a man who committed two bank robberies/restrictive clauses

[navi tasan]

1) I talked to a man who committed two bank robberies.
2) I talked to a man who had committed two bank robberies.

Can one use #1 instead of #2?

I think in #1 he might have committed the robberies before or after I talked to him. Is that correct?

-----------------------------------------

3) I talked to the man who committed a few major crimes.
4) I talked to the man who had committed a few major crimes.

Can one use #3 instead of #4?

I think in #3 he might have committed the crimes before or after I talked to him. Is that correct?

I asked a similar question a few days ago, but in that question the clauses were non-restrictive (non-defining).

 

[jutfrank]

1) I talked to a man who committed two bank robberies.
2) I talked to a man who had committed two bank robberies.

Can one use #1 instead of #2?

Why are you asking what you 'can' do? What do you mean by that? Is this something about grammar? Surely you should be wondering which one you should use, when, and why. No?

Remember that what you say and how you say it depends on what you're trying to do and why.

I think in #1 he might have committed the robberies before or after I talked to him. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. Since there's no context or any other clues, we just have to imagine what it means.

3) I talked to the man who committed a few major crimes.
4) I talked to the man who had committed a few major crimes.

Can one use #3 instead of #4?

See my point above.

I asked a similar question a few days ago, but in that question the clauses were non-restrictive (non-defining).

Well, thank you for giving us a vague idea of what question may possibly be going through your mind, but would you please explain further because I can't see it yet. You seem to be attempting to make some connection between sequencing events and restricting noun phrases but it's very hard again to understand what question you have in mind today.

If you can lay your thoughts out in much more detail, maybe we can be of more help. Thanks.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Jutfrank,

I wasn't really looking for the one I should use. I wanted to see the possible meanings of #1 and #3 as far as the sequence of events were concerned.

If the bank robberies/crimes were committed before I talked to him, I'd use #2 and #4. Those two make the sequence of events clear. But would all native speakers make the choices I make? Or could they use #1 and #3 instead of #2 and #4 respectively? That was my question. A lot of times the simple past tense is used instead of the past perfect tense, especially in speech. Could one do that in these cases?

 

[emsr2d2]

If the bank robberies/crimes were committed before I talked to him, I'd use #2 and #4. Those two make the sequence of events clear. But would all native speakers make the choices I make?

This native speaker would certainly use #2 and #4. No other tense would make it clear the crimes had been committed before the conversation took place.

Or could they use #1 and #3 instead of #2 and #4 respectively? That was my question. A lot of times the simple past tense is used instead of the past perfect tense, especially in speech. Could one do that in these cases?

I would use the past simple only with a time marker.

I spoke to a man who committed two bank robberies in 2024.
I spoke to a man who committed a few major crimes between the ages of 10 and 14.

Note, however, that "had committed" would be equally grammatical in both sentences.

 

[jutfrank]

I wasn't really looking for the one I should use. I wanted to see the possible meanings of #1 and #3 as far as the sequence of events were concerned.

Okay, but this is not a good approach to understanding meaning in my opinion. Meaning comes from the speaker's mind, not from the words he uses. Words and sentences are like tools that we use to express what we mean. Some sentences do the job for us well and others do the job badly. It's possible to eat soup with a fork, but that doesn't mean it's an effective way to do it.

The use of the past perfect in your sentence #2 helps make it very clear that the action of committing the bank robberies happened before the time I talked to the man.

If the bank robberies/crimes were committed before I talked to him, I'd use #2 and #4.

Okay. Good idea.

Those two make the sequence of events clear.

Right.

But would all native speakers make the choices I make? Or could they use #1 and #3 instead of #2 and #4 respectively? That was my question.

Why does it matter what native speakers do? Don't presume that native speakers always communicate with perfect clarity. What matters is whether the listener understands what the speaker means. Words are just tools to get a job done, like spoons and forks.

A lot of times the simple past tense is used instead of the past perfect tense, especially in speech. Could one do that in these cases?

Are you asking whether it's possible to eat soup with a fork? Doesn't that depend on how much soup you want to eat, how thick the soup is, the shape of the fork, and so on? I believe that instead of asking what the worst possible tool for a job is, you should be asking what the best tool is, and what the best tool is depends on exactly what it is you're trying to do.

 

[Annabel Lee]

1) I talked to a man who committed two bank robberies.
2) I talked to a man who had committed two bank robberies.

Can one use #1 instead of #2?

I think in #1 he might have committed the robberies before or after I talked to him. Is that correct?

The "after" meaning is certainly posible with (1), as we can see by varying the terms but keeping the tenses the same:

A) I went to kindergarten with the person who started the company. ​

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you both very much.

Jutfrank, I see your point. I don't presume that native speakers communicate with perfect clarity. That is why I ask these questions!

A native speaker would never say: "I am eating an apple." if they meant: "I ate an apple."
But there are certain somewhat infelicitous structures that native speakers do use. It would be hard to find a native speaker who communicates with perfect clarity all the time.

Let's say I want to know what extremely well-spoken native speakers would say in a particular situation, and also what extremely sloppy ones would say in that situation, and also what the ones in between would say.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thank you both very much.

Jutfrank, I see your point. I don't presume that native speakers communicate with perfect clarity. That is why I ask these questions!

When you say that we don't always "communicate with perfect clarity", do you mean that we don't always get our meaning across or that we don't always speak 100% grammatically correctly?

A native speaker would never say no colon here "I am eating an apple no full stop here" if they meant no colon here "I ate an apple."

Of course we wouldn't. You seem to be suggesting that the use of tenses somehow separates the people you've named below (well-spoken, sloppy, in-between). That's not true.

But However, there are certain somewhat infelicitous structures that native speakers do use.

Even a learner at your high standard shouldn't start sentences with "but". Note that we don't use "infelicitous" much. You'll send quite a few native speakers to their dictionary if you use it.

It would be hard to find a native speaker who communicates with perfect clarity all the time.

I agree but it has little to do with their use of tenses.

Let's say I want to know what extremely well-spoken native speakers would say in a particular situation, and also what extremely sloppy ones would say in that situation, and also what the ones in between would say.

You'd need to give us a specific situation in which you want an example of how those three sets of people would word something.
The best I can do until you do that is to give you a rather convoluted example. Let's say a police officer says to a set of people (made up of those groups) "I believe one of you has committed a crime in the last 24 hours".
Well-spoken responder: I have done nothing to break the laws of this land.
In-between responder: I haven't done anything illegal.
Sloppy responder: I ain't done nuffink.

Do not take this to mean that that's exactly what those people would say but you can see that the difference has nothing to do with the tense. They've all used the present perfect.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't presume that native speakers communicate with perfect clarity. That is why I ask these questions!

I don't follow this. I was sure that you always always make up your own sentences, which is very often the problem. My understanding was that you try deliberately to make up unnatural bizarre sentences in order to the test limits of intelligibility. Is that not right?

A native speaker would never say: "I am eating an apple." if they meant: "I ate an apple."

Sorry, I don't follow this point.

But there are certain somewhat infelicitous structures that native speakers do use.

Yes, that's true, but:

a) In what way do you imagine that those infelicitous structure could help you?
b) Why is it that you don't study those instead?

It would be hard to find a native speaker who communicates with perfect clarity all the time.

Not hard, but impossible, of course. My point is that I think you should study good sentences, not bad ones.

Let's say I want to know what extremely well-spoken native speakers would say in a particular situation

That's not possible because there are infinite different ways of being extremely well-spoken.

, and also what extremely sloppy ones would say in that situation, and also what the ones in between would say.

None of is this is even possible in principle, let alone in practice.

 

[jutfrank]

When you say that we don't always "communicate with perfect clarity", do you mean...

For the sake of the thread, I should point out that those were my words, from post #5.

Note that we don't use "infelicitous" much.

We do in semantics, which is an area that both Navi and I are very interested in.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you both very much,

I think the problem is the manner in which I go about dealing with English grammar. It might be extremely idiosyncratic. I am not sure I can explain how my mind works.
I am trying to find out all the possible meanings a certain 'structure' might have when it is used by native speakers (who are not delirious, drunk etc., but who are not necessarily well-spoken).
I would even like to understand, and even to be able to use, a sentence like 'I ain't done noffink', innit. (The last word was meant as a joke.)

 

[jutfrank]

I think the problem is the manner in which I go about dealing with English grammar.

I would say the problem is more your theory of meaning, which is very hard for me to make out. You don't often ask about grammar, I don't think.

I am trying to find out all the possible meanings a certain 'structure' might have when it is used by native speakers (who are not delirious, drunk etc., but who are not necessarily well-spoken).

I don't think you can really do this. Meaning comes from speakers. Grammatical structure is really just one of severals ways that meaning is expressed.

If you want to study English, or any other language, you have to find good examples of use, but this is something that you never ask us about. Instead, you prefer to make up these very artificial, often unnatural, contextless, almost meaningless examples.

I would even like to understand, and even to be able to use, a sentence like 'I ain't done noffink', innit (The last word was meant as a joke.)

I don't follow this. Are you saying you don't understand what I ain't done noffink', innit means? Why would you want to speak like a Cockney, Navi?

Be careful not to confuse meaning with use. When you become fascinated by a particular word, or grammatical structure, your question should not be about what it means but rather about who can use it and for what purpose.

Would you say your questions here on the forum are part of an effort to improve your English? Or are you more interested in the mechanics of things? I hope you don't mind my criticising your questions, but as somebody who is very much interested in the same areas as you, I very much want to help.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you very much, Jutfranl.

I don't want to speak like a Cockney, but I would like to be able to. I won't waste any time trying to learn speaking like a Cockney, but if I could learn to speak like one without wasting much time and energy (impossible), then why not?

I have a hard time understanding Cockney. I would like to be able to understand it properly.

A few years ago, I couldn't understand the sentence: I went up the apples and answered the meat.
Now I can. Isn't that a good thing.

I do understand the sentence I ain't done noffink. I said I'd like to understand sentences like it. I guess I don't understand them all.

A few years ago, I didn't really know what 'innit' meant. I am happy to have learned that.

My questions are part of an effort to improve my English, yes.
You are helping, Jutfrank, by answering my questions.
Your curiosity about how my mind works however, is a bit of a conundrum for me. Why do you care why I ask those questions?

My brain is wired differently from yours. Let's say it is a condition and leave it at that. I can't help it. My mind latches on to any structure that might be ambiguous. That is a result of my having worked, years ago, as a translator. I can't explain what happens. But when I want to tease out the ambiguity of a structure, I need examples that are not fitted into a context that would immediately rule out one of the meanings.

I consider myself 'neurodivergent'. One aspect of my divergence is linguistic. However, I don't think it would be easy for others to understand how my linguistic neurodivergence works. 'It's madness.... but there's method in it' innit?

 

[emsr2d2]

I have a hard time understanding Cockney. I would like to be able to understand it properly.

I'm not sure if you're talking about a simple Cockney accent (traditionally used to describe the accent of a person born within the sound of Bow Bell (ie they were born somewhere where it was possible to hear the church bell from a specific church in the East End of London) or actual Cockney Rhyming Slang.

A few years ago, I couldn't understand the sentence no colon here "I went up the apples and answered the meat".

The first half makes sense and I know you climbed the stairs. The second doesn't. "Meat" in Cockney rhyming slang means "feet" (short for "plates of meat") so I don't understand how you can answer the feet. Logic tells me you're trying to say you answered the phone. In rhyming slang that would be "... and answered the dog". "The dog and bone" is rhyming slang for "phone".

Now I can. Isn't that a good thing?

I don't know. Is it? How much time do you spend deep in the East End of London? How often do you need to grasp what a true Cockney is saying?

 

[jutfrank]

I don't want to speak like a Cockney, but I would like to be able to

Okay, fair enough.

Your curiosity about how my mind works however, is a bit of a conundrum for me. Why do you care why I ask those questions?

The reason I care is that I want to answer your questions in the best way I can. When I'm not certain I understand what you're asking, it helps me to know why you're asking it because it gives me a better idea of what your question really is.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not sure if you're talking about a simple Cockney accent or actual Cockney Rhyming Slang.

I think Navi is mainly referring to the dialect (the words used) rather than the accent.

 

[emsr2d2]

I think Navi is mainly referring to the dialect (the words used) rather than the accent.

With all due respect, whilst I realise that this thread has become a bit of a duologue between you and Navi due to your shared linguistic interest, I'd still like Navi to answer my question. I'm interested mainly because my great-grandfather was a "true Cockney" and people struggled to understand him sometimes, whether he was using rhyming slang or not.

I do understand the sentence I ain't done noffink.

Just a side note - the accepted alternative spelling of "nothing" is "nuffink", not "noffink".

A few years ago, I didn't really know what 'innit' meant. I am happy to have learned that.

Are you talking about the original contraction of "isn't it?" or the more modern usage?

 

[jutfrank]

With all due respect,

Apologies. I don't mean to hog the thread.

 

[emsr2d2]

Apologies. I don't mean to hog the thread.

That's not what I was getting at. I totally appreciate that the two of you share a rather specific interest in the main theme of the thread so it makes sense that you're more able/willing to help than some of the rest of us. I was simply making the point that I wanted Navi to answer the question I specifically directed at them.

 

[navi tasan]

Thank you both very much,

Jutfrank, your replies have always been perfect. If I need more information, I can always ask a follow-up question. If I want to know what the best way to communicate an idea is, I will ask that.

Emsr2d2, sorry about the mistake. I thought it was 'meat and bone'!

I would definitely like to understand the accent better than I do now. But the dialect is really important. However, I checked out a list of 'rhyming slang' terms in Cockney and it was too much. I can't learn them all. Even if I do, I'll forget them. Nobody around me uses them. I wonder how many a Cockney person really knows. Let's say I'd like to know at least the ones an average educated British person would be expected to know. I guess that that set cannot be defined with much precision, but then again, there are certain terms that I suppose everyone in Britain knows (I might be wrong). I would like not to mess up like I did in this thread and say 'meat' instead of 'dog'!

I don't spend any time in the East End of London, but who knows? I might end up there one day.

I watch English films though. And I listen to interviews with musicians, some of whom are Cockney. And I read books.

I saw My Fair Lady when I was a teenager. That 'wiv' in 'wiv a little bit o' luck' was sort of a problem for many years! I wasn't obsessed with languages back then, so it wasn't a big deal. I loved the song though.

The other thing is that knowing 'local dialects' permits you to establish better relationships with people who speak those dialects. Let's say I meet a Cockney somewhere in the US. If I manage to crowbar something like: "Answer the dog." into our conversation. Chances are he or she will warm to me more easily. These things create a bond, or at least help break barriers. You show that you are interested in the other person's culture (and I am!).

As for 'innit; actually for a very long time, I viewed both usages as almost the same thing, though not exactly. It wasn't hard to figure out that it was a contraction if 'ain't it'. However (I edited the 'but' out!) in my mind that was just a pronunciation (or accent) issue. And yet (another one) as you point out, although it started that way, now it has become a thing of its own. I learned that later on. I once read somewhere that when you're using it in the more modern sense, it would be better not to put a question mark after it. It seems to be a affirmation, not a question.

I am not sure that I have really grasped how it works. It might still hold surprises for me. It is not a big deal, but I wouldn't mind knowing.

I thought I was being funny when I used it after 'in it'! There's method in it, innit.

But my plays on words in English aren't much to write home about. I usually 'discover' something that native speakers discovered when they were in middle school, and I end up sounding sophomoric.

Respectfully,
Navi