Geoff,
    I am probably occssionally part of the problem even when trying not to
be. I have absolutely no interest in  responding to Brad. When I do
respond on an issue that Brad has contributed to, as I did recently, I
am responding to a discussion on the list, and I do so having long ago
come to the understanding that agreement with Brad will never happen.
What I worry about is that we now have topics that we can't talk to
each other about. I don't care what Brad thinks, but I am very much
interested in open public discussion. I would hate to think we have to
limit ourselves to Brad proof topics.
   I am very interested in what Herb might say about a concept like
"remote past," but not at all interested in hearing him explain it in a
way that Brad might understand.
   The irony for me is that  my "Writing, Reading, and Language" class is
now exploring ways in which time, plot, and point-of-view are
controlled within a narrative. We will ask the same questions about
newswriting in a few weeks. Are these out of bounds because of the Brad
factor? Is it possible to talk with each other when issues like this
arise and somehow ignore the static?
   Maybe not? That saddens me.
    >
Craig

> Herb (and anybody else for that matter) - Will you please tell me why you
> respond, have responded, had responded, will respond, will have responded,
> might respond, (or any other conjugation of respond that comes to mind) to
> these idiotic requests by Mr. Johnson?  I thought I had put him on my
> reject list, but for some reason Hotmail has started to accept him again.
> Help!
>
> Geoff Layton
>
>
>
> PS TO MR JOHSON:  What will it take to make you stop?  I'm reminded of the
> kids who pound on their plastic trash can drums in front of the Art
> Institute, or the god-awful musicians who make a worse noise than the
> subway trains - I want to ask them, "How much to get you to stop?!"
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:05:55 -0800
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: He walked five miles
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Herb,
>
> 1.)  Please tell me what this sentence means: He walked five miles.
>
> 2.)  Please tell me what this sentence means: He had walked five miles.
>
> .thanks.brad.27feb10.
>
>
> --- On Fri, 2/26/10, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Herb's remote past, Veit
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 10:09 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I will state again what has been stated a number of times on these
> threads, that past and past participle forms are distinct in English only
> strong verbs and a few mixed strong/weak verbs, like dive/dove/dived.
> Historically, weak verbs had a distinction between past and past
> participle, but that was lost by the end of Middle English so that in
> Modern English the same form serves both purposes.  When people write “had
> walked” in sentences that you reject as using “had” before a past tense
> verb, you are simply misinterpreting “walked,” a weak verb, as a past
> tense form rather than as a past participle form.  The error exists only
> if you insist on confusing these forms.  There is no empirical way to show
> that “walked” in “He had walked five miles” is a past tense form.  That’s
> not the sort of mistake native speakers or proficient non-native speakers
> make.
>
> Herb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 4:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Herb's remote past, Veit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Herb wrote:
>
>
> Your statement that people mistakenly use “had” before past tense verbs,
> that they change past tense irregular verbs to past participles after
> “had,” are not empirically testable statements.
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
>
> You lump together two quite different things. The first, that people put
> 'had' in front of past tense verbs, is empirically testable. The second,
> trying to put 'had' in front of an irregular past tense verb and forcing
> the irregular past participle, is not, as you point out, testable, because
> we cannot divine intent. But my explanation for the observable phenomenon
> is the best I have been able to find, without the further help I have
> solicited repeatedly.
>
>
>
> People DO put 'had' in front of past tense verbs. This is easily
> demonstrable. How they get to a similar result with irregular past tense
> verbs SEEMS to be that they first try to do what they think appropriate,
> put 'had' in front of the verb. When that doesn't work -- almost anyone
> rejects 'had ate' -- they go to 'had eaten' and that sounds right, so they
> use it.
>
>
>
> How else does this happen? I <had eaten> ate all the tofu before you
> returned. (Complete Idiot's Guide to Grammar and Style)
>
>
>
> I am accumulating a file of examples of  'forcing the irregular past
> participle', if anyone is interested. All of the examples are from
> newspapers, novels, and even grammar texts. They are not made up. Let me
> know if you're interested. Maybe someone can help me understand why it
> happens if my tentative theory proves to be inadequate.
>
>
>
> .brhad.26feb10.
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
>
> There is no way to know or test the writer’s intentions.  Your statement
> that those weak verbs after what you claim are incorrect “had” are
> functionally past tense depends of a meaning for “functionally” that is
> unlike the way any grammarian or linguist uses the term.  It is a
> subjective judgment of yours that apparently no one else is able to
> replicate consistently.
>
>
>
> Herb
>
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 2/26/10, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> => I do not now assault the past perfect, nor have I ever assaulted the
> past perfect in the past, not do I expect to assault the past perfect in
> the future.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have assaulted, and do assault, and will in the future assault ...
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.) putting 'had' in front of past tense verbs.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2.) trying to put 'had' in front of an irregular past tense verb and
> forcing the irregular past participle.
>
>
>
>
>
> 3.) using 'had been' where 'was' and 'were' belong.
>
>
>
>
>
> .brhad.26feb10.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
> 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/