she bit the dust... I didn't hear about that

[EngLearner]

Source: "Dolls", a movie (timestamp: 31m55s).

Sammey's grandmother Edna has died recently. Sammey is in her house now. She goes outside and bumps into James near the house. At first, she gets scared, but then the following conversation takes place between them:

Sammey: "What the hell are you doing here?"
James: "I do Edna's yard work. Is she around?"
Sammey: "Yeah, did no one get the memo?"
James: "What do you mean?"
Sammey: "I'm sorry if you guys were friends or... hopefully not related, but she bit the dust, man."
James: "I didn't hear about that."
Sammey: "Apparently, no one did."

How would the dialog go in British English? Would the same tenses be used for the bolded verbs, or would you prefer the present perfect instead in this context?

 

[jutfrank]

This has no relation to British or American English.

 

[EngLearner]

I get the impression from the context that they're talking about the current state of affairs, it's not clear to me why they're using the simple past, especially in this part of the dialog:

James: "I didn't hear about that."
Sammey: "Apparently, no one did."

This is how I see it:

James hasn't heard about it (until just now). She's just told him. Apparently, no one else has until now heard about it either because apparently nobody has told them.

Sammey: "Yeah, did no one get the memo?"

Why is it used here? Does she mean: "There's usually a time period after someone dies when people usually get the memo. Now that time period is over, so it's too late to get the memo. Why did no one get the memo when they should have?"?

Sammey: "I'm sorry if you guys were friends or... hopefully not related, but she bit the dust, man."

As far as I know, the present perfect is used when relating news to someone. Did she use the simple past here because she wanted to say something like: "This is no longer news. You're a little late to the party. She bit the dust. That's it."?

 

[emsr2d2]

As far as your first point in your last post goes, both of the following are possible:

James: "I didn't hear about that."
Sammey: "Apparently, no one did."

James: "I hadn't heard that". (Note that "about" should not be used here and, in my opinion, shouldn't have been used in the original.)
Sammey: "Apparently, no one had".

Note that the line about the memo isn't meant to be taken literally. No one sends out an actual memo to notify anyone of someone's death. It's simply a slightly tongue-in-cheek way of saying "Didn't you know that?"

 

[EngLearner]

James: "I hadn't heard that". (Note that "about" should not be used here and, in my opinion, shouldn't have been used in the original.)

I hadn't heard that before you just told me.

Do I understand the reference point for the past perfect "hadn't heard" correctly?

 

[emsr2d2]

I hadn't heard that before you just told me.

Do I understand the reference point for the past perfect "hadn't heard" correctly?

Yes.

Since we're on the topic of tenses, though, note that you could also have said:

Did I understand the reference point ...?
Have I understood the reference point ...?

I would have used the present perfect.

 

[5jj]

Yes.

However, I wouldn't get too fixated on time points or periods if I were you. In real life, especially in informal conversation, we are rather more flexible about tenses and aspects than many grammar books would have you believe. And we don't consciously think about such things when we speak.

 

[jutfrank]

I get the impression from the context that they're talking about the current state of affairs, it's not clear to me why they're using the simple past

Well, that's the wrong impression. They use the past tense because they are talking about the past.

This is how I see it:

James hasn't heard about it (until just now). She's just told him. Apparently, no one else has until now heard about it either because apparently nobody has told them.

That's not right, no. If that were the case, the present perfect would be used.

Why is it used here? Does she mean: "There's usually a time period after someone dies when people usually get the memo. Now that time period is over, so it's too late to get the memo. Why did no one get the memo when they should have?"?

Yes, I think that's right, more or less.

As far as I know, the present perfect is used when relating news to someone. Did she use the simple past here because she wanted to say something like: "This is no longer news. You're a little late to the party. She bit the dust. That's it."?

No.

 

[EngLearner]

Sammey: "I'm sorry if you guys were friends or... hopefully not related, but she bit the dust, man."

Why "...she bit the dust..." and not "... she's bitten the dust..."? Is there any reason to prefer the simple form to the perfect one in this context?

 

[5jj]

Yes. The speaker is presenting this as a past-time event.

 

[EngLearner]

Source: "At Home With English - Full Playthrough", a video on YouTube (timestamp: 1h16m41s).

A husband and a wife were outside and took three letters from their mailbox. At first, the wife thought that all three letters were bills, but now she sees that one of the letters is actually a letter from a lawyer. She tells the husband to open it. He opens it and finds out that the letter is from the lawyer of his aunt, and that his aunt has died. They have the following conversation:

Husband: "Oh... Oh! it's from a lawyer of an aunt I scarcely knew. My aunt Jasmine."

Wife: "I think you talked about her once before, a few years ago."

Husband: "Well, she has died."

In this case, the speaker is presenting this as a present-time event. He might as well have said: "Well, she's bitten the dust." The situation here is the same as in post #1: the speaker breaks the news to someone about someone else's death. Is the present perfect a better fit here than the simple past, or are they both equally good and interchangeable? As far as I can tell from this example and the one in post #1, either form can be used when breaking that kind of news to someone.

 

[emsr2d2]

A husband and a wife were outside and took three letters from their mailbox. At first, the wife thought that all three letters were bills, but now then she sees saw that one of the letters is was actually a letter from a lawyer. She tells told the her husband to open it. He opens opened it and finds found out that the letter is was from the his aunt's lawyer of his aunt, and that his aunt has had died. They have had the following conversation:

Husband: "Oh... Oh! it's from a the lawyer of an aunt I scarcely knew. My aunt Jasmine."
Wife: "I think you talked about her once before, a few years ago."
Husband: "Well, she has died."

Source: "At Home With English - Full Playthrough", a video on YouTube (timestamp: 1h16m41s).

In this case, the speaker is presenting this as a present-time event. He might as well have said no colon here "Well, she's bitten the dust". The situation here is the same as in post #1: the speaker breaks the news to someone about someone else's death. Is the present perfect a better fit here than the simple past, or are they both equally good and interchangeable? As far as I can tell from this example and the one in post #1, either form can be used when breaking that kind of news to someone.

Please note my corrections above.

1. You started the text with the simple past ("were outside and took", "thought" and "were bills") so you needed to continue with that tense. If you wanted to use the present tense, you needed to start with "... are outside and take", "thinks" and "are bills".
2. Put the source information after the text.
3. A native speaker is more likely to use the present perfect but with the contraction "She's died". However, the simple past "She died" isn't wrong.

I wouldn't say that he's "breaking the news" to his wife. He scarcely knew Jasmine so the chances are that his wife didn't know her at all. The lawyer is the one breaking the news, to the husband.

 

[EngLearner]

Please note my corrections above.

1. You started the text with the simple past ("were outside and took", "thought" and "were bills") so you needed to continue with that tense. If you wanted to use the present tense, you needed to start with "... are outside and take", "thinks" and "are bills".

A husband and a wife have been outside and taken three letters from their mailbox. At first, the wife thinks that all three letters are bills, but then she sees that one of the letters is actually from a lawyer. She tells her husband to open it. He opens it and finds out that the letter is from his aunt's lawyer, and that his aunt has died. They have the following conversation:

Does the passage work the way I've rewritten it now with the present perfect at the beginning? A little more context: they were first outside, and then they went into the house. Then they sat down, talked for a while and only then did they open the letter.

 

[EngLearner]

Would it be correct to say that in post #1 the present perfect "...she's bitten the dust..." isn't wrong, but that a native speaker would be more likely to use the simple past "...she bit the dust..."? If so, what is the defining factor that makes the present perfect "... she's died..." a more likely choice in post #11, and what is the defining factor that makes the simple past "...she bit the dust..." a more likely choice in post #1?

 

[teechar]

A husband and a wife were outside and took three letters from their mailbox.

That's not natural. Try something like:
A husband and wife check their mailbox and find three letters.
The present perfect is wrong for that sentence.

 

[emsr2d2]

Does the passage work the way I've rewritten it now with the present perfect at the beginning? A little more context: they were first outside, and then they went into the house. Then they sat down, talked for a while and only then did they open the letter.

No. Starting with the present perfect and then switching to the simple present is even more confusing!

 

[jutfrank]

If so, what is the defining factor that makes the present perfect "... she's died..." a more likely choice in post #11, and what is the defining factor that makes the simple past "...she bit the dust..." a more likely choice in post #1?

It's very simple. With the present tense, the speaker is making a present relevance to what happened in the past. With the past tense, there's no attempt to make a present relevance.

Use this idea of present relevance as the key to understanding this. Don't look only for similarities or differences in the situation—look at what the making (or not) of present relevance might tell you about the speaker's attitude, and how they want to present things.

When reporting news, it's likely to be the case that the past events have some implications on the present and future, in which case the present tense can be used. But this is not necessarily the case; you can imagine a newsreader reporting "The acclaimed writer and director Jemima Masefield died yesterday at her home in South London." In this case, the utterance is simply narrating a past event. Yes, it's presented as news, but narratively it's a mere historical fact. With the example of the lawyer's letter, the man is not just reporting his aunt's death, he's also likely suggesting that her death has implications of some kind.

 

[EngLearner]

In the case in which the man said "Well, she has died.", his wife then took the letter from him and continued reading it. She then told him that his aunt had included him in her will, and that the lawyer wanted to talk to him in person so he could tell him what exactly he had inherited.

This how I understand the present consequence here (from the husband's perspective):

I've started reading the letter and so far I've found out that my aunt is dead. I've told my wife about it, but there's more to read, so I have to continue reading. When I'm finished, I can consign her death to the past unless I find out in the letter that there's something else I have to do in the present in connection with her death.

Would you agree with that?

 

[emsr2d2]

In the case in which the man said "Well, she has died.", his wife then took the letter from him and continued reading it. She then told him that his aunt had included him in her will, and that the lawyer wanted to talk to him in person so he could tell him what exactly he had inherited.

This how I understand the present consequence here (from the husband's perspective):

I've started reading the letter and so far I've found out that my aunt is dead. I've told my wife about it, but there's more to read, so I have to continue reading. When I'm finished, I can consign her death to the past unless I find out in the letter that there's something else I have to do in the present in connection with her death.

Would you agree with that?

I truly don't know how explaining it to yourself like that helps. It's made me more confused! His aunt's death is already in the past. The only thing with present/future consequences is that he has to go and meet with the lawyer.

Whether he reads the letter and says "She's died", "She's dead" or "She died" makes no difference whatsoever to the rest.

 

[5jj]

I wrote in post #7:

... I wouldn't get too fixated on time points or periods if I were you. In real life, especially in informal conversation, we are rather more flexible about tenses and aspects than many grammar books would have you believe. And we don't consciously think about such things when we speak.

The last sentence is particularly important: And we don't consciously think about such things when we speak. When two or more tenses/aspects in an utterance are grammatical and sound natural, it is pointless to try to explain why a speaker used one and not the other(s). We have no way of knowing how the speaker viewed the situation at the moment of speaking.