Brad doesn't talk to me anymore, after we had a protracted off-list discussion of his favorite topic. But I'll say this for him; he's more capable of developing and refining his position than the average fanatic. Herb noted that one of Brad's recent posts was his clearest statement of his position on the past perfect yet, and I thought so too. And I remember that Brad showed me a sentence or two in which he granted that the past perfect was used correctly even though an earlier past event was not present in the sentence itself, but only in the context--so I can back up his claim to Herb that he believes such cases exist.

Still, I think where Brad seems "fanatical," or at least absolutist, to many of us is his rejection of ambiguity (at least in regard to the past perfect). He's been repeating lately that we don't understand the past perfect if we can't define it and illustrate it in ways that apply in any and all situations (or words to that effect). I fundamentally don't agree with what I think he's implying here--that if we see gray areas, if we say "it depends on the author's intent" or "it depends on how you interpret the context" or "either the past or the past perfect could be used in this situation"--than we are only revealing our own ignorance. I think ambiguity exists in grammar, and that that is part of the fascination of grammar. Brad seems more moved by a vision of grammar as a field of absolute certainty and clarity. (I say "seems" deliberately and insistently--I don't claim to speak for him in any way. I'm not sure if he'll even be reading this--he said he was going to block my messages--so I want to be careful not to represent his views unfairly. I'm representing my impressions only.) I don't begrudge him this vision--I found that it made him hard to communicate with, but it also made him kind of fascinating. I think that this fascination with a fundamentally different attitude towards ambiguity and certainty--and thus, towards language--is one reason, along with that "eternal optimism" mentioned by Dick, that people on the list keep engaging with Brad. For those of us who recognize and enjoy grammatical ambiguity, it's as as hard to ignore Brad as it is to look away from--well, not an accident, but a raging bonfire into which 102 textbooks containing past perfect "mistakes" are being fed. 

Brian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Dick Veit
Sent: Thu 4/9/2009 12:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Herb re Lester's Grammar
 
The difference between a scholar (such as Herb) and a fanatic is that scholars listen to what the other party says, consider it, and are capable of learning from it and altering their opinions; fanatics are incapable of considering or even hearing opposing points of view. Scholars can say what it would take to change their mind; fanatics cannot admit the possibility that their minds could be changed.

Many a scholar on this list has attempted to initiate a reasonable dialogue with our resident fanatic (some several times), and each attempt has ended in frustration. The fact that they continue to try is a tribute to their eternal optimism about human nature.

Dick
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ 


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/