Your statement and your rejection of the use of had in the first frame are based on a number of assumptions, most of which you've never specified clearly.  I'll try to reconstruct your argument to the extent I can, recognizing that these are extrapolations from judgments you've made rather than analysis of arguments, which you haven't provided.

Assumption 1:  The tense of certain clauses is past.
Assumption 2:  Given assumption 1, the form of the verb must be preterit.  (I use that more specific term in preference to "past" to avoid confusion with the related term "past participle."  Preterit is used widely in historical grammars of English.)
Assumption 3:  Given assumptions 1 and 2, the writer/speaker has incorrectly placed "had" before a preterit verb form.

Here are some problems with this reasoning, whether it's your reasoning or a straw man I've created, and I'm willing to consider the latter possibility if you will detail the reasoning and methodology behind Assumption 1.  Tense is a function of the discourse, not just of the clause.  In many cases the tense of the clause is conditioned by factors beyond the clause or sentence.  What replicable method do you follow in determining that a particular clause is past and so should have a simple preterit verb?  I know you're not particularly interested in future tense, but notice that above I used a future ("I'll try...") to express an event that had already occurred before I began drafting this posting.

Assumption 2, if you do, in fact, hold assumption 2, and you haven't told us this, would bar, for example, the use of historical present, where a present tense is interpreted as past, as in "Shakespeare tells us not to limit mercy."  Merchant of Venice is about 400 years old.

Assumption 3 runs into problems with strong verbs, where preterit and past participle are distinct, but it's also based squarely on two assumptions that have themselves not been justified and for which no methodology has been provided.

Why should any grammarian, or anyone else for that matter, believe your judgments in the total absence of evidence and replicable methodology?

Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
Sent: 2009-03-12 08:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Pickles: People DO .. (one cartoon)

People DO put 'had' in front of past tense verbs.
Pickles
By Brian Crane




[http://wpcomics.washingtonpost.com/feature/09/03/12/wppic090312.gif]
.



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/