0

Well, I have the programming examples only, but I suppose it could be reused on the common English.

AFAIK "Imported namespace" could mean:

  1. Namespace which has been imported
  2. Namespace which will be imported

I can name the variables like "namespaceWhichHasBeenImported", but if there more concise expression like "Participle + noun" I'll use it herewith the tense must be clear (at least is it the past, present or the future).

Also, I am not sure but maybe the "wrappable entity" besides "entity which could be wrapped" (but not compulsory will be wrapped) may also means "entity which will be wrapped". Please confirm or refute it.

1
  • 2
    The standard meanings are: imported namespace — one which has been imported; importable namespace — one which could be imported. Unfortunately, we don't have anything simple for namespace to be imported. You could call it NamespaceToImport, which I think is slightly better than to be imported. Nov 8, 2022 at 12:28

1 Answer 1

2

If you had a goose to cook, then only once you cooked it would you have a cooked goose. You wouldn’t ever go confusing that one with a goose that hasn’t been cooked yet, because that would be an uncooked goose. Before you cooked it, your goose was merely cookable not cooked.

So you started out with a cookable goose not a cooked goose, and you wouldn’t ever confuse the two. A goose to cook is never a goose you did cook; it’s one you did not.

Of course not all geese are for cooking, which means you probably want to separately consider an uncooked goose’s cookability. Once you do, you could then have both cookable uncooked geese as well as uncookable uncooked geese.

But you wouldn’t have cookable cooked geese, because once your goose is cooked, it’s all done: nobody eats recooked geese.

3
  • Shouldn't it be "uncooked cookable geese" and "uncooked uncookable geese"?
    – banuyayi
    Nov 8, 2022 at 5:10
  • Thank you for the great explanations! Understood about "could be cooked" and "has been cooked" part. The last piece of puzzle is "will be [definitely] cooked". If there is no "participle + noun" please say such as. Nov 9, 2022 at 0:06
  • @TakeshiTokugawa A goose that you intend to cook would be a goose_to_cook with an infinitive of purpose, or even that plus a passive participle in goose_to_be_cooked_on_Christmas_Day, but never a to_cook_goose or a to_be_cooked_goose with the yet-to-be-done action expressed as an infinitive or with a participle in attributive position before the noun. Although Latin enjoys a full range of inflected nonfinite forms and verbal nouns derived from verbs in "all" the tenses and voices which you can use that way, English simply does not.
    – tchrist
    Nov 9, 2022 at 0:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.