[Grammar] I tried to do so several times, but the fact is/was that I failed.

[nelson13]

In the sentence 'I tried to do so several times, but the fact is/was that I failed.'

In view of consistency, we usually will choose WAS, but sometimes I think IS is also OK, because the fact's status of being true is not past!

What do you think?

 

[emsr2d2]

Use "is" - the fact is still true now.

 

[nelson13]

Thank you. But why must the past tense used here?: 1949 was the year in which China collapsed.

The year 1949 of course is past, but the status of being true is, agian, not past.

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

Thank you. But why must the past tense used here?: 1949 was the year in which China collapsed

NOT A TEACHER

I think that this sentence also works with "is". The choice of tense would depend on the tense used in the rest of the text.

 

[nelson13]

I am interested in history, and I read many books on this subject; whenever a year is mentioned, it is WAS but not IS.

Could anyone think of a situation IS is used?

 

[nelson13]

In Oxford Advanced 8th, a sentence: It was Chaucer who really turned English into a literary language.

In what situation can WAS be turned into IS?

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

Could anyone think of a situation IS is used?

Here's one example:

1817 is the year which Louis XVIII., with a certain royal assurance which was not wanting in pride, entitled the twenty-second of his reign. It is the year in which M. Bruguiere de Sorsum was celebrated.

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo: Chapter I. The Year 1817

 

[nelson13]

Is the historical present being used here?

 

[5jj]

Is the historical present being used here?

The 'historical present' is simply a label, an attempt to slot one usage of the present tense into a helpful category. "In 1817 Louis XVIII writes to the Czar" is an example of this - using the present tense for a clearly past event.

I don't think that "1817 is the year which Louis XVIII, with a certain royal assurance which was not wanting in pride, entitled the twenty-second of his reign" really fits into that category, but others may disagree. I think that the writer plucks 1817 from a list of years; as such "1817" exists in the present. Had the 'was' been 'is' and 'entitled' been 'entitles', then s/he would have been using a 'historical present'

 

[emsr2d2]

You could simplify the whole issue by saying "I tried to do so several times but failed". ;-)

 

[nelson13]

Thank you all. I know that when I am talking to foreigners, I can dodge some usages unfamiliar, but it will be slipshod, and I am interested in knowing how to explain the grammar behind.

 

[nelson13]

How about the following sentence:

America is/was the first and only country to establish a republican without failure.

If I use was, won't there be implications that America is now not?

 

[bhaisahab]

How about the following sentence:

America is/was the first and only country to establish a republic without failure.

If I use was, won't there be implications that America is now not?

No, it's OK with either "is" or "was". It's factually incorrect though.

 

[nelson13]

Thank you.

I know I can simplify the things, but I hope to know which form of verb I should use.