[Grammar] Multiple tenses in a sentence.

[Quasar]

Here is a grammar error that usually confuses me - Do all verbs in a sentence have to agree in terms of their tenses? I'll give you an example:

We were trying to find a hotel which is close to the park.

"were" is past tense, whereas "is" is present tense, so is the "is" incorrect? If so, then what if I did this:

We were trying to find a hotel which was close to the park.

Wouldn't this suggest that the hotel used to be close to the park but is no longer there? Because if you separate the clause and make it independent, you get:

The hotel was close to the park.

Obviously, I'm trying to say that we were finding a hotel in the past, but the hotel should still be close to the park in the present. Which way is, or how can it be worded correctly to reflect this meaning?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I would use 'was', and I don't think it suggests the hotel is no longer there because the sentence refers to the past, but I am not a teacher.
I think 'which was' can simply be omitted, i.e. 'We were trying to find a hotel close to the park'.

 

[tedmc]

I think there are cases where the present tense (is) works together with the simple past tense but this is not one of them.

 

[Matthew Wai]

the hotel is longer there.

I think Piscean should pay more attention to typos, but I am not a teacher.

 

[Raymott]

To answer the first question: No, a sentence does not have to have the same tense throughout. This was never a rule, is not a rule, and (probably) never will be a rule.

 

[tedmc]

OP's sentence was "'to find a hotel which is/was..", not "to find the hotel..".

 

[Matthew Wai]

No, a sentence does not have to have the same tense throughout.

I think the following can be an example, but I am not a teacher.
'We were trying to find a hotel close to the park that will be changed to a parking lot next month.'

I will not say what I think Matthew should do, perhaps because I am a teacher..

I had to think hard for a long time before I could discover it was meant to be sarcastic, perhaps because I am not a teacher.

 

[mawes12]

I had to think hard for a long time before I could discover it was meant to be sarcastic, perhaps because I am not a teacher.

:lol:

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, Quasar:

You probably already know this, but I am bringing it to your attention just in case that you do not.

Here is what one book says:

"When statements are permanently true [my emphasis] in a subordinate clause in indirect discourse, following a verb in past time, guard against their being attracted into the past."

Here is one of the book's examples:

ILLOGICAL: "Megellan proved that the earth was round." [my emphasis]
LOGICAL: "Magellan proved that the earth is round."


Source: Woolley, Scott, and Bracher, College Handbook of COMPOSITION (1951).

 

[Matthew Wai]

ILLOGICAL: "Megellan proved that the earth was round." [my emphasis]

I consider it acceptable because the earth was round when Megellan proved it.
I am not a teacher, so please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[tzfujimino]

But it's "prove", Matthew. To prove means to show something is true. 'The earth was round' sounds odd to me.

 

[Tdol]

I think you could use either tense in the Magellan sentence.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'The earth was round' sounds odd to me.

How about the one below?
'People did not believe that the earth was round until Megellan proved it.'

 

[tzfujimino]

I'd use "... is round ...".

 

[Raymott]

I would use 'was' without hesitation. It's back shifting. It's not claiming that the Earth used to be round, but isn't now.

 

[tzfujimino]

Do you think "... is round ..." in the sentence Matthew gave is wrong?

 

[Raymott]

Do you think "... is round ..." in the sentence Matthew gave is wrong?

The sentence in post #15 would be very unusual with 'is' in it, at least in AusE.
Back shifting is (almost) never wrong - as I often say - but not back shifting sometimes sounds very strange. And logic has nothing to do with it, because the choice of the tense follows grammatical, not logical, rules.

 

[tzfujimino]

I agree.
Well, actually, I find it a bit odd to use "... is round ..." in Matthew's sentence. It's simply because of the 'past + present + past' combination:

People did not believe that the earth is round until Magellan proved it.

I would change the word order or use a different construction to make it sound better:

1. Until Magellan proved it, people did not believe that the earth is round.

2. It was not until Magellan proved it that people came to believe that the earth is round.

Do #1 and #2 sound natural?

Thank you.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Do #1 and #2 sound natural?

I tend to keep the whole sentence in the past tense when it refers to a past event, but I am not a teacher.

Do you think "... is round ..." in the sentence Matthew gave is wrong?

I find it a bit odd to use "... is round ..." in Matthew's sentence.

Your above statements could make people wrongly think that I used 'is round' in my sentence where 'was round' was actually used.

 

[tzfujimino]

They should have been:

Do you think using "is round" instead of "was round" in the sentence Matthew gave is wrong?

Well, actually, I find it a bit odd to use "is round" instead of "was round" in Matthew's sentence.

I deeply apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my statements.