STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Of course, the fact that remote past was a possible meaning for “had” eight centuries ago doesn’t mean that it is in the 21st c., but the usage has such a long, continuous, and consistent history that I find it difficult to fault it.
- - - - - - - -
 
Herb,
 
I understand that you don't fault the use of 'had' to mean the 'remote' past but what is the 'remote past'? That was my question to you. What is it? And whatever it is, is it something that those who teach English grammar should teach?
 
I think 'the past' is past. Everything from the beginning of time until this moment is "past". If you think grammar teachers should teach something called 'the remote past', I hope you will illustrate how you think it works, within the context of 'Standard English', which is what is taught, and hopefully learned, at this time in the history of the English-speaking world.
 
I talked to him an hour ago. I talked to him yesterday. I talked to him a week ago. I talked to him two weeks ago. I had talked to him three weeks ago? because everything longer ago that two weeks ago is 'remote past'? Or is everything before the Battle of Hastings 'remote'? or before the birth of Christ? When did it stop being 'remote' and start being 'past'? 
 
Please tell me what 'remote past' means and how it works. And, importantly, illustrate it, if you please.
 
.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/