would have a head of tangles and knots which would take forever and a day to brush out.
- for ever after: net.micro.pc - 29 Nov 1983 by D. DeCourcelle
- My dealer made a simple hardware mod and it worked perfectly for ever after.
- for ever and a day: net.politics - before 24 Sep 1985 by [email protected]
- The Israelis have been lulled into a false sense of security--they honestly believe that the US is going to be able to protect them militarily for ever and a day.
— Hippietrail 01:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The correctness of "for an infinite amount of time"
I wonder whether the case of "for an infinite amount of time" really belongs to "forever". Imagine that certain proposition will, from now on, hold for every second minute, but not for every first minute, meaning it will first hold, then not hold, then hold, and so on. Then this proposition will certainly hold for an infinite amount of time, but it is not the case that it will hold in every future point of time. Is this what is mean by "forever"? --Daniel Polansky 21:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
RFD 2013
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
rfd sense #4: Is this any different from the first sense? And can they ever even be distinguished in usage? --WikiTiki89 14:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I usually favor as few senses as possible, but at least I see here a difference. In sense #1 the love is continuous and unbreakable, in sense #4 the home is available whenever needed, but the son is not expected to stay there all the time. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's a difference in context, not a difference in meaning. I think sense 4 can be merged with sense 1. —Angr 19:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have trouble seeing a difference, too. "I shall love you forever" can certainly mean "for an infinite amount of time" for those who believe in life after death, but even those people who do not believe in that say such things. --BB12 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's a difference in context, not a difference in meaning. I think sense 4 can be merged with sense 1. —Angr 19:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's redundant to 1 or to 5, depending on how you read it, but, yeah, it's redundant, I think.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, also for a very long time and for an excessively long time don't seem distinct to me. 'Excessively' has negative connotations, i.e. too long while for a very long time could be a positive thing (Federer was number one in the world rankings forever) so the excessively long time sense is just the same one but specifically negative. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Sense deleted as redundant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Senses
It seems to me that there are various senses of the term forever, not all of which are noted here. For example:
- From this point in time infinitely forward into the future (assuming time will have no end) (picture a ray)
- From this point in time until the end of time (assuming time will have a final point) (picture a line segment)
- From this point in time infinitely backward into the past (assuming time had no beginning) (picture a ray)
- From this point in time until the beginning of time (assuming time had a beginning point) (picture a line segment)
- Going infinitely forward and backward in time (assuming time had no beginning and will have no end) (picture a line)
- From the beginning of time until the end of time (assuming time has both a beginning and an end) (picture a line segment)
- From the beginning of time infinitely forward into the future (assuming time had a beginning but will have no end) (picture a ray)
- From the end of time infinitely backward into the past (assuming time will have an end point but had no beginning) (picture a ray)
Are any of these senses more formal the the other(s)? allixpeeke (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- You might be overthinking it! For example, the from-today-onwards timeline "goes on forever" if you start today and work forward, but does not "go on forever" if you start today and work backward. Two different scenarios of use, not two different meanings of the word. Equinox ◑ 22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- The sentence "It's been this way forever" has two senses: it can either mean 'It's been this way since time began 13.82 billion years ago' or 'Time had no beginning and at no point during the infinite time that has existed up until now has it not been this way.' So, is either of those two senses (e.g.) more formal than the other? allixpeeke (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think that's a scientific question ("did time ever begin?"), not a linguistic question of formality etc. When someone says "it's been this way forever" you can just read it as "it's been this way for all time", whether all time happens to be a limited or unlimited period. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- First, you say it's a scientific question, not a linguistic question, even though it is most definitely a linguistic question since the question of whether or not time actually had a beginning is utterly irrelevant to the formal meaning of the term. Then, despite claiming it was a scientific question, you (sort of) answer the question I asked from exactly a linguistics standpoint.
Allow me to clarify my question still further, and I think you'll see how you (sort of) answered it:
The sentence "It's been this way forever" has two senses: it can either mean 'It's been this way since for as long as time has existed, regardless of whether that amount is finite or infinite' or 'It's been this way since for an infinite amount of time.' Is either of those two senses more formal than the other? Or, are both senses equally formal?
Although this is a linguistic question, I will admit that one reason it is important is for matters of scientific accuracy. As long as the two senses of forever mentioned here are both equally formal, then there is nothing inaccurate linguistically in saying, "The universe has existed forever." Likewise, if the for all time meaning is more formal than the for an infinite amount of time meaning, there is nothing inaccurate linguistically in saying, "The universe has existed forever." But, if the for an infinite amount of time meaning is more formal than the for all time meaning, and assuming the universe and time had beginnings, then it would be formerly inaccurate to say that the universe "has existed forever." In that event, one would, in order to remain formal, have to say that the universe "has not existed forever"—and it all hinges on the formal meaning of the term forever.
In any event, you sort of answered the question. You went with the for all time meaning. But, you only sort of answered my question, because you technically did not make a claim about the formal accuracy of the term, nor even whether you know whether any of the meanings is more formal than another. What you said is that I "can just read it as" the for all time meaning. In other words, all you did was acknowledge that, even if the for all time meaning is not the formal meaning of the term, it is at least an acceptable informal meaning.
Unfortunately, I already knew this. Indeed, one can glean my understanding of this from my first post. What I have been wanting to know from the beginning is, "Are any of these senses more formal the the other(s)?" (emphasis added).
If they happen to all be equally formal, that's fine, of course. But either way, I wish to know, and in the event that one/some is/are more formal than another/the others, I wish to know that, too, so that I know how formerly accurate my own statements are when I make them.
Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- First, you say it's a scientific question, not a linguistic question, even though it is most definitely a linguistic question since the question of whether or not time actually had a beginning is utterly irrelevant to the formal meaning of the term. Then, despite claiming it was a scientific question, you (sort of) answer the question I asked from exactly a linguistics standpoint.
At all times (literary)
2. at all times or on every occasion (literary) From that moment on, she was forever careful. 3. regularly or constantly, and often annoyingly (informal) 4. for a very long or seemingly endless time (informal) If we wait for him, we'll be here forever.