Is the sentence in the title, "I shall wait you in the garden, five o'clock," grammatical, even though it might be archaic?

  • 2
    'await' is archaic & would work in that sentence, in an archaic way. Modern you would have to use 'wait for' & probably also 'at 5 o'clock' – gone fishin' again. Apr 1 '15 at 17:34
  • 1
    @Tetsujin are you saying that 'wait', wouldn't work even in an archaic way? (as opposed to 'await') – user1853 Apr 1 '15 at 17:40
  • 1
    Neither wait nor await is archaic. – user6951 Apr 1 '15 at 18:00
  • 1
    @δοῦλος I mean "wait" without the following "for". – user1853 Apr 1 '15 at 18:03
  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not about current uses of modern English. We aren't specialists in archaic forms, only in modern. – Catija Apr 1 '15 at 20:26

The sentence is not grammatical in contemporary English, even though it might be archaic

| improve this answer | |
  • As @snailplane noted, it is archaic: "From the OED's entry for wait: "5. a. trans. To look forward (esp. with desire or apprehension) to (some future event or contingency); to continue in expectation of. Now somewhat rare: usually superseded by await v." I don't think it's really used anymore, though." – user1853 Apr 19 '17 at 10:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy