I thought I had

[albeit]

Sure you did. In Message #35 you wrote:

Albeit wrote: "No, a google search is not perfect, Lycen. Have you done the number crunching? Cut it in half, cut it down to a quarter. It still shows that there is no valid reason to exclude this collocation [a collection of words] in any register of English. If it's available to native speakers it's available to ESLs."

I offered it as a partial refutation, Kon. It showed that a greater favor for the more casual "... I replied". Obviously, it's not conclusive and I did mention that further look at some corpus studies might be helpful.

But you haven't explained why my analysis of the 3 times involved in the state of affairs and the statement is not valid in your view.

I'll look further at it.

Also, you seem to be tempted to make ad hominem attacks, by saying "whether or not you try to hide behind them, Kon." I'm not hiding in any way. I'm openly supporting my point.

There was not any personal attack, Kon. I said,

"These too many possibilities are available whether you seek to hide them from them or not, Kon."

I didn't say you were "hiding behind them". I said,

"These too many possibilities are available [to ESLs] whether you seek to hide them [these possibilities] from them [ESLs] or not, Kon.

I'm saying that all these possibilities, [the same number that are available to native speakers, no more no less] are there in the language. ESLs run into them all the time. If they didn't, they wouldn't bother to ask the questions they do.

You're missing it.

You and I, along with any native speakers, can change registers knowingly in different social situations. While speaking with less educated friends, I can tone down the grammar like Bill Clinton usually does; when speaking at an academic conference I can respect their norms of speech; when speaking to small children I can simplify my grammar and vocabulary.

I afraid to say, Kon, that you're the one who has missed it. Vocabulary aside, there's no need for anyone to tone anything down for any native speaker as regards grammar. Have you not seen the studies of William Labov who found that the greatest number of grammatical errors were found in the speech of those in academia.

Why should learners be prevented from attaining this ability, by not pointing out differences between the registers and their norms?

I'm not the one who wants them be prevented from attaining any ability. I'm the one who thinks that ESLs be exposed to all available structures and that they be given accurate information on how to use them.

I specifically stated that that was exactly what you should do, point out the differences between the registers and their norms. I just don't believe that you've made the case to absolutely prohibit the simple past use from even academic writing, let alone SWE/SFE.

You seem to be saying "if English allows something anywhere, in any situation, it is suitable everywhere." I suspect that most students are after a grasp that is a little less loose than yours.

A reading of my postings - and it would not even require a close reading - will show that's not at all what I believe or suggest.

 

[konungursvia]

Okay, then we're closer than it seems. My favourite authors are those who, like Chaucer and Twain, write the vernacular, the way people speak. I just think "I thought I replied" contains an assumption about the facts which is not obvious, and an approximation or blurring of times and tenses that makes it an abridged version of "I thought I had replied," rather than simply an equally formed, alternative approach to the same ideas. I think it contains less information, and fails to account for the realities that must in fact be involved. But I think we now see each others' positions.

 

[lycen]

However, I think it's possible to say "At that moment, I thought I saw a.."

 

[konungursvia]

However, I think it's possible to say "At that moment, I thought I saw a.."

I agree. When the "thinking" and the "seeing" are exactly at the same time, that's when I think we are called upon to use the same tense.

 

[bhaisahab]

However, I think it's possible to say "At that moment, I thought I saw a.."

Yes it is, but it is also possible to say "At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.;-)

 

[PROESL]

Have we concluded yet that "I thought I replied" is just as correct as "I thought I had replied", and that though the past perfect might tend to lend a more formal tone, it doesn't mean, in this case, that the simple past is not correct? They're both equally correct: "I thought I replied", and "I thought I had replied".

 

[PROESL]

Yes it is, but it is also possible to say "At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.;-)

I hate when I'm expecting to see dragons and it turns out that only camels are around. I hate when that happens! :twisted:

:-D

 

[albeit]

This explains a lot, actually, it explains it all about these "rules of grammar".

Why Shakespeare Didn't Know Grammar

Address at 1994 Opening Convocation
Karl Tamburr, Professor of English,

...

When the alumna asked me the reason for these "errors," [Shakespeare's] I somewhat archly replied that Shakespeare didn't observe the rules of grammar because he didn't have them. The look she gave me taught me much about our attitudes towards grammar: it was a mixture of skepticism (after all, she knew I liked to tease her!) and pure horror. In one way, I was teasing her because what we usually call the rules of grammar, those codified do's and don't's that are drilled into us during the serenity of adolescence, are very different from what a linguist or an anthropologist would call grammar, which is really nothing more than usage. Her look also reminded me that we tend to accept these learned rules of grammar as having a divine origin, as if they were a kind of appendix to the Ten Commandments that Moses also brought down from Mount Sinai. Of course, they aren't.

Why Shakespeare Didn't Know Grammar

 

[lycen]

Yes it is, but it is also possible to say "At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.;-)

It is possible but there is a little difference in the meaning.

 

[albeit]

It is possible but there is a little difference in the meaning.

At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel

At that moment, I thought I saw a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.

What difference in meaning do you discern, Lycen?

 

[konungursvia]

At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel

At that moment, I thought I saw a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.

What difference in meaning do you discern, Lycen?

They clearly account for two differing degrees of simultaneity.

In one case, the vision appears, and then disappears, and the person thinks about what he has seen.

In the other, the vision appears, and the person thinks about what he sees.

Both are reported later on. The pluperfect allows us to describe the temporal difference, as in the first case, and the simple past tense allows us to account for the exact simultaneity of the second.

Is "I went to France" the same as "I have been to France?" Obviously not. In some situations, the former will better describe the intended meaning, while in others, the latter is a better fit.

Referring to the two at a later time gives us "I had gone to France" and "I had been to France" along with "I went to France" and "I have been to France" as four possibilities. Are they all the same? Is there no situation where one fits better than the others?

As for Shakespeare not knowing grammar, it's a remarkably silly idea. Grammar is a set of norms that allow you to use a language in a way the community understands it. Shakespeare's grasp of it was better than virtually anyone's, living or dead. Grammar is not just the silly do's and don't's of Grade 6 language classes. To confuse the two senses of grammar is puerile.

 

[PROESL]

I thought I saw a dragon, but it was a camel. :tick:

I thought I saw a dragon, but it turned out to be camel. :tick:

First the speaker thought he saw a dragon, and then he realized it was really a camel. You don't need the past perfect to clarify this. Maybe the camel and the dragon do, but I don't think the people do. :tick:


:multi: :tick:

 

[lycen]

They clearly account for two differing degrees of simultaneity.

In one case, the vision appears, and then disappears, and the person thinks about what he has seen.

In the other, the vision appears, and the person thinks about what he sees.

Both are reported later on. The pluperfect allows us to describe the temporal difference, as in the first case, and the simple past tense allows us to account for the exact simultaneity of the second.

Is "I went to France" the same as "I have been to France?" Obviously not. In some situations, the former will better describe the intended meaning, while in others, the latter is a better fit.

You nailed it.

 

[PROESL]

At that moment, I thought I had seen a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel

At that moment, I thought I saw a dragon, but it turned out to have been a camel.

Originally Posted by konungursvia
They clearly account for two differing degrees of simultaneity.

In one case, the vision appears, and then disappears, and the person thinks about what he has seen.

In the other, the vision appears, and the person thinks about what he sees.

I understand the distinction you are making here, but I don't believe the distinction actually exists as a practical matter.

For practical purposes, and in reality, people would not think so hard about purposefully making such distinctions. And for practical purposes, people willl read these two sentences and gather the same meaning from both.

If there's a point to be made about the past perfect, I don't think these two sentences are the ones to do it.

;-)

 

[albeit]

Is "I went to France" the same as "I have been to France?" Obviously not. In some situations, the former will better describe the intended meaning, while in others, the latter is a better fit.

I can't see any difference in terms of meaning right at this moment, Kon, but certainly they are used for different purposes other than meaning.

As for Shakespeare not knowing grammar, it's a remarkably silly idea. Grammar is a set of norms that allow you to use a language in a way the community understands it. Shakespeare's grasp of it was better than virtually anyone's, living or dead. Grammar is not just the silly do's and don't's of Grade 6 language classes. To confuse the two senses of grammar is puerile.

I think you've confused the two sets of grammar, Kon. The alumna was referring to the prescriptions that were written long after Shakespeare's death. Shakespeare didn't follow these "rules" because they didn't exist then.

Shakespeare had a wonderful vocabulary, but he didn't know the grammar of English any better than any other person living then. He was a gifted writer but that doesn't translate to a deeper knowledge of grammar.

 

[bhaisahab]

They clearly account for two differing degrees of simultaneity.

In one case, the vision appears, and then disappears, and the person thinks about what he has seen.

In the other, the vision appears, and the person thinks about what he sees.

Both are reported later on. The pluperfect allows us to describe the temporal difference, as in the first case, and the simple past tense allows us to account for the exact simultaneity of the second.

Is "I went to France" the same as "I have been to France?" Obviously not. In some situations, the former will better describe the intended meaning, while in others, the latter is a better fit.

As lycen has already said, you nailed it.:-D

 

[Tdol]

The "past perfect" is not a tense. It's an aspect of the past, or a way in which we can talk about the past in a specifc way.

As for the 'pluperfect' it is correct, and it is a tense. Some people only know what they learnt yesterday or today, from Wikipedia. It doesn't matter. Bless 'em all, I say. They appear to need it.

:shock: :?: :shocked!: :crazyeye: :scramble: :argue: uppydog:

Couldn't we simply accept that there are clear differences of opinion on the vexed issue of tense, and that the various positions have their own merit? I've seen dozens, well hundreds actually, of arguments, well rows mostly, on this particular topic and I have never seen anyone change their position.

I started teaching over twenty years ago and the term 'pluperfect' has not been used by any ESL book that I have used apart from the odd relic at the back of a cupboard. That doesn't make the term wrong, but there are many learners (and I imagine some teachers) who will not have a clue what it or imperfect/defective verb, etc, mean, so, while I do recognise that it is a perfectly correct term, it could also be worthwhile to give them a more common term used in ESL. It can't do much harm to know that past perfect is more common in this area. The use of progressive & continuous, and it seems that durative has not taken off as a third, instead of imperfect is also OK to know, even with the duplication.

I couldn't give a stuff if a learner wants to call it the pluperfect, but if they only know terms like that, they might be missing out. Some may prefer the term because it's closer to home, but others may simply not know- I had one student from Eastern Europe whose teacher, a Russian language teacher who had had to change to English and had learnt it from some very dated books, had taught her that shewed was the form to use and was surprised to learn that most dictionaries had it down as an archaism.

If one teacher says that there are only two tenses in English and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, or that there are 12, etc, and the two-tense theory is a lightweight fashion, the most likely result, IMO, is confusion for the learner.

I am with the two-tensers, in fact I'd go a bit further in an ideal world and use the term remote or distant instead of past as I think it gives a much more accurate view of the English verbs, but if a poster uses pluperfect tense, I'm happy with that. Can't we have situation + personal view rather than view as orthodoxy + phillipic? For many will + base form really is the future tense, while for many others it is really no such thing. If we can't agree to differ or accept that the other side's views are sincere and the product of thought and learning, then the only likely result is a confused student with slightly less trust in teachers. </boringoldfart>

 

[engee30]

:shock::?::shocked!::crazyeye::scramble::argue::shock:uppydog:

[...] I am with the two-tensers, in fact I'd go a bit further in an ideal world and use the term remote or distant instead of past as I think it gives a much more accurate view of the English verbs, but if a poster uses pluperfect tense, I'm happy with that. Can't we have situation + personal view rather than view as orthodoxy + phillipic? For many will + base form really is the future tense, while for many others it is really no such thing. If we can't agree to differ or accept that the other side's views are sincere and the product of thought and learning, then the only likely result is a confused student with slightly less trust in teachers. </boringoldfart>

:up: I am also one of those who treat the system of tenses as the set of two 'proper' tenses, ie present and past, with all other aspects referred to as tenses for the sake of simplicity and unification.

 

[bhaisahab]

:up: I am also one of those who treat the system of tenses as the set of two 'proper' tenses, ie present and past, with all other aspects referred to as tenses for the sake of simplicity and unification.

That gets my vote too.

 

[konungursvia]

I can't see any difference in terms of meaning right at this moment, Kon, but certainly they are used for different purposes other than meaning.

I think you've confused the two sets of grammar, Kon. The alumna was referring to the prescriptions that were written long after Shakespeare's death. Shakespeare didn't follow these "rules" because they didn't exist then.

Shakespeare had a wonderful vocabulary, but he didn't know the grammar of English any better than any other person living then. He was a gifted writer but that doesn't translate to a deeper knowledge of grammar.

I don't think you have sufficiently looked into how education worked back then, albeit. You also have read no Chomsky whatsoever, or have forgotten it. I'm not confusing the two sense of grammar.

In any case, I think we should do as TDol suggests, and accept a difference of opinion exists here. And have fun moving on to other matters.

Or, as you would say it without grammar,

Do opinion we accept of I we should Tdol case exists, difference any here.

You're right, that's what Shakespeare sounded like! I'm a f****ing poet! Thanks to the Alumnus!