It had been up only a couple of weeks, says Ruff, “and we’ve already had to restock it.”

[kadioguy]

[From Reader’s Digest]

Book Mobile
There’s plenty to do at Taylorsville Lake State Park, southeast of Louisville, Kentucky--boating, fishing, hiking. And now reading. At the behest of park manger Carey Ruff, local wood hobbyist Gene Balter built a little library as a book exchange for campers in need of something to read under the stars or on a rainy day. Resembling a classic Airstream camper, the library is filled with westerns, romance novels, instruction manuals, kids books and more. And it’s almost as popular as the hiking. It had been up only a couple of weeks, says Ruff, “and we’ve already had to restock it.”

[Source]
----
Question 1: Why is the red text in the past participle?

I think it is backshift. Now, I'll take three senteces below:

a. It had been up only a couple of weeks, says Ruff, “and we’ve already had to restock it.”
b. "It have been up only a couple of weeks", says Ruff, “and we’ve already had to restock it.”
c. Ruff said it had been up only a couple of weeks, “and we’ve already had to restock it.”

So, (a) is backshift of (b), and (a) is a mix of (b) and (c). What do you think?

Question 2:

It had been up only a couple of weeks, says Ruff, “and we’ve already had to restock it.”

Why did the writer use "say" rather than "said"? I suppose that this is historical present, in order to make the narrative more vivid. What do you think?

 

[5jj]

Question 1: Why is the red text in the past participle perfect?

I think it's a slip. It should be present perfect.

 

[Barque]

Yes, I think it's a backshift too. That part of the sentence is reported speech and not a quote. RedRuff* probably said (emphasis mine), "It has been up only a couple of weeks and we've already had to restock it".

*Edited.

b. "It have been up only a couple of weeks", says Ruff, “and we’ve already had to restock it.”

"Have" is incorrect. You need the singular "has" to match "it".

c. Ruff said it had been up only a couple of weeks, “and we’ve already had to restock it.”

This would have been a better way of putting it.

 

[kadioguy]

Red probably said (emphasis mine), "It has been up only a couple of weeks and we've already had to restock it".

Who is Red? Did you mean Ruff?

 

[Barque]

Sorry, yes, I meant Ruff.

 

[kadioguy]

Sorry, yes, I meant Ruff.

Never mind. What do you think of my second question?

Also, do you think we should use "backshift" countably (as in post #3) or uncountably (as in post #1)?

Wiktionary says that it can be both: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/backshift

 

[Barque]

What do you think of my second question?

Did you add it to your post after you got replies to your first question? I don't recall seeing it earlier.

Why did the writer use "say" rather than "said"? I suppose that this is historical present, in order to make the narrative more vivid. What do you think?

Perhaps. "Said" would have been the usual choice.

Also, do you think we should use "backshift" countably (as in post #3) or uncountably (as in post #1)?

I've only heard it used countably.

 

[kadioguy]

Did you add it to your post after you got replies to your first question? I don't recall seeing it earlier.

No, I wrote it at the beginning. It has been there from the beginning.

 

[Tarheel]

@kadioguy I think you mean Wiktionary said it can be either countable or uncountable. (I checked, and it does say that.)

 

[kadioguy]

@kadioguy I think you mean Wiktionary said it can be either countable or uncountable. (I checked, and it does say that.)

Yes, I should have said, "Wiktionary says it can be either one".

 

[Tarheel]

Note: Wiktionary doesn't use the word "either" there. Dictionaries like to economize on words, and to that would have been at least one too many.

 

[kadioguy]

Note: Wiktionary doesn't use the word "either" there. Dictionaries like to economize on words, and to that would have been at least one too many.

to that would have been at least one too many.
---
What does this mean? Should "to" be omitted? Or "to that it would have been ..."?

 

[kadioguy]

to that would have been at least one too many.
---
What does this mean? Should "to" be omitted? Or "to that it would have been ..."?

I'm not sure, but this sentence looks weird to me.

 

[flos]

I am not a teacher.
I think it's a typo. Consider ... so that it would have been ...

 

[Tarheel]

to that would have been at least one too many.
---
What does this mean? Should "to" be omitted? Or "to that it would have been ..."?

That was a goof. I probably should have caught that before I posted it.(There is one too many "to" there.)

@kadioguy You're smart, and you could have answered that question yourself. (Next time please quote the whole sentence.)

 

[Tarheel]

I am not a teacher.
I think it's a typo. Consider ... so that it would have been ...

Just delete (or ignore) the extra "to" and it's just right.