Sarah couldn't play again because she's broken her arm

[EngLearner]

Yesterday, Sarah couldn't play tennis with Lisa, Samantha, and Peter because she was called into work. Today, she broke her arm, so she couldn't play either. Peter, who played yesterday but missed today's game, talked to Lisa after the game and asked her about Sarah. Lisa said to him:

Sarah couldn't play again because she's broken her arm.

I've used the past tense "couldn't play" because Lisa is referring to a specific game in the past, and I've used the present perfect "she's broken" because at the time of speaking Sarah's arm is broken, and Lisa is presenting this as news to Peter. Are the bolded tenses used correctly in the context given?

 

[Skrej]

I'd stick to the past tense for both actions. While her arm may still be broken (albeit presumably mended and healing) the actual action of breaking is completed.

I can't say your version is wrong, though.

 

[Piscean]

I've used the past tense "couldn't play" because Lisa is referring to a specific game in the past, and I've used the present perfect "she's broken" because at the time of speaking Sarah's arm is broken, and Lisa is presenting this as news to Peter.

This was not the subject of the OP, but in the part quoted above I might well have used the past simple for the underlined verbs.

 

[EngLearner]

Mark broke his leg yesterday, and it's now in a cast. John calls him to invite him to a party that Adam is throwing. They have the following conversation:

John: "Would you like to come to Adam's party with me?"
Mark: "I can't because I've broken/I broke my leg."

From what I've learned, British English speakers use the present perfect "I've broken" in this example, whereas American English speakers use the simple past "I broke." So, in British English, the present perfect indicates that Mark's leg is still in a cast and hasn't healed yet. For that reason, I thought British English speakers would find the sentence with "she's broken" in post #1 natural.

A. Sarah couldn't play again because she's broken her arm.
B. Sarah couldn't play again because she broke her arm.

Is there anyone who would use version A instead of version B in the context of post #1? If not, why is the example in post #1 not parallel to the party example in this post?

 

[emsr2d2]

A. Sarah couldn't play again because she's broken her arm.
B. Sarah couldn't play again because she broke her arm.

I wouldn't use either. Because it starts "Sarah couldn't", I'd use "she had broken".

 

[EngLearner]

Scenario #1:

John gets hit by a car and breaks his leg, so he's lying on the road. He has called an ambulance and is waiting for it to arrive. Peter calls him and asks if he wants to come to Adam's party with him. John replies:

Peter, I'd like to, but I can't because I've broken my leg.

Scenario #2:

John got hit by a car three hours ago and broke his leg. His leg is now in a cast. Peter calls him and asks him if he wants to come to Adam's party with him. John replies:

Peter, I'd like to, but I can't because I broke my leg.

In scenario #1, the broken leg needs to be taken care of, hence the present perfect. In scenario #2, the broken leg has been taken care of and is now in a cast, hence the simple past.

@Skrej Do you agree with the choice of tense and with what I've written from an American English perspective?

 

[emsr2d2]

The fact that his broken leg isn't yet in a cast has nothing to do with why BrE speakers would go for the present perfect there. Even days after the break, and once the leg is in a cast, we'd still use the present perfect. I'd use the past simple only with a time marker.

I'd like to come to the party but I've broken my leg.
I'd like to come to the party but I broke my leg last Monday.

 

[Piscean]

Scenario #1:
John gets hit by a car and breaks his leg, so he's lying on the road. He has called an ambulance and is waiting for it to arrive. Peter calls him and asks if he wants to come to Adam's party with him.

Scenario #2:
John got hit by a car three hours ago and broke his leg. His leg is now in a cast. Peter calls him and asks him if he wants to come to Adam's party with him.

Scenarios with such precise timing are very artificial. We don't go around with stop watches that we check before making an utterance.

 

[jutfrank]

A. Sarah couldn't play again because she's broken her arm.
B. Sarah couldn't play again because she broke her arm.

Is there anyone who would use version A instead of version B in the context of post #1?

Yes, you're understanding the present perfect correctly. I've no idea what you were thinking by including the idea of 'again', which is totally unnecessary, but apart from that, this is an ideal context for the present perfect: you're reporting Sarah's current status.

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes, you're understanding the present perfect correctly. I've no idea what you were thinking by including the idea of 'again', which is totally unnecessary, but apart from that, this is an ideal context for the present perfect: you're reporting Sarah's current status.

The use of "again" harks back to post #1. Sarah was clearly having a bad week - yesterday, she couldn't play because she'd been called into work and this morning, she couldn't play again because she'd broken her arm!

 

[jutfrank]

The use of "again" harks back to post #1. Sarah was clearly having a bad week - yesterday, she couldn't play because she'd been called into work and this morning, she couldn't play again because she'd broken her arm!

What I meant was that I can't see any reason to use the idea that Sarah couldn't play on two occasions. The fact that she couldn't play on two occasions has no bearing on whether the present perfect is used—one is enough. EngLearner could delete the word 'again' and simplify the sentence.

 

[smalltalk]

I’m thinking that proximity to present time is a factor, but this might be my own fixed idea.

For example, my wife asks me about my friend, Peter: “Has Peter been in touch with Joe?” If this pertains to a fairly recent matter I might say, “No, he’s lost track of him.” Right or wrong, in my thinking this suggests that Peter and Joe were in touch not that long ago, and then Peter lost track of him.

But if we were all schoolmates 40 years ago, and my wife suddenly had a thought about Joe, I think I would say, “No, he lost track of him.” I might clarify this: “No, he lost track of him years ago.”

Again, this might be a subtle distinction that exists only in my head!

 

[jutfrank]

I’m thinking that proximity to present time is a factor, but this might be my own fixed idea.

The connection is that greater proximity to present time means that there is a greater chance that the speaker will see an event as having present relevance. It's this present relevance that determines the use of the present perfect.

 

[EngLearner]

Scenario #1:
John gets hit by a car and breaks his leg, so he's lying on the road. He has called an ambulance and is waiting for it to arrive. Peter calls him and asks if he wants to come to Adam's party with him. John replies:

Peter, I'd like to, but I can't because I've broken my leg.

Scenario #2:
John got hit by a car three hours ago and broke his leg. His leg is now in a cast. Peter calls him and asks him if he wants to come to Adam's party with him. John replies:

Peter, I'd like to, but I can't because I broke my leg.

In scenario #1, the broken leg needs to be taken care of, hence the present perfect. In scenario #2, the broken leg has been taken care of and is now in a cast, hence the simple past.

@smalltalk As an American English speaker, would you agree with my analysis?

 

[smalltalk]

Three hours time difference? I don't have a preference. I'd say those pencils are equally sharp. However, while I'm an English speaker, you'd be wise to ignore my opinions on grammar.

 

[jutfrank]

EngLearner, do you really think that a speaker having broken his leg a mere three hours ago would cause him to view it as a past event with no present relevance?

If he's saying that having a broken leg is a reason for not being able to go to a party, regardless of when it happened, that's highly presently relevant, is it not?

Don't get hung up on exactly when things happen but instead try to understand what makes something that happened in the past relevant to the present situation, regardless of how long ago it happened.

 

[emsr2d2]

If he's saying that having a broken leg is a reason for not being able to go to a party, regardless of when it happened, that's highly presently relevant, is it not?

That's the crux of it. In this specific scenario, it doesn't matter what event it is he's using as an excuse for not going to the party. The simple fact that he's using it for that purpose means it has present relevance.

A sentence that starts "I'd love to come to your party but ..." is going to continue with either a current emotion ("... but I'm really miserable this evening so I wouldn't enjoy it") or an event that happened already (... but I broke a mirror earlier and there's glass everywhere"), leading the speaker to come to that decision. It doesn't matter what event it was!

 

[EngLearner]

EngLearner, do you really think that a speaker having broken his leg a mere three hours ago would cause him to view it as a past event with no present relevance?

If he's saying that having a broken leg is a reason for not being able to go to a party, regardless of when it happened, that's highly presently relevant, is it not?

I'm just talking about what I've observed in American English.

For example, this guy, an American English speaker, describes the difference between the simple past and the present perfect from an American English perspective (this was posted on another forum):

I think the difference is that (American influences notwithstanding) the past tense sounds flat-out wrong in British English in many situations in which it's used in American English, whereas conversely, the present perfect often only sounds (highly) unusual in American English in those same situations -- or at least not as wrong as the past simple sounds to British English speakers. In practice, though, the past simple is what American English speakers use the vast majority of the time in those situations. For example, I just can't imagine an American English speaker saying, "I can't make it to the party tonight because I've broken my leg." It doesn't even sound right if I imagine it being said with an American accent! But I reckon it doesn't sound as jarring to an American English ear as "I broke" would to a British ear.

I also came across this example:

A girl's car breaks down. She realizes that because of that she's going to miss the game she was driving to, so she calls her friend and says the following:

Megan! What the hell? Okay, my car broke down. I'm in the middle of nowhere, and I'm totally going to miss the game, so call me back, okay? Thank you.

Source: "Hitchhiker Massacre", a movie. (timestamp: 10m48s).

She's an American English speaker, and what she says in the movie is essentially:

Megan, I can't make it to the game because my car broke down. I'm in the middle of nowhere, so call me back, okay? Thank you.

The car broke down at most 10 minutes ago, but the simple past is used. I'm sure that in British English, this would have to be "because my car's broken down."

If the present perfect tense is about present relevance, then the British sense of present relevance is different from the American one.

 

[Piscean]

Megan, I can't make it to the game because my car broke down. I'm in the middle of nowhere, so call me back, okay? Thank you.

The car broke down at most 10 minutes ago, but the simple past is used. I'm sure that in British English, this would have to be "because my car's broken down."

It doesn't have to be that.

 

[Skrej]

Quit trying to think about what people from different variants think. We sure as hell don't.

Yes, AmE tends to favor the Simple Past in some cases where BrE would use the Present Perfect. So what? Life goes on, we're still able to communicate, and everyone understands the general timeline.

We also often don't agree on spelling, but I don't see anyone wasting time trying to rationalize when BrE speakers might add a 'u' before a word ending in 'or' or if an AmE speaker will omit it.

I guarantee you dollars to donuts that neither native speaker is consciously thinking about it like you are, mainly because the difference doesn't matter. Ergo, it doesn't matter which one you use in such cases. If I use the Pres. Perfect or Piscean switches to Simple Past in defiance of our variants' standards, guess what happens to him or me? Nothing, because it's unlikely to even register with any other native speaker. The worst possible outcome is getting grilled on our choice on some language forum.

This hyper-fixation on clear-cut iron-clad regional differences with hypothetical examples is counterproductive to your learning and volunteer's time.

If you notice differences, then I suggest leaving it at that. Spend the extra time working on vocabulary, listening comprehension, or other things that will get you more milage out of your studies.