I think Brad's response is very emotional. I think he has invested a lot of himself in the question of tense and the sequence of tenses. Let me attempt the following response.

1) Not as simple as Brad seems to think. Is the tense of the first sentence meant to set the context for the second? Are both sentences meant to stand in the same context, one that has already been set up by the test? Where is the context? The examples are uncomplicated enough, and that is the very source of the dilemma. The question seems to be about sequence of tenses, but they contrast in sequencing. The first seems to sequence with some external assumed situation in the present/past. The second seems to set up the situation in the present/past time and relate its second statement to this situation.

2) What I think it demonstrates is that without setting up the situation in time, it is never clear what the sentence itself is meant to do with its tenses. The first, viz. third, example simply sets up a situation, i.e., the state of being upset, in the present, viz. past, time, relating it to another situation, i.e., an action in the past. The second, viz. fourth, example sets up the present, viz. past, time of the state, but relates it to a previous action (which by implication must have also occurred in the past).

3) Certainly the idea of straight-forward (highly prized in journalism) is good. The set up and context are key. Sometimes the constant use of simple tense without aspect can be annoying. This makes for lively writing, probably because the situations recounted have to be related to each other by the reader. I wonder, "When is this story going to come together?" Maybe this style of suspense is part of the O'Henry's legacy.

4,5) The "past of the present perfect" of course relates to the tense, the form of "have." The time indicated by aspect is still relative in this case, simply relative to a past time that has already been set up.

6) They are convoluted and arcane, probably because they attempt to explain something that comes so naturally. Perhaps the vocabulary is lacking. I think part of the problem is the misunderstanding that somehow aspect should refer to time. Tense refers to time, but aspect relates to (previous) time. What is so arcane about that? (Maybe the fact that reference is itself a relation, or that "meaning" can refer to reference and relation.)

>>> Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> 02/14/08 8:45 AM >>>

( 16 ) They are amazed. They never heard of this song.

( 82 ) They are amazed. They have never heard of this song.

( 6 ) They were amazed. They never heard of this song.

( 93 ) They were amazed. They had never heard of this song.

( 45 ) John is upset because his application was turned down.

( 55 ) John is upset because his application has been turned down.

( 37 ) John was upset because his application was turned down.

( 64 ) John was upset because his application had been turned down.

Brad's conclusions:

1.) Damned interesting because of the diversity of answers to uncomplicated examples. They are short, unambiguous, and probably constitute the simplest quiz any of us have seen since the 4th grade, yet look at how much disagreement there is among professional grammarians, including this morning's complaint from Herb.

2.) Look at the four sentences about John. We are 45-55 and 37-64. With that much disagreement among professionals, is it any wonder that students are confused? I think we need to consider carefully what this demonstrates.

3.) In the set on top, the 82 will want to explain to the 16 why the straightforward "they never heard" is less effective than to say, "they have never heard". I need to know, too.

4.) You wouldn't let me continue long enough to get definition on what is demonstrated next. The 82 (with the help of 11 of the 16) jumped to the conclusion that the past perfect is the past of the present perfect. It can be demonstrated why this is not true but we have all heard it so often that we just feel in our bones that 'had' belongs in front of "never heard".

5.) The same can be said of John 55 going for John 64. Once they decided that his application "has been turned down" instead of the straightforward "was turned down", it is an easy leap to John 64 (with the help of 9 from John 45) to say ... well, you see what it says in John 64.

6.) Convoluted theories and arcane presumptions aside, 45 and 37 have it right: "is and was" and "was and was" don't need any help. They work well just as they are.

7.) So, 82 and 55, please tell us why you want to use the present perfect. Then tell us why you jumped to 93 and 64. Just because it sounds right? Stand on any street corner and listen. That's what you'll hear. (Is that too tough? O.K., strike that last comment starting with "Stand on any corner". I withdraw that, without prejudice I hope.)

8.) Back to you. I'm going to ponder #8 for a time.

.brad.14feb08.

Hey, Gram, is this interesting and constructive enough for you? You better duck because rocks and bottles are going to be flying, some of them at you, just for being so snotty.

This list is a forum for people who are actually interested in learning about grammar and language, not a dumping site for the ravings of an apparent lunatic.

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 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/