TS Eliot says

[nelson13]

Foreigners always say 'Confucius says' but not 'said', because they think Confucius is immortal to Chinese people, and if they say 'Confucius said', that is an insult.

So can I say 'TS Eliot IS a talented writer' because I regard him as immortal?

 

[SoothingDave]

I don't know where you are getting your information, but I have always heard "Confucius say..." and that is mocking the English of Chinese people.

TS Eliot is dead. He was a talented writer.

 

[nelson13]

Thank you.

So you don't think we can say 'Confucius says'?

 

[HanibalII]

Foreigners always say 'Confucius says' but not 'said', because they think Confucius is immortal to Chinese people, and if they say 'Confucius said', that is an insult.

So can I say 'TS Eliot IS a talented writer' because I regard him as immortal?

No, TS Elliot is dead. You would say 'was a talented writer'. But considering him as an immortal, you could say is, however you would need to provide a good deal of context.

Thank you.

So you don't think we can say 'Confucius says'?

Usually when they use the phrase 'Confucius says' they are referring to his writings, not actually the person. I've heard the phrase regularly.

 

[nelson13]

Thank you.

When in literature lectures, I often encounter a problem:

If we are talking about the story in a drama, a poem, fiction, etc. of course we use the historical present tense; when the professor tells me to say something apart from the content of the work, I don't know what tense to use:

Eliot uses/used the stream of consciousness.
Frost thinks/thought that....

A dictionary can never tell me whether USE etc. should be part of the content (so the present tense), or should be a one-moment act (so the past tense)which Eliot did in the past.

 

[HanibalII]

Thank you.

When in literature lectures, I often encounter a problem:

If we are talking about the story in a drama, a poem, fiction, etc. of course we use the historical present tense; when the professor tells me to say something apart from the content of the work, I don't know what tense to use:

Eliot uses/used the stream of consciousness.
Frost thinks/thought that....

A dictionary can never tell me whether USE etc. should be part of the content (so the present tense), or should be a one-moment act (so the past tense)which Eliot did in the past.

I would use 'Elliot uses the stream', because it's the writing you're referring to in the present not the past.

The same with 'Frost thinks that'. I regularly come across this in my psychology text books. Such as 'Freud describes his theory as'. Only when you're referring to something that that author had specifically written.

 

[Tdol]

So can I say 'TS Eliot IS a talented writer' because I regard him as immortal?

His work may be immortal, but he wasn't. It's fine to say TS Eliot says, but your example doesn't work well for me. Curiously, TS Eliot is a great writer works better because that sounds more like a current opinion, while yours sounds more like a review, which would be located in the past. Other people may see things differently- this isn't an exact science, but when expressing an opinion about a dead writer in the present tense, a general current opinion works better than a personal one for me.

 

[nelson13]

His work may be immortal, but he wasn't. It's fine to say TS Eliot says, but your example doesn't work well for me. Curiously, TS Eliot is a great writer works better because that sounds more like a current opinion, while yours sounds more like a review, which would be located in the past. Other people may see things differently- this isn't an exact science, but when expressing an opinion about a dead writer in the present tense, a general current opinion works better than a personal one for me.

Thank you. This is exactly the answer that I wanted.

By the way, when I was listening to a lecture today, and I was asked to talk, a problem arose:

What the writer (a dead writer) wants/wanted to say is/was that....

I am still unsure about what tense to use.

It seems that the historic present is OK because the writer's want seems to have been frozen inside the work and when giving a comment we can treat it as describing a plot.

It seems that the past tense is OK because, of course, the writer wrote the work decades ago and what he wanted to tell us is past.

PS In Chinese, there is no inflection; to denote time, we simply use an adjunct.

 

[Tdol]

I think that both the present and the past work there.

 

[nelson13]

I think that both the present and the past work there.

Thank you. Is consistency needed?:

What the writer wants to say is that....

What the writer wanted to say was that....

if they are OK,

how about a mixture:

What the writer wants to say was that.... (it sounds strange to me)
What the writer wanted to say is that.... (it sounds logical to me)

 

[BobK]

Thank you. Is consistency needed?:

What the writer wants to say is that....

What the writer wanted to say was that....

if they are OK,

how about a mixture:

What the writer wants to say was that.... (it sounds strange to me) And to me
What the writer wanted to say is that.... (it sounds logical to me)

Hmm... I wouldn't say 'logical', but it does sound OK. If a writer made a comment about a general truth [that still holds, I think this sort of inconsistency is defensible; but I wouldn't say it was a good idea.

For example 'When Shakespeare wrote 'All that glitters is not gold' [he didn't, but just for argument's sake...] he means that not everything that is valuable looks valuable; in other words, you can't judge a book by its cover.' This makes sense, but I'd prefer something like

Shakespeare's 'All that glitters is not gold' means that not everything that is valuable looks valuable; in other words, you can't judge a book by its cover.'

b

 

[Climberboi]

Thank you. Is consistency needed?:

What the writer wants to say is that....

What the writer wanted to say was that....

if they are OK,

how about a mixture:

What the writer wants to say was that.... (it sounds strange to me)
What the writer wanted to say is that.... (it sounds logical to me)

I think a writers body of work lives and is present. If the writer is dead then the writer is past.

Eliot's poem...says....
Eliot said...

Consistancy is important. Do not mix tense (except between the author and the work as noted above). Choose a tense and stick with it.
Also, you don't really know what a writer intended to say...it's your opinion and should be stated as such. IMHO.
"I believe..." "I argue..." "Eliot suggests..." then evidence to prove. Every teacher or prof has different guidelines for choosing your point of view.


Hope that helps,
ps. my first post so, hi all
4th yr engl. major.

Cheers.

 

[nelson13]

Thank you.

I said What the writer wanted to say is that.... sounds logical to me, because to think about the tenses in English from a Chinese's point of view the non-ellipted form of the sentence can be :

What the writer wanted to say in the past is now that....

I said IS is OK because to me by reasoning IS is used to bring up the that-clause and this that-clause is what I want to say NOW.

By the way, in the ancient Chinese language, not only did we not have inflection(we have never had, and will never), but also we did not need a so-called verb. For example, in ancient Chinese the following sentence is idiomatic Chinese:

Qin, a strong nation.

which is a complete sentence. So don't feel strange when a Chinese student asks so many questions about tenses.