Then we disagree on what’s grammatical, because Greenbaum’s
examples are grammatical. Greenbaum wrote a grammar carefully based on usage,
and that example, the uhs aside, is grammatical.
Herb
From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brad
Johnston
Sent: 2009-04-08 19:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Herb re Lester's Grammar
--- On Wed, 4/8/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
wrote: Brad,
This
is the clearest statement you’ve made of your understanding of past
perfect. There are two problems with it. First, it requires that
both events be in the same sentence, so a two-clause sentence is required.
There
is nothing in Lester's examples that gives the slightest intimation
that such a conclusion is reasonable. The past perfect does not
require that both events be in the same sentence. Everyone at ATEG
understands this, Herb.
But
a past perfect can be used correctly if the other event is in the context ..
Resipsa Loquitor. Thou doth preach to the choir .. even
in the non-linguistic context. Consider something like the following:
A
group of us at the conference decided to go to a movie one evening after
sessions were over. Most of the group wanted to see “Slum Dog
Millionaire.” None of them had seen it. I had. I spent the
evening reading the latest Alan Furst novel.
Both
past perfects occur in single clause sentences. Both refer to a time
before the decision.
The
second problem is that the past perfect can serve either as the past of the
past or as the past of the present perfect. Greenbaum (Oxford English
Grammar, p. 273) illustrates this with the sentence
Uh,
had you realized (should
read, "did you realize")
before this meeting that uh the Scott Cooper’s surveyor (had) has not
yet been to the premises? This is not the only past
perfect error in Greenbaum, as can be clearly demonstrated.
The
first past perfect is a past of a past and the second a past of a present
perfect. The past perfect is never the past of the past nor is the past
perfect the past of the present perfect, as can be clearly demonstrated. (The
uhs are in the original because Greenbaum’s grammar uses almost exclusively
example sentences from the International Corpus of English--Great Britain
(ICEGB) and the Wall Street Journal. They represent English usage from
1989-1993. Greenbaum does not edit the examples. He
should if he's going to include them in a grammar book.
Others have gotten themselves into this same bind. Herb
All
of that notwithstanding, Herb, it would be ever so pleasant of you to comment
on the Lester items below, i.e., what is there as opposed to what is not
there. Lester wrote the book; I didn't.
.brad.08apr09.
P.S. I just wrote these words to Craig. I think I'm
willing to stand behind them, just as they stand. "If you can't define
it, and explain it, and illustrate it, in a way that fits any and all
circumstances, you don't understand it." If you, Herb, can't
define the past perfect, and explain it, and illustrate it, in a way that
fits any and all circumstances, you don't understand it. If you can, please show
us. Otherwise, you have no (what-the-courts-call)
"standing". Don't lay it back on me and don't tell me what
Huddleston thinks. If you can do it, do it. If you can't, well, maybe you
should just quiet down a bit and let others have a go at it. .bradagain.08apr09. From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Brad Johnston
|
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/