I was looking for souvenirs at the market when this kid grabs my bag!

[atabitaraf]

I was wondering why they used PRESENT SIMPLE here.
"I was looking for souvenirs at the market when this kid grabs my bag!" (reference: SUMMIT page 57)

As I remember from grammar, we normally use PAST SIMPLE rather than PRESENT SIMPLE.

 

[emsr2d2]

I was wondering why they used PRESENT SIMPLE the present simple here.

"I was looking for souvenirs at the market when this kid grabs my bag!" (Reference Source: SUMMIT Summit, page 57)

As I remember from grammar, I thought that we normally use PAST SIMPLE the past simple rather than PRESENT SIMPLE the present simple.

When we're telling a story, we sometimes use the present tense to bring an immediacy into the mind of the listener. It helps the listener to imagine the situation as if it's happening in front of them. Having said that, that would normally apply to all the tenses in the story. If I were relating this tale to a friend, I'd say "You're not going to believe what happened to me yesterday. I'm looking for souvenirs at the market when this kid grabs my bag!"

Note my corrections above. There is no need to put the names of tenses in capital letters. Use lower-case letters and remember to use the article before them. You still need to provide the author(s) of that book.

 

[atabitaraf]

When we're telling a story, we sometimes use the present tense to bring an immediacy into the mind of the listener. It helps the listener to imagine the situation as if it's happening in front of them. Having said that, that would normally apply to all the tenses in the story. If I were relating this tale to a friend, I'd say "You're not going to believe what happened to me yesterday. I'm looking for souvenirs at the market when this kid grabs my bag!"

Note my corrections above. There is no need to put the names of tenses in capital letters. Use lower-case letters and remember to use the article before them. You still need to provide the author(s) of that book.

Yes, it is called the historical present tense, as a literal device, to convey the feeling of the author in a more emotional way. That's true. The point in here over which I was wondering is 'Is it possible to use the past simple in first clause and then the present simple in the next clause?'. If I were the author I would make them both in the present tense not only one of them. Is it grammatically correct to shift tenses like the one I put in #1?

 

[atabitaraf]

You still need to provide the author(s) of that book.

It is written by Joan Saslow and Allen Ascher.

 

[emsr2d2]

It is written by Joan Saslow and Allen Ascher.

Please make sure you put all the relevant information about the source in post #1.

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes, it is called the historical present tense, as a literal literary device, to convey the feeling of the author in a more emotional way. That's true. The point in here over about which I was wondering is 'Is it possible to use the past simple in the first clause and then the present simple in the next clause?' no full stop here If I were the author, I would make put them both in the present tense, not only one of them. Is it grammatically correct to shift tenses like the one I put as in my quote in post #1?

Did you notice this part of my first response?

"Having said that, that would normally apply to all the tenses in the story."

 

[jutfrank]

'Is it possible to use the past simple in first clause and then the present simple in the next clause?'.

Do you mean the past continuous? The past simple is not right, no. The past continuous is correct. Also good, as emsr2d2 says, is the present continuous.

If I were the author I would make them both in the present tense not only one of them. Is it grammatically correct to shift tenses like the one I put in #1?

Yes, it is.

 

[atabitaraf]

Do you mean the past continuous? The past simple is not right, no. The past continuous is correct. Also good, as emsr2d2 says, is the present continuous.



Yes, it is.

Thanks for the precise reply. I still do not recognize it well why the use of the past continuous is not wrong here. I got it from your points that it is not a good usage, however I am wondering why it is still correct to use the combination of the past continuous and the present simple in post #1.

 

[5jj]

It is not wrong because it is not wrong.

It is possible to switch from past tenses to present tense to give a more vivid fee. We do not normally do this within the space of a single sentence, but it is possible, as you have seen. I wouldn't do it, but that is not to say that I think it's wrong.

 

[jutfrank]

I still do not recognize it well why the use of the past continuous is not wrong here.

You could equally say that you don't understand why the present simple is not wrong.

In the first clause, the past continuous works very well to establish a past situation. It gives the listener the situational context of the story. The past tense tells the reader that the story really happened in past time. The continuous aspect tells the listener that the action of looking was ongoing, and, more importantly, that this ongoing action provides a frame (a situational context) within which the dramatic events that follow will take place.

The speaker then decides to shift tenses from past to present. This shift is a rhetorical device, which draws the reader more immediately into the story, providing a narrative 'force'.

I got it from your points that it is not a good usage.

I think it's fine usage. Perhaps I disagree slightly with emsr2d2 and 5jj in that I think this kind of shift of narrative tense is quite common.

 

[emsr2d2]

That's why I said it would normally apply to all the tenses. I try not to use always.