I thought I had

[albeit]

Sure you did. In Message #35 you wrote:

Albeit wrote: "No, a google search is not perfect, Lycen. Have you done the number crunching? Cut it in half, cut it down to a quarter. It still shows that there is no valid reason to exclude this collocation [a collection of words] in any register of English. If it's available to native speakers it's available to ESLs."

I offered it as a partial refutation, Kon. It showed that a greater favor for the more casual "... I replied". Obviously, it's not conclusive and I did mention that further look at some corpus studies might be helpful.

But you haven't explained why my analysis of the 3 times involved in the state of affairs and the statement is not valid in your view.

I'll look further at it.

Also, you seem to be tempted to make ad hominem attacks, by saying "whether or not you try to hide behind them, Kon." I'm not hiding in any way. I'm openly supporting my point.

There was not any personal attack, Kon. I said,

"These too many possibilities are available whether you seek to hide them from them or not, Kon."

I didn't say you were "hiding behind them". I said,

"These too many possibilities are available [to ESLs] whether you seek to hide them [these possibilities] from them [ESLs] or not, Kon.

I'm saying that all these possibilities, [the same number that are available to native speakers, no more no less] are there in the language. ESLs run into them all the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't bother to ask the questions they do.

You're missing it.

You and I, along with any native speakers, can change registers knowingly in different social situations. While speaking with less educated friends, I can tone down the grammar like Bill Clinton usually does; when speaking at an academic conference I can respect their norms of speech; when speaking to small children I can simplify my grammar and vocabulary.

I afraid to say, Kon, that you're the one who has missed it. Vocabulary aside, there's no need for anyone to tone anything down for any native speaker as regards grammar. Have you not seen the studies of William Labov who found that the greatest number of grammatical errors were found in the speech of those in academia.

Why should learners be prevented from attaining this ability, by not pointing out differences between the registers and their norms?

I'm not the one who wants them be prevented from attaining any ability. I'm the one who thinks that ESLs be exposed to all available structures and that they be given accurate information on how to use them.

I specifically stated that that was exactly what you should do, point out the differences between the registers and their norms. I just don't believe that you've made the case to absolutely prohibit the simple past use from even academic writing, let alone SWE/SFE.

You seem to be saying "if English allows something anywhere, in any situation, it is suitable everywhere." I suspect that most students are after a grasp that is a little less loose than yours.

A reading of my postings - and it would not even require a close reading - will show that's not at all what I believe or suggest.

[konungursvia]

Okay, then we're closer than it seems. My favourite authors are those who, like Chaucer and Twain, write the vernacular, the way people speak. I just think "I thought I replied" contains an assumption about the facts which is not obvious, and an approximation or blurring of times and tenses that makes it an abridged version of "I thought I had replied," rather than simply an equally formed, alternative approach to the same ideas. I think it contains less information, and fails to account for the realities that must in fact be involved. But I think we now see each others' positions.

[lycen]

However, I think it's possible to say "At that moment, I thought I saw a.."

[konungursvia]

However, I think it's possible to say "At that moment, I thought I saw a.."

I agree. When the "thinking" and the "seeing" are exactly at the same time, that's when I think we are called upon to use the same tense.

[bhaisahab]

However, I think it's possible to say "At that moment, I thought I saw a.."

Yes it is, but it is also possible to say "At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.

[PROESL]

Have we concluded yet that "I thought I replied" is just as correct as "I thought I had replied", and that though the past perfect might tend to lend a more formal tone, it doesn't mean, in this case, that the simple past is not correct? They're both equally correct: "I thought I replied", and "I thought I had replied".

[PROESL]

Yes it is, but it is also possible to say "At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.

I hate when I'm expecting to see dragons and it turns out that only camels are around. I hate when that happens!

[albeit]

This explains a lot, actually, it explains it all about these "rules of grammar".

Why Shakespeare Didn't Know Grammar

Address at 1994 Opening Convocation
Karl Tamburr, Professor of English,

...

When the alumna asked me the reason for these "errors," [Shakespeare's] I somewhat archly replied that Shakespeare didn't observe the rules of grammar because he didn't have them. The look she gave me taught me much about our attitudes towards grammar: it was a mixture of skepticism (after all, she knew I liked to tease her!) and pure horror. In one way, I was teasing her because what we usually call the rules of grammar, those codified do's and don't's that are drilled into us during the serenity of adolescence, are very different from what a linguist or an anthropologist would call grammar, which is really nothing more than usage. Her look also reminded me that we tend to accept these learned rules of grammar as having a divine origin, as if they were a kind of appendix to the Ten Commandments that Moses also brought down from Mount Sinai. Of course, they aren't.

Why Shakespeare Didn't Know Grammar

[lycen]

Yes it is, but it is also possible to say "At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.

It is possible but there is a little difference in the meaning.

[albeit]

It is possible but there is a little difference in the meaning.

At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel

At that moment, I thought I saw a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.

What difference in meaning do you discern, Lycen?