For those not set for html, color and graphics by whatever name, this will be hard to follow.

.br-had.sun.07aug11. 


________________________________
From: Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, August 7, 2011 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: 22 Britannia Road


 
Thanks, Brad - now we're getting somewhere! Indeed we are, thanks to you! A thousand welcomes. The next step is to analyze the change in meaning between the two tenses. Holy cow! Where have YOU been for the last dozen years? For example, I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that "there is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself." A past tense verb, G. The motto doesn't say 'a verb', it says a PAST TENSE verb.  It seems to me that "had" does something extremely important to the past tense verb in this particular piece of writing as the simple past which one? would put <Aurek> Janusz in a place where the writer doesn't want him. The perfect tense implies that the goodbyes HAD BEEN said before Aurek finds himself in his current situation, Indeed they were, but not 'had been'. Exactly the point. The past tense of 'to be' is 'was' and 'were', not 'had been'. The good-byes were said earlier. Lotsa things
 happened earlier. All Gaul was divided, Teddy Roosevelt stormed San Juan Hill. Lotsa things. which it seems to me is exactly the position in which the writer wants his character to be.

All past events were preceded by other past events. That's not what the past perfect is for. The past perfect is a specialized device that lets us show that by the time something happened, something else had already happened. If you like ... "By the time Janusz found himself on the train, he had already left home and in doing so, had said his good-byes to his wife." A bit back-handed but this is exactly why the past perfect is not just a convention. It provides a distinct time-sequence separation. Thanks for the push down that road.


Geoff Layton


.br-had.sun.07aug11.

 


________________________________
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 20:41:41 -0700
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: 22 Britannia Road
To: [log in to unmask]


Brad and Martha,

Here's a juicy one, from "22 Britannia Road", by Amanda Hodgkinson, c.2011, page 24.

     In carriages up and down the train, soldiers were singing and sharing jokes but Janusz stayed silent. He prayed Silvana and Aurek would be safe. He'd said good-bye casually, as if he were just going out to buy a newspaper. He'd told himself it was braver to leave like that. He'd met up with his father a few days before and that had been the old man's advice.
     "Don't dwell too long on saying your good-byes. Women always cry and make a fuss. Make it quick. Good-byes are best kept short. Be strong and you'll make a good soldier." His father had looked down then, his hand hovering over Janusz's shoulder. "Just make sure you come back in one piece."
     Now Janusz regretted the way he had left. In truth it hadn't been bravery that had made him turn his back so quickly on his wife and child. It had been the hot tears that had pushed at his eyes as he'd brushed Silvana's cheek with a kiss. His father had been wrong. She'd been the brave one, standing there dry-eyed, holding their son tightly in her arms.

Thirteen 'had's in the quote. Once you get on the Had Highway, it's hard to find the exit ramp.

I have an idea. The first 'had' -- where she writes, 'He'd said goodbye casually' -- is a nice example of the Bad Grammar Flashback Convention, which the schools of "creative writing" all teach as the way it should be done. Let's assume the author wrote, as she should have written, "When he left his home, he said goodbye casually", and then take it from there. Disregard that first 'had' and consider the last 12. Apply the past-tense default to each of them and see what you get. What makes sense? What conveys the intent? If the past tense says what it should say, that's the one you want. Don't put 'had' in front of it. "There is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself."

For Geoffrey, here's the way it should have been written:


     In carriages up and down the train, soldiers were singing and sharing jokes but Janusz stayed silent. He prayed Silvana and Aurek would be safe. [When he left his home], he said good-bye casually, as if he were just going out to buy a newspaper. He told himself it was braver to leave like that. He met up with his father a few days before and that was the old man's advice.
     "Don't dwell too long on saying your good-byes. Women always cry and make a fuss. Make it quick. Good-byes are best kept short. Be strong and you'll make a good soldier." His father looked down then, his hand hovering over Janusz's shoulder. "Just make sure you come back in one piece."
     Now Janusz regretted the way he left. In truth it wasn't bravery that made him turn his back so quickly on his wife and child. It was the hot tears that pushed at his eyes as he brushed Silvana's cheek with a kiss. His father was wrong. She was the brave one, standing there dry-eyed, holding their son tightly in her arms.

As you can see, there is nothing the word 'had' can do for a past tense verb that the verb cannot do for itself.**

** Clear statement of position, for Geoffrey's consideration.

.br-had.sat.06aug11.
.

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/