To my ears the original Post example leaves the time period of the
marriage unspecified, implies that the marriage is over, and is therefore
totally fine grammatically.
"She knew he had been married at the time of their prior meeting" *also*
means that to her knowledge he *was not* married at the time of their
meeting. He might still have been married, but his implication to her at
the time was that he was not. If his implication or statement was that he
was still married, it would be "She knew he was married at the time of
their prior meeting."
The confusion here seems to come from English's convention for reported
speech, in which simple present becomes simple past, simple past becomes
past perfect, and present perfect also becomes past perfect. This is a
rule worth breaking when the above type of confusion looms. But in any
case, the rule doesn't apply here, because the narrating verb phrase is
"She knew" not "She said."
--- "Veit, Richard" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Brad,
>
>
>
> I agree that "was" would imply they were still married at the time of
> the testimony, but saying that they had been married leaves it
> unspecified whether or not they were married when the deputy testified.
> For example, you could say, "She knew he had been married at the time of
> their prior meeting, but she was uncertain whether he was still
> married."
>
>
>
> Dick
>
> ________________________________
>
> Richard Veit
> Department of English
> University of North Carolina Wilmington
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad Johnston
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:05 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: compelled by context
>
>
>
> "Michael Williams, 32, was scheduled to die last year for a 1993 rape,
> robbery and murder. Instead, he will get a new hearing because an
> investigator found that the forewoman of his jury had been married to a
> deputy sheriff who testified against him."
>
> The Question: was the forewoman married to the deputy sheriff at the
> time of the trial?
>
>
>
> The Answer: The way it is worded, that the forewoman had been married to
> the deputy sheriff, they were not married at the time of the deputy's
> testimony.
>
>
>
> Had it been worded that the forewoman was married to the deputy sheriff,
> they were married at the time of the testimony.
>
>
>
> In either case, their relationship would have been ruled prejudicial but
> it is doubtful the writer of the Post item made a conscious decision,
> one way or the other. He or she was probably just settling for routine
> bad grammar.
>
>
>
> This can serve as a partial reply to someone who questioned what I meant
> when I wrote that unless timing sequence is indicated in the sentence,
> or compelled by context, there can be no past perfect. He asked what
> does, "compelled by context", mean?
>
>
>
> If the writer wanted it known that the forewoman had been married to the
> deputy but was not married at the time of the trial, such context would
> compel the tense of the verb as it was written.
>
>
>
> I have a better example of compelled-by-context for you.
>
>
>
> .brad.22apr08.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> it now.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62
> sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20> 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/
|
