I thought I had

Status
Not open for further replies.

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
This repost of spam has been deleted - BobK

Now, to me, it seems like you've caught on. In certain types of communication, one may opt for the past perfect even when to correctly and logically complete a grammatical sentence it is not required. This is so because the past perfect can add a slight air of refiniement and add articulateness to one's communication in certain contexts. However, this has no bearing on whether or not "I thought I replied" is correct. It's correct to say and write "I thought I replied".

This is my language, and I'm well spoken and articulate, so I don't need to go to such sources to confirm the certainty of what I say and how I say it. Nor would I ever go to such sources to confirm the certainty of what I write. This does not preclude looking up words in the dictionary, which I gather everyone does from time to time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Now, to me, it seems like you've caught on. In certain types of communication, one may opt for the past perfect even when to correctly and logically complete a grammatical sentence it is not required. This is so because the past perfect can add a slight air of refiniement and add articulateness to one's communication in certain contexts. However, this has no bearing on whether or not "I thought I replied" is correct. It's correct to say and write "I thought I replied".

This is my language, and I'm well spoken and articulate, so I don't need to go to such sources to confirm the certainty of what I say and how I say it. Nor would I ever go to such sources to confirm the certainty of what I write. This does not preclude looking up words in the dictionary, which I gather everyone does from time to time.

I think you just answered a spam, mate.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
We do have subpar English standards called Singlish in Singapore and a similar Manglish in Malaysia. Some of the syntaxes we use in sentences are actually wrong in standard English (the one that's taught in grammar books), but their meanings can be easily understood or implicit within a given context. Does that mean that these are grammatically correct too? After all, they are localized colloquial forms of English. Isn't there a colloquial English among natives too? By the way, the first language and language of instruction of Singapore is English.

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."
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
I think you just answered a spam, mate.

It seems that Lycen wanted to further make his point by posting it. I didn't click on the link. My reply still maintains its logic and reason whatever the link happens to contain.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
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."

I didn't call it subpar, Lycen called it subpar. I simply repeated what he said to further state my case. Please, do not attribute words to me that I did not type-say. :-(

This is a form of subterfuge and a diversion to knock the discussion off track, and one shoulld not have to resort to such methods to state one's case or put forth an argument.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I didn't call it subpar, Lycen called it subpar. I simply repeated what he said to further state my case. Please, do not attribute words to me that I did not type-say. :-(

This is a form of subterfuge and a diversion to knock the discussion off track, and one shoulld not have to resort to such methods to state one's case or put forth an argument.

I hadn't noticed Lycen's use of the word. But you did type it too, so I thought you were using the word. There is no subterfuge or diversion. Personally, I wouldn't say anyone's local sort of English is sub-par, even if someone else started it.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
We need look no further than your own errors in message #81. We do not need to examine that search, in order to find errors by native speakers. A propos, really.

Neither are personal attacks necessary. I type fast and leave out words or mispell words. By stating that I've made errors is only to restate what you have stated already without providing any reasoning on which to base your argument.

Here's the question: What reason can you give for stating that "I thought I replied" is not as good or not as correct as "I thought I had replied" when both are isolated sentences?

I've given reasons and have shown examples. You have run out of things to post. Therefore, you must resort to these sorts of comments:

We need look no further than your own errors in message #81. We do not need to examine that search, in order to find errors by native speakers. A propos, really.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
I hadn't noticed Lycen's use of the word. But you did type it too, so I thought you were using the word. There is no subterfuge or diversion. Personally, I wouldn't say anyone's local sort of English is sub-par, even if someone else started it.

It doesn't matter whether or not I typed. I've already told you that I merely picked it up to continue stating my case since Lycen was using it state his case. I also told him that calling attention to such forms of English is not relevant. It doesn't not fit logically with this discussion. It is a non sequitur.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Neither are personal attacks necessary. I type fast and leave out words or mispell words. By stating that I've made errors is only to restate what you have stated already without providing any reasoning on which to base your argument.

Here's the question: What reason can you give for stating that "I thought I replied" is not as good or not as correct as "I thought I had replied" when both are isolated sentences?

I've given reasons and have shown examples. You have run out of things to post. Therefore, you must resort to these sorts of comments:

That's not something I meant as a personal attack. It was just an example of how we native speakers often post language with errors on the Internet. But it's gone now, I think it was edited out. I've also pointed out my own spelling errors on other threads, too.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
I hadn't noticed Lycen's use of the word. But you did type it too, so I thought you were using the word. There is no subterfuge or diversion. Personally, I wouldn't say anyone's local sort of English is sub-par, even if someone else started it.


I didn't say anyone's sort of English was subpar. However, there's no market for teaching Chinglish or Singlish, so this is not relevant here. Nor would they be at all relevant in ESL or EFL.

Once again, Lycen called them into discussion. Lycen called them subpar, and to attribute this to me first is a form of subterfuge.

Why don't you answer the original question: What reasoning can you provide for saying that "I thought I had replied" is better than "I thought I replied" when both sentences do not have a context. I've provided examples and reasons.
 

lycen

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Member Type
Student or Learner
You did indeed say that the term pluperfect is antiquated, and that it is now called the past perfect, and that it is not a tense. I think you had forgotten, since you wrote above to our OP that you hadn't made that statement, after he or she went to the trouble of verifying it.

In any case, a linguistic debate is good fun, isn't it?

What I really mean by '"in that case" the OP needs to use the pluperfect' is this: when the state of affairs in question includes three times (present, past 1, and past 2) and when one of them takes place just moments before the present (the 'uh-oh, I thought' moment) and the other past moment is well before that (last week-end's attempted e-mail reply) then I don't think it's anything more than a colloquial eliding of the facts to use the phrase 'I thought I replied,' because it simplifies the time line to the point of amalgamating all past moments into one. In such cases, I think it's an imprecise, almost 'lazy' approximation to write it in that way. "I thought I had replied," on the other hand, correctly accounts for the temporal dimensions of the state of affairs as it actually unfolded. The "uh-oh" moment is accurately portrayed as a recollection of a previous attempt to reply, that was significantly before that "uh-oh" moment. It also shows that the speaker was for some time convinced that the response had been previously sent.

So, if you compare an approximation that is unlikely to be misunderstood only because logically you can't think you replied before you try to do so, on the one hand, and on the other hand we have an expression that explicitly accounts for the facts in a complete and unambiguous way, I think we can observe a differing value judgment regarding the relative correctness of the two, in terms of the norms of written English, which are themselves more conservative, more universal and more international than any one vernacular.

I just felt that given a learner who had been reading a textbook explaining the use of the pluperfect, we ought then to have used the textbook's standard of written English when discussing normative correctness, rather than troubling the student with opinions about whether more recent or more local standards should now replace those of the textbook.

To summarize, "I thought I replied" I am still convinced is an oral approximation rather than an equally well constructed alternative to "I thought I had replied" if we are talking about the sequence of events I described above.

I am sorry if my love for such linguistic debates has detracted from anyone's pleasure at using the forum.

konungursvia has elucidated.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
That's not something I meant as a personal attack. It was just an example of how we native speakers often post language with errors on the Internet. But it's gone now, I think it was edited out. I've also pointed out my own spelling errors on other threads, too.

There are performance errors and there are competency errors. Of all the returns for "I thought I replied", it is not practical to call a few million of them "competency errors", "performance errors", or errors of any kind.

As native speakers we all "performance errors" from time to time in both speaker and writing when we are well aware of what is really correct. I hear this every day.
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I didn't say anyone's sort of English was subpar. However, there's no market for teaching Chinglish or Singlish, so this is not relevant here. Nor would they be at all relevant in ESL or EFL.

Once again, Lycen called them into discussion. Lycen called them subpar, and to attribute this to me first is a form of subterfuge.

Why don't you answer the original question: What reasoning can you provide for saying that "I thought I had replied" is better than "I thought I replied" when both sentences do not have a context. I've provided examples and reasons.

Oh, when both sentences have no context? I thought I'd already mentioned that in that case, I don't find we can say anything much about them. It's context that gives sentences accuracy or inaccuracy, and it often supplies them with correctness /incorrectness.

I already explained this position above, when I used the example of the workman on the house vs in the house. Again, you need only read carefully, and you will see there is no subterfuge.

It's just that the conversation has taken multiple turns, with many people giving input. No one strand stands out more than the others.
 

BobK

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Location
Spencers Wood, near Reading, UK
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
It still looks like a lazy/rough approximation of "I thought I had replied".
As lycen and konungursvia have already said.

Are you saying that because they said it, it must be so?

I don't think so; he's just saying that he agrees with them. I'm not sure I do, but I make a point of not debating a point just for the fun of debating it, particularly when students tuned out ages ago. This forum is called 'Ask a Teacher'. ;-)

b
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
konungursvia has elucidated.

Elucidating is not reasoning. It's not providing clear, logical, reasons to support the assertion that "I thought I had replied" is better than "I thought I replied" when both are isolated sentences.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
I don't think so; he's just saying that he agrees with them. I'm not sure I do, but I make a point of not debating a point just for the fun of debating it, particularly when students tuned out ages ago. This forum is called 'Ask a Teacher'. ;-)

b

Pont taken. However, in the context of this question: "Did the teacher tell me the right thing?" - I felt compelled - even obliged - to build the case for what I said.

Your point is a good one, and it is taken, however. ;-)
 

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
Elucidating is not reasoning. It's not providing clear, logical, reasons to support the assertion that "I thought I had replied" is better than "I thought I replied" when both are isolated sentences.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top