I thought I had

PROESL said:

Why does it look that way? What is the reasoning on which you base this assertion?

Click to expand...

It's quite simply my appreciation and understanding of my language which I have been speaking, reading and studying for more than 50 years (and teaching for somewhat less).

konungursvia said:

I did provide clear, logical reasons supporting what I thought and why. I don't know why you say I haven't done so.

I think we've all stated our opinions here, haven't we? I just didn't want anyone to finish it off with something like "Right, so now we all see: they're both equally correct" in case new readers might misunderstand that no consensus had been reached. Or was reached.

Click to expand...

Okay, now I'm confused. I thought you posted in another post that you agreed that they are both correct without a context, which is what I've been posting. I could go back and look for it, but it was recent, and it has gone on long enough. Just the same, that's what I remember reading.

bhaisahab said:

It's quite simply my appreciation and understanding of my language which I have been speaking, reading and studying for more than 50 years (and teaching for somewhat less).

Click to expand...

That's about as good as saying this: "I'm more competent with the language. Therefore, I'm correct." That's obviously not reasonable.

How many years one speaks a native language is not relevant to this discussion. One's claim is not further supported by such information.

If you think that "I thought I had replied" is more correct than "I thought I replied", then you should have a reason. In my view, a reason, such as yours, would be based on such things as this: formal is more correct; perceived notions of "classroom English"; the grammar books seem to indicate that it is more correct. Just the same, grammar books present the past perfect, it still does not correct that sentences must follow this model or pattern: I thought I had replied. Using the simple past in the second clause is equally correct: I thought I replied.

PROESL said:

Okay, now I'm confused. I thought you posted in another post that you agreed that they are both correct without a context, which is what I've been posting. I could go back and look for it, but it was recent, and it has gone on long enough. Just the same, that's what I remember reading.

Click to expand...

I thought that they both sounded natural, to the ear, and I always have said so, even since my first post. I just think that in the usual situation they're used, there are details about the context that make one a significantly better fit than the other.

I meant to communicate that when completely divorced from context, there is now nothing we can say about their correctness; that correctness has a good deal to do with context.

For example "the right" vs "the right-hand side." Both sound like normal English. But if we have a specific context, one may fit much better, to the point that the other is not as good, such as in politics.

bhaisahab said:

It's quite simply my appreciation and understanding of my language which I have been speaking, reading and studying for more than 50 years (and teaching for somewhat less).

Click to expand...

It's my language as well.

Check - your move.

PROESL said:

It's my language as well.

Check - your move.

Click to expand...

I didn't find Bhaisahab's words there in any way superior -- he was clearly just explaining what entitled him to chime in, as someone asked.

konungursvia said:

I thought that they both sounded natural, to the ear, and I always have said so, even since my first post. I just think that in the usual situation they're used, there are details about the context that make one a significantly better fit than the other.

Click to expand...

That brings us back to square one then.

Even in such contexts which may exist, it is not necessarily the best thing to do to force the use of the past perfect in places where it is not absolutely necessary to form a correct sentence, speaking in terms of how one teaches that is - and otherwise I suppose. So the issue really seems to be that you think the past perfect is necessary in certain situations, and I say in certain situations the past perfect is possible, but it is not absolutely necessary in all such contexts to form a correct and intelligible sentence. If you agree that this is where our paths split, then I'm prepared to say "let's agree to disagree".

Well if you give a symmetrical account, I'll agree to disagree. But if you write "absolutely in all contexts" I'm hesitant. I would say that in certain contexts, the pluperfect is required. In others, it's not necessary. So I agree with you about some of it.

konungursvia said:

I didn't find Bhaisahab's words there in any way superior -- he was clearly just explaining what entitled him to chime in, as someone asked.

Click to expand...

mm ... Then it seems a rather odd entitlement to draw one's attention to - me that is - seeing as I have the same entitlement but would not have thought of openly stating it or even thinking it necessarily in that particular manner.

konungursvia said:

Well if you give a symmetrical account, I'll agree to disagree. But if you write "absolutely in all contexts" I'm hesitant. I would say that in certain contexts, the pluperfect is required. In others, it's not necessary. So I agree with you about some of it.

Click to expand...

In some contexts the past perfect would indeed be a better choice. I see that the disagreement may come in deciding which contexts these could be and for what reasons.

PROESL said:

mm ... Then it seems a rather odd entitlement to draw one's attention to - me that is - seeing as I have the same entitlement but would not have thought of openly stating it or even thinking it necessarily in that particular manner.

Click to expand...

In all fairness, Bhaisahab is so gentle he would not be likely to do what you're thinking. In fact, if you re-read the whole bit, it looks like you're challenging his authority to give an opinion. You asked him to justify his contribution, and he answered basically that he based his opinion on his judgment, rather than on logic.

PROESL said:

In some contexts the past perfect would indeed be a better choice. I see that the disagreement may come in deciding which contexts these could be and for what reasons.

Click to expand...

And as a reminder, I posted an example in which there's a clear difference between meaning conveyed by the past perfect and meaning conveyed by the simple past.

PROESL said:

In some contexts the past perfect would indeed be a better choice. I see that the disagreement may come in deciding which contexts these could be and for what reasons.

Click to expand...

I could agree with that!

konungursvia said:

And I would never consider Singlish to be "subpar" as Proesl has called it. It's a local flavour, that is all. Many things you hear there could very easily be adopted into other forms or international English, such as "my one" for "mine."

Click to expand...

The Singaporean news channel I get here in Cambodia is one of the few places where you can still here old-style plummy RP accents being used. The language is more formal than that of BBC World, and my partner (Japanese) finds it easier to understand. ;-)

konungursvia said:

In all fairness, Bhaisahab is so gentle he would not be likely to do what you're thinking. In fact, if you re-read the whole bit, it looks like you're challenging his authority to give an opinion. You asked him to justify his contribution, and he answered basically that he based his opinion on his judgment, rather than on logic.

Click to expand...

I see. Well, I suppose words - and just words - may be open to two or more forms of perception. And speaking of that, I am well aware that words are not just words and that they can be open to two or more forms of perception.. In earlier threads and discussions, I believe I've displayed sensitivity in that respect, for example, by acknowledging the correctness of another poster's reply before posting mine. Sometimes others have done the same, and other times not. But that's just one example. I don't actually keep track, but I do know how I try - or can try - to communicate.

Tdol said:

The Singaporean news channel I get here in Cambodia is one of the few places where you can still here old-style plummy RP accents being used. The language is more formal than that of BBC World, and my partner (Japanese) finds it easier to understand. ;-)

Click to expand...

The farther you get from Rome, the purer the Latin of the learned.

Tdol said:

The Singaporean news channel I get here in Cambodia is one of the few places where you can still here old-style plummy RP accents being used. The language is more formal than that of BBC World, and my partner (Japanese) finds it easier to understand. ;-)

Click to expand...

But just one thing: I didn't call it subpar. I just accept such things, as, for example, I hear native speakers - smart ones - educated - use language in ways that I never would. For example, many are fond of saying "anyways". I'm not. And then many of the same get the noun clause thing wrong from time to time. With or without teaching English, these are not manners in which I woud naturally choose to speak. It might be a conscious decision if I did - or do.

I'm not for bringing "dialects" into the ESL-EFL discussion as a matter of general speaking. I don't feel it has a place. There's no market for it. People want straight ahead, correct, and good English language lessons for business and work, not discourses on being tolerant of other people's "dialects" which may not be one of the main dialects spoken by native speakers in English-speaking countries. Regional and local styles take care of themselves.

;-)

PROESL said:

But just one thing: I didn't call it subpar.

Click to expand...

After re-reading, now I can see that you didn't mean to, but were quoting our friend.

lycen said:

Have you tried googling "I thought I have replied"? There are lots of entries for that too. :-D I have seen many entries with "I thought I had replied" too.

Click to expand...

That doesn't follow with what the discussion is about because "I thought I have replied" is clearly an error made by an ESL speaker. Extremely infrequent would it be to hear even the least articulate of those native speakers lacking good language skills say something like "I thought I have replied". The reason is that such a combination of two clauses is clearly out of the range of natural native speaker syntax and structures which are learned in a natural way while acquiring English as one's first language.

If you look at this search, it's starts with about 401,000 returns, which by the way pales in the face of the well over 6,000,000 returns for "I thought I replied".

If you click to the next page, for some reason, we see that 401,000 turns into 18. Even on the first page, which is 401,000, it seems easy to identify the writing as non-native speaker writing.


"I thought I have replied" - Google Search


I would take this discussion as a matter of diverse viewpoints among native speaker ELTs. From there, I would observe native speaker usage by listening to the radio, watching films or movies, reading, having conversations - and whatever other way you find to gain exposure to native speaker usage. Take note of how the past perfect and siimple past are used. Ask yourself if one could be interchangeable with the other, and then try to justify why or why not. Draw your own conclusions.

;-)

Let's let sleeping dogs lie.