When a narrative is written in the past tense, the remote past is a useful way of distinguishing events that occurred prior to the events of the narrative time frame. One can find thousands of examples, and it is easy to invent more, like this:

Rambo stealthily entered the hideout, looking for the cache of weapons. He expected to be alone, so he froze when he heard footsteps.  An assassin was in the room. Rambo’s heart raced, but he didn’t panic. He had alerted the Green Berets and knew help would arrive in moments.

The past perfect (had alerted) signifies the remote past and tells the reader that the alerting took place prior to Rambo's arrival at the hideout. Remove "had" and the reader would think he called them from the hideout after he heard footsteps.

The past perfect is so obviously useful to writers, has been a well-used part of English and other Germanic languages for their entire recorded history, and conforms to evident syntactic principles. To think otherwise would be odd. To make a lifetime obsession of assaulting the past perfect is--well--far beyond odd.

Dick Veit


On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Herb,
 
I understand that you don't fault the use of 'had' to mean the 'remote' past but what is the 'remote past'? That was my question to you. What is it? And whatever it is, is it something that those who teach English grammar should teach?
 
I think 'the past' is past. Everything from the beginning of time until this moment is "past". If you think grammar teachers should teach something called 'the remote past', I hope you will illustrate how you think it works, within the context of 'Standard English', which is what is taught, and hopefully learned, at this time in the history of the English-speaking world.
 
I talked to him an hour ago. I talked to him yesterday. I talked to him a week ago. I talked to him two weeks ago. I had talked to him three weeks ago? because everything longer ago that two weeks ago is 'remote past'? Or is everything before the Battle of Hastings 'remote'? or before the birth of Christ? When did it stop being 'remote' and start being 'past'? 
 
Please tell me what 'remote past' means and how it works. And, importantly, illustrate it, if you please.
 
.brhad.26feb10.
 
STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
Of course, the fact that remote past was a possible meaning for “had” eight centuries ago doesn’t mean that it is in the 21st c., but the usage has such a long, continuous, and consistent history that I find it difficult to fault it.
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/