What I wish I knew when I was younger

[Glizdka]

This sentence comes from a YouTube video's title.

"What I wish I knew when I was younger"

Shouldn't it be "What I wish I had known when I was younger"?

 

[GoesStation]

Yes, in careful speech. Many Americans use the past simple instead of the past perfect.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not sure that it's just an American thing.

 

[GoesStation]

I'm not sure that it's just an American thing.

Now that I've watched the first few seconds of the video, I see this is actually a sample of a rather careful Canadian speaker from British Columbia. I doubt Canadians differ significantly from Americans in this matter. I can't speak for other varieties.

 

[jutfrank]

There seems to me something that rings very faintly of a North American style about this, but I can't really justify that in any way—just a sense.

I'd guess that it would also be quite common in most other varieties. The way I understand things, there is generally speaking something like an economic 'force' that draws speakers away from using an ideal past perfect form where a past simple form does the job satisfactorily. I think that may be the case here.

 

[Glizdka]

There seems to me something that rings very faintly of a North American style about this, but I can't really justify that in any way—just a sense.

I'd guess that it would also be quite common in most other varieties. The way I understand things, there is generally speaking something like an economic 'force' that draws speakers away from using an ideal past perfect form where a past simple form does the job satisfactorily. I think that may be the case here.

Some time ago, I wrote a post on this forum asking whether the use of the past perfect is in decline, but I met with replies that it isn't.

In practice, I notice what you've just explained, that the past perfect is substituted with the past simple, both in speech and writing, because the past simple does the job just fine.

I know that most textbooks advocate using the past perfect, but I don't see it in natural, everyday speech, not to the extent I would expect if the theory were 100% correct. The example in this post is particularly important for me because Derek is an intelligent individual who makes solid videos about science. He's just one of many intelligent individuals I've seen not use the past perfect the way it is taught in school; if people like him don't feel the need to follow the theoretical rules, I think the rules are wrong/outdated.

Could it be that, for most verbs, the past participle and the simple past forms look exactly the same, and adding that had is unnecessary hassle? People are lazy; if there's a way of cutting the number of words, they do it. Could it be that it's spread even to verbs that do have different past participle and simple past forms, because most don't?

 

[jutfrank]

Some time ago, I wrote a post on this forum asking whether the use of the past perfect is in decline, but I met with replies that it isn't.

I don't think it is but you may be right.

In practice, I notice what you've just explained, that the past perfect is substituted with the past simple, both in speech and writing, because the past simple does the job just fine.

Often, but far from always.

The example in this post is particularly important for me because Derek is an intelligent individual who makes solid videos about science. He's just one of many intelligent individuals I've seen not use the past perfect the way it is taught in school; if people like him don't feel the need to follow the theoretical rules, I think the rules are wrong/outdated.

I'm sure that Derek is an intelligent individual but there's no connection between a mind that is suited to think scientifically and a mind that uses language proficiently. They are very different kinds of intelligence. Also, remember that for native speakers like Derek, unlike you, there are no prescriptive rules to follow. The rules are descriptive. That means that they describe what people say rather than tell them what to say. Derek was never taught how to use the past perfect.

Could it be that, for most verbs, the past participle and the simple past forms look exactly the same, and adding that had is unnecessary hassle? People are lazy; if there's a way of cutting the number of words, they do it. Could it be that it's spread even to verbs that do have different past participle and simple past forms, because most don't?

I don't think the fact that the second and third forms of regular verbs are identical has any bearing on this. But as I said above, I do think there may be a kind of 'force' of economy that predisposes speakers to prefer a simpler form, when everything else is equal. However, as a teacher, I don't recommend that learners—even those as proficient as yourself—submit to this.


"Don't use the Force, Glizdka."

 

[Glizdka]

I'm sure that Derek is an intelligent individual but there's no connection between a mind that is suited to think scientifically and a mind that uses language proficiently. They are very different kinds of intelligence. Also, remember that for native speakers like Derek, unlike you, there are no prescriptive rules to follow. The rules are descriptive. That means that they describe what people say rather than tell them what to say. Derek was never taught how to use the past perfect.

What I meant to say was that if an average Joe said that, I wouldn't even bat an eye; I've heard quite severely broken English from native speakers, and I'm fine with that, but when people who use English to explain difficult topics, precisely and proficiently, make such "mistakes", there's a discrepancy between official rules and the actual living language that I cannot ignore.

I don't think the fact that the second and third forms of regular verbs are identical has any bearing on this. But as I said above, I do think there may be a kind of 'force' of economy that predisposes speakers to prefer a simpler form, when everything else is equal. However, as a teacher, I don't recommend that learners—even those as proficient as yourself—submit to this.

What's wrong with emulating it if that's how natural English works in the mouths of native speakers? Wouldn't forcing myself to use structures nobody uses on a daily basis make me sound pompous/pretentious? I mean, I understand its necessity and importance, when written, when accuracy and precision can affect how the reader understands my intents, but in everyday speech? Should I really care if most people don't?

 

[GoesStation]

What's wrong with emulating it if that's how natural English works in the mouths of native speakers? Wouldn't forcing myself to use structures nobody uses on a daily basis make me sound pompous/pretentious? I mean, I understand its necessity and importance, when written, when accuracy and precision can affect how the reader understands my intents, but in everyday speech? Should I really care if most people don't?

The past perfect is widely used in everyday American English. When I hear a certain sister-in-law use the past simple in its place, it sounds like another example of the careless usage that must have driven her mother, who was a professional writer, crazy. She loved her daughter; the only complaint she'd admit to was that this daughter "got all the family assets" (i.e., was the only female to have a sizable bust). But I'm sure she sometimes wondered how she had grown up sounding illiterate.

 

[jutfrank]

What's wrong with emulating it if that's how natural English works in the mouths of native speakers? Wouldn't forcing myself to use structures nobody uses on a daily basis make me sound pompous/pretentious? I mean, I understand its necessity and importance, when written, when accuracy and precision can affect how the reader understands my intents, but in everyday speech? Should I really care if most people don't?

There's nothing wrong with emulating people. In fact, I'd positively encourage it.

However, I think you may have underestimated the use of the past perfect. It's more common than you think, and using it will definitely not make you sound pretentious. Keep listening to Derek and I'm sure you'll notice that he does in fact use it often. Also remember that this is only one specific use of the past perfect (used after I wish).

 

[Glizdka]

There's nothing wrong with emulating people. In fact, I'd positively encourage it.

However, I think you may have underestimated the use of the past perfect. It's more common than you think, and using it will definitely not make you sound pretentious. Keep listening to Derek and I'm sure you'll notice that he does in fact use it often. Also remember that this is only one specific use of the past perfect (used after I wish).

I don't want to get rid of the past perfect altogether. I just want to learn how I can reduce its use only to the situations in which it cannot be replaced with the past simple without causing the feeling of "ungrammatical", not caring about what the theoretical, prescriptive rules say.

I understand that the past perfect is used, and there are situations in which I can't think of replacing it with the past simple. At the same time, there are situations in which I think I can use either, and I'm sure nobody would notice the difference unless they were actively scanning for it, or were trained to spot it (teachers alike).

Let's test it. Here's a random exercise I got from the internet, designed to check a learner's ability to use the past perfect exclusively:

III. Complete the sentences with the verbs in brackets. (PAST PERFECT SIMPLE/PAST PERFECT CONTINUOUS)

1. I had to have a break. I had been driving so long. (drive)
2. Before we parked our car we had collected / collected the ticket. (collect)
3. I arrived on Sunday. I hadn’t been at home for two days. (not be)
4. The roads were blocked in the morning. It had been snowing all night. (snow)
5. They got to the beach after they had walked / walked for hours. (walk)
6. She called the police when she had seen / saw the light in the hall. (see)
7. His English was perfect. He had been studying it since he started school. (study)
8. I was really hungry. I hadn’t eaten anything since the morning. (not eat)
9. She didn't go to work because she had broken / broke her leg. (break)
10. As soon as Betty had opened / opened the door, the burglar alarm went off. (open)

I added the past simple alternative in red wherever I think I could get away with it.

 

[jutfrank]

I think you're looking at this wrong. Don't think of the past perfect as some pointless rule that you need not obey. Think of it as a tool that will help you express yourself better.

It's not about 'getting away with it'. Or at least, it shouldn't be.

 

[Glizdka]

I think you're looking at this wrong. Don't think of the past perfect as some pointless rule that you need not obey. Think of it as a tool that will help you express yourself better.

I'm trying to. In fact, this is precisely what I'm aiming for.

You see, I've read a ton of books trying to teach learners how to use the past perfect, and my observation of how it's used in reality doesn't match what I've read, so I want to strip the rules I've read to the bare minimum, to find what provokes the use of the past perfect, indisputably. Only then can I be satisfied with my grasp of the construction, when I find the moment it cannot be replaced, at all, because that will be where it belongs.

At the moment, my head's filled with rules that tell me to use it where it doesn't have to be used, where it's optional, and that's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the patterns that will show me what the reason for the existence of the construction is, where it is absolutely necessary, and then I can hopefully learn how I can optionally add it to express myself better wherever I see it fit.

 

[jutfrank]

Hmm. Well, I don't know which books you've read, or whether they were any good. Your use of the word 'rules' seems a bit suspicious to me. What rules? I don't see any rules at all—just various uses.

What do you mean by 'stripping rules to the bare minimum'? What is 'the moment it cannot be replaced'? If you're really looking for what the 'reason for the existence of the past perfect is' or 'where it is absolutely necessary' just ask!

No offence, but from what you've written above, I don't think you've quite understood what the past perfect actually does.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, I'll comment on the sentences in post #12, because I believe they're confusing you.

2. Both forms are good here. The difference is the use. You can't say that using the past simple is just an 'easier' way of doing what the past perfect does.

5. The past simple is definitely and clearly inferior to the past perfect here. I don't know how you could justify otherwise. It's obvious what the speaker's intention is there.

6. Past perfect is almost certainly wrong there.

9. Like with 2, each form has quite a distinct use.

10. The writer probably means to use the simple there, not the perfect.

You have to be careful when trying to analyse isolated sentences like this. A key part of understanding how tenses are used is seeing how they relate to the way that surrounding narrative events are presented. Where did you get these sentences, and who told you that the past perfect was the correct form?

 

[jutfrank]

My impression is that Glizdka does understand what the perfect does. They have noticed that some native speakers do not use the past perfect in situations where some coursebooks and student grammars suggest it should be used. Glizdka seems to be trying to work out when it is acceptable to use the past simple. So far, they have done a pretty good job of this, in my opinion.

Okay, agreed. Yes, I'll take back my comment that he doesn't understand what the perfect does. I don't want it to be taken the wrong way. My suspicion is that he's suffered from some bad teaching that needs to be undone.

I would suggest to most learners that they do what the coursebooks recommend. Some teachers and examiners still seem to think that deviation from the standard must be punished by loss of marks, even when the practice is common among native speakers.

Yes, I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Glizdka]

You have to be careful when trying to analyse isolated sentences like this. A key part of understanding how tenses are used is seeing how they relate to the way that surrounding narrative events are presented. Where did you get these sentences, and who told you that the past perfect was the correct form?

During the ongoing coronapocalypse, students in Poland have lessons online. This is an actual test used in public schools in Poland, and students are marked for their answers in this test. I also found it online, after a group of students asked me for help with understanding their "mistakes" they received a bad mark for.

---

I'm biased and I know it, but it pisses me off that students are punished with bad marks for doing something that native speakers do on a daily basis, without anyone noticing.

I'm a scientist. I value the scientific method. English is a language for me, not a school subject. Languages exist in the world, whether we like it or not, and the job of a linguist should be to look at a language, try to figure out how it works, and describe how it works so that others can understand it, similarly to, say, physics, that exists in the world whether we like it or not, and the job of a physicist should be to look at it, figure out how it works, and describe how it works so that others can understand it. If a physicist comes up with a set of rules that ought to describe how physics works, but that set of rules doesn't match reality, it's the physicist that is wrong, not physics itself, as a natural phenomenon. I think the same should apply to language and languages. Schools should teach how (a) language works, not make a "school subject" out of a living language, with a set of rules that doesn't match reality, and punish students for not obeying these rules.

As for the word rules, I used this word because that's how students are taught and how they perceive what they are taught - a set of rules they need to follow when taking an exam they're going to be marked for. They're taught to, say, always use the past perfect for action a if action a precedes action b while both a and b are past actions. They are taught they are going to be punished with a bad mark for not obeying this rule. That's the rule they have on their mind when they're taking a test, with the fear of being punished if they don't follow it. They later remember that rule when actually using the language in the real world, and see it collide with how actual living people use the language. I'm one of such students, just 10 years later.

---

Side question: in post #12 I said:
"There are situations in which I think I can use either, and I'm sure nobody would notice the difference unless they were actively scanning for it, or were trained to spot it."

Would it be correct to say...
"There are situations in which I think I can use either, and I'm sure nobody would notice the difference unless they were actively scanning for it, or had been trained to spot it"
...instead? I think I can feel the difference in meaning.

 

[GoesStation]

Would it be correct to say...
"There are situations in which I think I can use either, and I'm sure nobody would notice the difference unless they were actively scanning for it, or had been trained to spot it"
...instead? I think I can feel the difference in meaning.

Yes, that's correct and natural. The past perfect tells me the training occurred before the scanning. The version with were is, I think, a passive in which trained to spot it is an adjective phrase.