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
. |
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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/