I thought I had

Status
Not open for further replies.

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Do you really think that this particular collocation is going to make it into FWE, Kon?

But allowing that it might, by what standard, what reasoning do you say that only the past perfect is "correct"?

Exact phrase Google Scholar search

"I thought I replied"
Results 1 - 10 of about 61.

"I thought I had replied"
Results 1 - 2 of 2.

That's a good question.

Taking such a stance as this simply provides English language learners with an undue burden that native speakers of English do not carry. Thinking that one is somehow out of line with "correct language" for not using the past perfect in the example sentence in question is not practical.
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Originally Posted by konungursvia
'I thought I replied' is common in speech, so no one can call it wrong. Having said that, when you are attempting to use written English correctly, you must write "I thought I had replied" in this case. The others are not correct in terms of the norms of formal written English. Only in vernacular spoken English.

===================

Hi again, Kon. I just wanted to add one more thing. It seems to me that a suggestion that some structure must be used for FWE/SWE and others forsaken, takes away from those writers the opportunity to say what they may want to say in English.

Just because someone compares two similar collocations, finds one to be more formal and then pronounces that that's the only allowable one for SWE/FWE is to my mind an untenable situation.

Again, this isn't a collocation that would find great use in SWE but regardless, if I'm writing to someone and I don't feel that greater formality is due them, I'm certainly not going to opt for the past perfect.

I just can't understand why you would it think it appropriate/a good thing to tie the hands of writers by excluding certain structures/collocations.
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
... Thinking that one is somehow out of line with "correct language" for not using the past perfect in the example sentence in question is not practical.

Clearly, there are structures/collocations suitable for the different registers but I'm highly sceptical that this has any application in this situation. I'll reserve judgment until Kon provides his explanation.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Clearly, there are structures/collocations suitable for the different registers but I'm highly sceptical that this has any application in this situation. I'll reserve judgment until Kon provides his explanation.

The application it could have is that a particular form is preferable to someone for some reason, and that reason could be the somewhat more formal tone that can possibly be created by using "had replied" in place of "replied". However, this is not to say that "had replied" really would sound more "formal". "Formal" and "informal" can be rather arbitrary and strange labels in English language learning and teaching sometimes.


When given a choice between simple and perfect, the perfect verb forms can sound more formal to me, not that this is all the time or any time for that matter. And, of course, this doesn't have any bearing on whether or not one or the other is correct in the sentence posted by the lycen. So whereas past perfect may sound more "formal", perhaps, it may turn out to be one's preference for "classroom English", but, once again, this doesn't mean that "I thought I had replied" is correct" and "I thought I replied" is any less correct - or that the latter needs to be associated only with spoken language.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Do you really think that this particular collocation is going to make it into FWE, Kon?

But allowing that it might, by what standard, what reasoning do you say that only the past perfect is "correct"?

Exact phrase Google Scholar search

"I thought I replied"
Results 1 - 10 of about 61.

"I thought I had replied"
Results 1 - 2 of 2.

I don't believe "collocation" is an applicable term when speaking of which form of a verb to use. The phrase "I had replied" as the past perfect, and as it relates to verbs and grammar, isn't explained by collocation. However, it could be that one's definition of collocation is different.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
What you are referring to is the past perfect. The term pluperfect is rather antiquated, I would say.

The "past perfect" is not a tense. It's an aspect of the past, or a way in which we can talk about the past in a specifc way.

You did indeed say that the term pluperfect is antiquated, and that it is now called the past perfect, and that it is not a tense. I think you had forgotten, since you wrote above to our OP that you hadn't made that statement, after he or she went to the trouble of verifying it.

In any case, a linguistic debate is good fun, isn't it?

What I really mean by '"in that case" the OP needs to use the pluperfect' is this: when the state of affairs in question includes three times (present, past 1, and past 2) and when one of them takes place just moments before the present (the 'uh-oh, I thought' moment) and the other past moment is well before that (last week-end's attempted e-mail reply) then I don't think it's anything more than a colloquial eliding of the facts to use the phrase 'I thought I replied,' because it simplifies the time line to the point of amalgamating all past moments into one. In such cases, I think it's an imprecise, almost 'lazy' approximation to write it in that way. "I thought I had replied," on the other hand, correctly accounts for the temporal dimensions of the state of affairs as it actually unfolded. The "uh-oh" moment is accurately portrayed as a recollection of a previous attempt to reply, that was significantly before that "uh-oh" moment. It also shows that the speaker was for some time convinced that the response had been previously sent.

So, if you compare an approximation that is unlikely to be misunderstood only because logically you can't think you replied before you try to do so, on the one hand, and on the other hand we have an expression that explicitly accounts for the facts in a complete and unambiguous way, I think we can observe a differing value judgment regarding the relative correctness of the two, in terms of the norms of written English, which are themselves more conservative, more universal and more international than any one vernacular.

I just felt that given a learner who had been reading a textbook explaining the use of the pluperfect, we ought then to have used the textbook's standard of written English when discussing normative correctness, rather than troubling the student with opinions about whether more recent or more local standards should now replace those of the textbook.

To summarize, "I thought I replied" I am still convinced is an oral approximation rather than an equally well constructed alternative to "I thought I had replied" if we are talking about the sequence of events I described above.

I am sorry if my love for such linguistic debates has detracted from anyone's pleasure at using the forum.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Originally Posted by konungursvia
'I thought I replied' is common in speech, so no one can call it wrong. Having said that, when you are attempting to use written English correctly, you must write "I thought I had replied" in this case. The others are not correct in terms of the norms of formal written English. Only in vernacular spoken English.

===================

Hi again, Kon. I just wanted to add one more thing. It seems to me that a suggestion that some structure must be used for FWE/SWE and others forsaken, takes away from those writers the opportunity to say what they may want to say in English.

Just because someone compares two similar collocations, finds one to be more formal and then pronounces that that's the only allowable one for SWE/FWE is to my mind an untenable situation.

Again, this isn't a collocation that would find great use in SWE but regardless, if I'm writing to someone and I don't feel that greater formality is due them, I'm certainly not going to opt for the past perfect.

I just can't understand why you would it think it appropriate/a good thing to tie the hands of writers by excluding certain structures/collocations.

A valid argument, and if we were three English professors at Ohio State talking about another Ohio native and his wish to use a certain phrase, I might take a looser position.

But in this case we're not simply dealing with the "freedom" of "a writer" -- let them do what they like -- but a student of English who is specifically endeavouring to attain a thorough understanding of our grammatical norms. He or she is no doubt aware, as an adult learner, of the differences between spoken and written norms; but, textbook in hand, and asking us for elucidation of the norms it describes, he or she isn't helped much but rather becomes confused if we have educated native speakers saying something else, for different reasons, according to a different standard of norms. Pedagogy (or andragogy) suggests we help the learner attain the norms he or she seeks, before advising him or her to break the rules.

When you learn the violin, you are taught how to hold the bow 'properly' for weeks and weeks. Go learn the fiddle and play Swing later on, but you'll never play classical music if you hold the bow however it first strikes you to do so.
 

lycen

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
Do you really think that this particular collocation is going to make it into FWE, Kon?

But allowing that it might, by what standard, what reasoning do you say that only the past perfect is "correct"?

Exact phrase Google Scholar search

"I thought I replied"
Results 1 - 10 of about 61.

"I thought I had replied"
Results 1 - 2 of 2.

Actually, if you look carefully, many of the entries have "..I thought, I replied.." which is not the same. Google search is not perfect.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
You did indeed say that the term pluperfect is antiquated, and that it is now called the past perfect ...

In any case, a linguistic debate is good fun, isn't it?

Yes, and I have not denied saying that it is antiquated and that past perfect is more relevant. Yes, to me, it's not a tense. It's easier to deal with two tenses and their aspects, or to deal with types of present and types of past.

Yes, it's good fun. ;-) :cool: :)
 
Last edited:

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Actually, if you look carefully, many of the entries have "..I thought, I replied.." which is not the same. Google search is not perfect.

Yes, good point, in my long-winded reply I forgot to include those examples, which go something like this: "I was just saying what I thought," I replied. Among other variations.

But it is an interesting discussion.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
You know, this typo has only been discussed around a dozen times. I think we need far more explication about what really happened here!

I wonder if it's more a case of typing what one hears than an actual typographical error. I feel that it's more accurate to say that.

;-) :)
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I wonder if it's more a case of typing what one hears than an actual typographical error. I feel that it's more accurate to say that.

I agree that's likely.
 

Raymott

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Australia
Current Location
Australia
I wonder if it's more a case of typing what one hears than an actual typographical error. I feel that it's more accurate to say that.

;-) :)
That would be a very common error with "a couple of days ago". However, lycen has told us that it was a typo, so I'm not about to insult him either by implying that he didn't know he should have written 'of' or by insinuating that he lied to us.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
That would be a very common error with "a couple of days ago". However, lycen has told us that it was a typo, so I'm not about to insult him either by implying that he didn't know he should have written 'of' or by insinuating that he lied to us.

I wouldn't suggest doing that either.

;-)
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Actually, if you look carefully, many of the entries have "..I thought, I replied.." which is not the same. Google search is not perfect.

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.
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
A valid argument, and if we were three English professors at Ohio State talking about another Ohio native and his wish to use a certain phrase, I might take a looser position.

But in this case we're not simply dealing with the "freedom" of "a writer" -- let them do what they like -- but a student of English who is specifically endeavouring to attain a thorough understanding of our grammatical norms. He or she is no doubt aware, as an adult learner, of the differences between spoken and written norms; but, textbook in hand, and asking us for elucidation of the norms it describes, he or she isn't helped much but rather becomes confused if we have educated native speakers saying something else, for different reasons, according to a different standard of norms. Pedagogy (or andragogy) suggests we help the learner attain the norms he or she seeks, before advising him or her to break the rules.

When you learn the violin, you are taught how to hold the bow 'properly' for weeks and weeks. Go learn the fiddle and play Swing later on, but you'll never play classical music if you hold the bow however it first strikes you to do so.

I don't buy the violin analogy, Kon. The grammatical norms for English do not in any way prohibit the use of the past simple, even in this specific instance for any register. The freedom that I have and the freedom that you have must be extended to ESLs for they have to be able to use the language just as we do.

Again, you make the suggestion that the past perfect is the norm, when it's clear that it isn't. A valid argument would be that the one is more formal and the other less so, but again, leaving students with the impression that grammatically, it's correct/right/the norm, leaves them with a false impression of language.

Here are a few other English idioms/collocations that one wouldn't expect to find in scholarly works but, hey, ya just can't stop progress.

========================

Google scholar exact phrase search

fuck you
Results 1 - 10 of about 17,600.

sit on it and rotate
Results 1 - 9 of 9.

take a flying leap
Results 1 - 10 of about 511.

give a flying fuck
Results 1 - 10 of about 342
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
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 don't see that a small number of search hits shows the lack of any validity in my reasoning, which is andragogical. Also, one "difficulty" learners have is that there are too many possibilities available to them, more than are available to native speakers. They are asking for help eliminating the ones we don't find normal, aren't they?

For example, one of my Hong Kong (Cantonese Chinese) students frequently says, upon discovering new information, "Oh, I think you want X" when he wanted something like "Oh, I thought you wanted..." because Cantonese allows context to guide interpretation there, and no tense or aspect information is needed. When I pointed out I would normally use the past tense there.... "Oh, I thought..." he thanked me and asked to be corrected whenever he used a Cantonese style norm in speaking English.

Am I usurping his freedoms, or tying his hands as an artist? No, obviously not. I'm trying to help, and I think I am helping. Learners ask us to hold them to a high standard, and welcome the restraints this naturally imposes upon them. They know they can loosen up later on, after knowing the normative rules as well as we do.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
I'm off this bus. I think there's another one coming soon.

:cool: ;-) :)
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
I don't see that a small number of search hits shows the lack of any validity in my reasoning, which is andragogical. Also, one "difficulty" learners have is that there are too many possibilities available to them, more than are available to native speakers. They are asking for help eliminating the ones we don't find normal, aren't they?

These too many possibilities are available whether you seek to hide them from them or not, Kon. That's why these questions often come up in these language forums and in ESL classes the world over.

I didn't offer the google search as a refutation of your argument. It's just simply not valid grammatically and I firmly believe that a closer look at corpus studies would reveal that.

For example, one of my Hong Kong (Cantonese Chinese) students frequently says, upon discovering new information, "Oh, I think you want X" when he wanted something like "Oh, I thought you wanted..." because Cantonese allows context to guide interpretation there, and no tense or aspect information is needed. When I pointed out I would normally use the past tense there.... "Oh, I thought..." he thanked me and asked to be corrected whenever he used a Cantonese style norm in speaking English.

Am I usurping his freedoms, or tying his hands as an artist? No, obviously not. I'm trying to help, and I think I am helping. Learners ask us to hold them to a high standard, and welcome the restraints this naturally imposes upon them. They know they can loosen up later on, after knowing the normative rules as well as we do.

That's not a valid comparison to the simple past/PP issue, Kon. Here, you've done what should be done; note you used "normally". I don't quite understand
what the issue is, but ESLs often have bleed through from their mother tongue.

*Do you go to work now?* [for right now]

*What do you eat?* [for right now]

Is this what you mean? If so, then you're hardly tying their hands. You're helping them break mother tongue patterns that have become fused into their English use.

Learners sometimes ask us to "hold them to a high standard" for a very good reason; because they've been misled by false ideas about "correctness" as regards language use.

As teachers, we have to provide students with meaningful explanations of why different structures/collocations are used. Whipping out the correctness card is, to my mind, an impermissable laziness for a teacher.

But this forum is full of questions from students asking about real language, the language of everyday. I know what they're taught abroad, as they go through school and I also know that it leaves them woefully unprepared for the real world.

As The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language says, it leaves them sounding like inexpert users reading out of a book.

Having said that, I don't want you to get the idea that I'm even remotely suggesting you are a bad teacher for I have absolutely no way of knowing, do I? I suspect that you provide excellent tutelage to all your students. You mislead them on some things, as we all do, for language is an immensely complicated venture and none of us is perfect.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I didn't offer the google search as a refutation of your argument. It's just simply not valid grammatically and I firmly believe that a closer look at corpus studies would reveal that.

Sure you did. In Message #35 you 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.
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.

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

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.

Why should learners be prevented from attaining this ability, by not pointing out differences between the registers and their norms? 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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top