I thought I had

Status
Not open for further replies.

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
In a democracy? In the free world?

;-)

I almost forgot my flag.

:usa :cool: :) :usa


No not in a democracy. That would not be very American, would it? One has a renewed sense of patriotism since last winter.
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
1. She said she wanted to reschedule the appointment. ( she wants to reschedule)
2. She said she had wanted to reschedule the appointment. (but then changed her mind - but then decided to keep the appointment at the same time)

It's clear that an ELL could be easily inclined to think that the second sentence of the second pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct" if the same learner believes that the second sentence of the first pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct". Clearly, the meanings of both sentences in the second pair are not the same. This means that one must recognize when the use of the past perfect is, in fact, truly necessitated.

Numbers 1 and 2 could have the same meaning, Proesl. Reported speech is merely a form change to denote reported speech. It doesn't necessarily address the fact situation.

====================

Jane: I wanted to reschedule the appointment.

John: Bill, what did Jane say?

Bill: She said she wanted to reschedule the appointment.

Bill: She said she had wanted to reschedule the appointment.


=================

Bill hasn't necessarily taken on any more responsibility than that of reporting the one sentence he heard Jane utter.

The fact situation may well be,

Bill: She said, "i want to reschedule the appointment.

No one can state categorically that Bill knows more and that he stated further that Jane "then changed her mind - ... then decided to keep the appointment at the same time".

If this wasn't reported speech and Bill said, "Jane had wanted to reschedule the appointment",

we could take this as Bill offering something he knows of. We can't make that same assumption when the situation involves reported speech. Why?

Because the backshifting that occurs in reported speech is NOT an actual shift in tense. We make use of this backshifting for one reason,

TO MARK THE SPEECH AS REPORTED

[emphasis, not shouting]


I thought I replied. I thought I had replied.

Both are equally correct.

I hate to open a new can of worms here, but these two could just as easily be represented by,

I think/I'm (quite,absolutely) certain I replied.

If the person thought that and still does then this is a whole new set of circumstances that can affect structure choice.

But I agree with you. There has never been any requirement for English speakers to automatically make these backshifts. And to categorically state that one form is excluded from certain registers
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
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.

Those are not "subpar" English standards, Lycen. Those are standard for the dialects of Singlish and Manglish.

What you're suggesting is that CdE, AmE, AuE, NzE all have some subpar standards when measured against BrE, it being the "original. That is, of course, simply not true.

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.

There's this notion that exists that colloquial is ungrammatical and incorrect and SWE/SFE is grammatical and correct. It's pure hogwash. Speech doesn't need any artificial standards set for it. It's been tried. They're called prescriptions.

There are different registers within the language and none of them follow exactly the same rules.
 
Last edited:

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Originally Posted by PROESL

1. I thought I replied.
2. I thought I had replied.

1. She said she wanted to reschedule the appointment. ( she wants to reschedule)
2. She said she had wanted to reschedule the appointment. (but then changed her mind - but then decided to keep the appointment at the same time)

It's clear that an ELL could be easily inclined to think that the second sentence of the second pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct" if the same learner believes that the second sentence of the first pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct". Clearly, the meanings of both sentences in the second pair are not the same. (The first pair was not shown here, but I added it.) This means that one must recognize when the use of the past perfect is, in fact, truly necessitated.


Numbers 1 and 2 could have the same meaning, Proesl. Reported speech is merely a form change to denote reported speech. It doesn't necessarily address the fact situation.

====================

I'm well aware of what reported speech does. However, I don't take the comparison of these two sentences in the context of reported speech. In the context I provided with these two example sentences, one can see how the meaning could be affected through the choice of simple past or past perfect. The second sentence might appear to be a reporting of the first sentence, but that's not how I intended it, and it doesn't have to be taken as a report, necessarily. And though they could have the same meaning, they just as well may not have the same meaning, which was my point in comparing the two sentences without considering reported speech, which, again, was not an intended consideration. In fact, if one considers the context I provided, they really do not have the same meaning, which means, for clarity, the past perfect is better depending on exactly what the speaker wants to say and the context.

It's good to see that there is agreement on the main point of the discussion, however.

These things are just laboratory experiments anyway. I asked someone just now about the sentence "I thought I replied" as opposed to "I thought I had replied". This is not the stuff that native speakers of English try to hash out and get to the bottom of, and neither does the typical native speaker consider that "I thought I replied" ought to always be "I thought I had replied", which brings us back to the real question: teaching. Teach using a native speaker model, not a "classroom English model" or an ESL grammar book model. Grammar books are useful, but they have limitations every now and then, as we can see with the two sentences we've been dissecting in this discussion.

:cool: ;-)
 
Last edited:

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Those are not "subpar" English standards, Lycen. Those are standard for the dialects of Singlish and Manglish.

What you're suggesting is that CdE, AmE, AuE, NzE all have some subpar standards when measured against BrE, it being the "original. That is, of course, simply not true.



There's this notion that exists that colloquial is ungrammatical and incorrect and SWE/SFE is grammatical and correct. It's pure hogwash. Speech doesn't need any artificial standards set for it. It's been tried. They're called prescriptions.

There are different registers within the language and none of them follow exactly the same rules.

I don't think dialects are relevant in the general discussion of ESL or EFL. It's not a concern of people who use English for international communication whether they be native speakers or non-native speakers. Anyone who speaks English for international purposes is expected to conform to the general standards of the main standard dialects of English in English-speaking countries, and which native speakers in those countries, in a general and broad way, accept as good, okay, and correct. If the next question is this, "What do you mean by good, okay, and correct?", I would then say to the questioner this: You know what I mean if English is your first language and you come from an English-speaking country whose English is recognized as native speaker English. Some of those countries are New Zealand, Australia, Britain, Canada, Ireland, the U.S - and which country or countries have I left out? Oh yes, there's South Africa.
 
Last edited:

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Those are not "subpar" English standards, Lycen. Those are standard for the dialects of Singlish and Manglish.

What you're suggesting is that CdE, AmE, AuE, NzE all have some subpar standards when measured against BrE, it being the "original. That is, of course, simply not true.

I don't think Lycen is suggesting that, but I don't agree with bringing Manglish, Chinglish, or Singlish into such a discussion as this in order to support the argument that the past perfect is necessary, or even simply more correct, in the sentence "I thought I replied", and other such similar grammatical expressions. Context is needed. And just to be clear, I'm not advocating that one not use the past perfect where it is correct and one wants to or chooses to in a natural way. I'm simply saying that given a choice, it's not always necessary to do so in order to be "more correct". Every day around the world millions of native speakers say "I thought I replied" and other such similar sentences. Some use the past perfect to express this thought, and others choose not to.
 
Last edited:

konungursvia

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
Canada
I thought we had finished.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
I thought we had finished.

I thought we finished as well, but one of the members was not present when the meeting last adjourned. By the way, who are we, anyway?

Can I step out to get some water, please?
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Those are not "subpar" English standards, Lycen. Those are standard for the dialects of Singlish and Manglish.

I agree with Lycen on this point. What is "Manglish", and why would you say it's a dialect?
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
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).

The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English notes that native speakers rarely exhibit good judgment on how their language works.

I don't recall right now if they gave/give reasons but one, for sure, is the prevalence of so many errant rules/prescriptions that pretty much anyone who grew up on this planet was exposed to.

Another is the prevalent but silly notion that all registers of English must abide by one standard. This comes about from the grammar marm syndrome that afflicts most everyone exposed to the same errant rules mentioned above.
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
I agree with Lycen on this point. What is "Manglish", and why would you say it's a dialect?

For any group on the planet, exposed to new conditions, or in this case, a group of people exposed to a new language, the likelihood that these people are going to keep perfectly to the grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and all other features found in a mother tongue [English] is zero to nil.

Those features that develop are as legitimate as the features that develop in a pidgin or a creole. They aren't Standard English, I made no such claim, but they are highly communicative structures/collocations that work for that new group.

That's all I was saying, Pro.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
For any group on the planet, exposed to new conditions, or in this case, a group of people exposed to a new language, the likelihood that these people are going to keep perfectly to the grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and all other features found in a mother tongue [English] is zero to nil.

Those features that develop are as legitimate as the features that develop in a pidgin or a creole. They aren't Standard English, I made no such claim, but they are highly communicative structures/collocations that work for that new group.

That's all I was saying, Pro.

That's a clear and acceptable viewpoint, as well as one to be respected. However, I don't view these "new Englishes" as dialects. A dialect within the broad and general range of a standardized language does not develop from errors made by learners of that language.

Errors made by English speakers learning other languages do not give rise to dialects such as "Engchese", "Francglish" or Engluguese". Therefore, Chinese speakers learning English should not give rise to "Chinglish". I think the notion of this is rather comical, quite frankly. :-D
 

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
That's a clear and acceptable viewpoint, as well as one to be respected. However, I don't view these "new Englishes" as dialects. A dialect within the broad and general range of a standardized language does not develop from errors made by learners of that language.

One word, American!

Errors made by English speakers learning other languages do not give rise to dialects such as "Engchese", "Francglish" or Engluguese". Therefore, Chinese speakers learning English should not give rise to "Chinglish". I think the notion of this is rather comical, quite frankly. :-D

If these languages were the language of the world, they sure would be. I believe you're making the same false assumption you said Kon was making. The facts clearly show that this is what's happening and whether we deign to bestow the word "dialect" on these real language changes, the simple fact remains, it's happening, it's language, it's communicative. These changes don't become part of English, though some have, "Confuscius say, ...", they belong to the people who use them in their home area.

We're not talking about a collection of funny translations, we're talking about language devices that persist for very good reasons, mentioned above.

Just as Non-standard English is not to be judged by the norms of Standard English, these language changes need not be, can not be judged by the norms of English.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
If that's the case, Proesl, and given the quality of your postings, I must assume that is the case, it then puzzles me why would you state,

"[would] only works out to be the past of [__] in certain instances, and these instances are often reported speech".

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/104682-supposed-5.html

What! This, to me, is just as odd as your bringing in "must have" and "should have" into the thread dealing with the third conditional.

What you've posted has no bearing on this discussion. Bye bye now. :cool: :-D It's only worth so much. I don't feel that this is worthy of further discussion. You are mixing things that are not related because you've decided to make them related. Can you not see that because something appears to be a report of a previous sentence does not mean that it necessarily is? It seems not.
 
Last edited:

albeit

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
That has nothing to do with this. Bye bye now. :cool: :-D It's only worth so much. No great problems will solved or battles won here, and it's not necessary either. Bye bye now.

That really doesn't seem like you, Proesl. You made, in this thread, what clearly seems to be a statement that contradicts what you said [you've said ??] in another thread. I gave a link so that you could address it where it should be addressed.

I'm not asking you to address this yesterday. I understand that it's an extremely difficult concept, note the absence of all the usual suspects.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
One word, American!



If these languages were the language of the world, they sure would be. I believe you're making the same false assumption you said Kon was making. The facts clearly show that this is what's happening and whether we deign to bestow the word "dialect" on these real language changes, the simple fact remains, it's happening, it's language, it's communicative. These changes don't become part of English, though some have, "Confuscius say, ...", they belong to the people who use them in their home area.

We're not talking about a collection of funny translations, we're talking about language devices that persist for very good reasons, mentioned above.

Just as Non-standard English is not to be judged by the norms of Standard English, these language changes need not be, can not be judged by the norms of English.

I don't believe that the expansion of such points of view is relevant to ESL and EFL. It's not practical.
 

PROESL

Key Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
That really doesn't seem like you, Proesl. You made, in this thread, what clearly seems to be a statement that contradicts what you said [you've said ??] in another thread. I gave a link so that you could address it where it should be addressed.

No, I have made no contradictory statements. Speaking of "would" and it's application to past time has nothing to do with how I've compared the two sentences that you insist must be reported speech. You should refrain from telling one what one seems like or does not seem like.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top