***neither a teacher nor a native-speaker***
Maybe the speaker is on a ship, and the ship has just passed by (or moved past) the shores of a country.
The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.
What is imply with "the past" word?
***neither a teacher nor a native-speaker***
Maybe the speaker is on a ship, and the ship has just passed by (or moved past) the shores of a country.
Thank you but he is not on a ship. He is at home and he remembers old days.
He is using a metaphor. The changes between how things were done then and how things are done now have made things as different as if it were two lands of different cultures instead of the same land with changing times.
I'm not a teacher, but I write for a living. Please don't ask me about 2nd conditionals, but I'm a safe bet for what reads well in (American) English.
Since there is no ship, switching to the first possible explanation makes sence. If I had heard only the first part, that is, The past is a foreign country, I definitely would have thought similar to what you said. But the second part was, as I said on my previous post, what made me change my mind and so I came up with a second explanation.
I'd be happy if you commented on whether the use of present tense for the second part is correct or not.
********** NOT A TEACHER **********
Hello, Gemini.
(1) Your quotation means a lot to me.
(2) I am an old man.
(3) I was a young man in the 1950's ("the past").
(4) When I compare the world today (including my own
country) with the past, I can assure you that the past is
a foreign (different) country (place). When I return in
my daydreams to the 1950's, they truly do things
differently there. The names of places remain the same, but
how things have changed!!!
(5) I am guessing that you are a young person. Perhaps in
the year 2060, you will look at the world (including your own
country) and sigh: "The past ...."
Thank you
euncu, I think the "there" is just continuing the metaphor.
I'm not a teacher, but I write for a living. Please don't ask me about 2nd conditionals, but I'm a safe bet for what reads well in (American) English.
I think he only used "they do things differently there", instead of "did", because he is likening the past to a foreign country which exists now. Even though, obviously, the past is in the past (!), his metaphor would use the present.
France is a different country. They do things differently there. This of course, is true now. He is treating the past as if it still exists and uses the present tense accordingly. (Some people, of course, believe that time is not linear and that the past, the present and the future all exist at the same time.)