From: Eduard Hanganu <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 5:23:56 PM
Subject: Re: common irregular verbs
Brad,
>> What is clear from all your posts is that you don't understand tenses.
Only you understand, is that it? A bit arrogant, me thinks, but no matter. I've
been called worse. It's hell to be ignorant but I'll suffer through it.
>> The Past Perfect is not unique to English
How is this relevant to your message? Do you want to discuss it in Bantu? I'm
game if you are.
>> and it has a definite function on the time axis
AMEN to that. If only everyone could see that IT HAS A DEFINITE FUNCTION on the
time axis.
>> that cannot be reduced to the function of the Past Tense.
I wonder what this means. "reduced to the function of the Past Tense". Who wants
it to be?
>> In your redundant examples of "wrong usage" of "had", you fail to provide
>>evidence that the Simple Past can perform the same function the Past Perfect
>>performs.
It can't (see AMEN above). I don't say it can. I never said it could. Whatever
are you talking about? Sleep on it and let's talk in the morning.
But before you go, write back and tell me what this sentence
means. "I thought this was a private message from Brad, and didn't realize
he sent it to everyone."
Your explanation: ___________________________________________
And then tell me what this sentence means. "I had thought this was a private
message from Brad, and didn't realize he had sent it to everyone."
Your explanation: ___________________________________________
Don't BS me, just tell me what each one means.
And then, still before you go, tell me, what is the past perfect? You seem to
know a lot about it so tell me, what is it?
If you can tell me, you will do what no one else at ATEG has been able to do.
Herb can't define it, Craig can't define it, and lots of others can't define it.
Within the last few days, I wrestled a definition out of Karl but then he backed
away and said that wasn't it after all. So, to date, NO ONE at ATEG has been
able to define and explain and illustrate the past perfect, which is what most
folks, laymen all, call the past perfect tense. Call it whatever you like --
past tense perfect aspect, whatever -- just tell me what it is.
Good luck, Eduard. You asked for it.
.brad.06dec10.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:24
Subject: Re: common irregular verbs
To: [log in to unmask]
Sorry to the list for feeding the trolls. I (had thought) thought this was a
private message from Brad, and didn't realize he (had sent) sent it to
everyone.
~~~~~
THIS is why I persist. People, even ATEG people, DO put 'had' in front of past
tense verbs.
It's an inch deep but a mile wide. It's everywhere. As long as learned ATEG
professionals persist, unwittingly, I shall persist as well.
"feeding the trolls", Karl? Et tu, Brute?
I should thank you, Brute, for proving my point so splendidly. Yes. Thank you. I
hope some of the others are paying attention.
.brad.06dec10.
________________________________
From: Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 12:47:40 PM
Subject: Re: common irregular verbs
Sorry to the list for feeding the trolls. I had thought this was a private
message from Brad, and didn't realize he had sent it to everyone.
On 12/6/2010 9:37 AM, Karl Hagen wrote:
While it is true that there's a lot of mindless copying among grammar books,
that's not the issue here. Neither is the complexity of Huddleston and the
others. Huddleston and Pullum is a reference grammar.
It is not intended for children, so there's no reason for them to simplify.
Anyway, complaining about the problems that grammar books for school children
have is a red herring. You still need to show that there's something wrong with
the technical understanding of the perfect in standard grammar references like
Huddleston and Pullum. Then we can talk about how to present it to children.
And no, there is nothing the matter with the paradigms you quoted. They are
correct, no matter what you say. Find me a book that says otherwise. Until you
can, your opinion has no weight. It's your bald assertion
against the entire weight of all the grammatical authorities.
On 12/5/2010 7:38 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
You sent this back to me without comment. It reflects much of what's wrong with
<many> most grammar texts. Much of grammar text content is mindless, careless
repetition of things that don't make sense, as this one demonstrates. There's a
lot of plagiarism in the grammar trade. One grammar text author told me what he
wrote had to be right because he copied it from another text. I believe him
because he lifted things from me, word for word -- things he clearly doesn't
understand but used anyway.
Some Common Irregular Verbs, page 37.
Past begin choose drink eat grow hide
Present began chose drank ate grew hid
Past Participle begun chosen drunk eaten grown hidden
There's a little something the matter with them, don't you think? Look carefully
or you'll miss it.
There's a LOT the matter with them and you DID miss it.
Is it any wonder kids hate grammar when so much of it either doesn't make sense,
like what you see above, or is presented in a way that is unnecessarily
convoluted and complicated, e.g, Huddleston, Wardhaugh, et al?
brad.05dec10.
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/
|
