There is a simple explanation that some regular ATEGers may not want to
hear, so it is with some trepidation that I even reply.

I would think that Mr. Sparks wanted to set the scene for an ensuing
narrative which he planned to write in the past tense.  Since only a single
sentence was quoted, this idea cannot be confirmed.  It does, however, point
out that the sentence is not normally self-contained.  Over the years many
English speakers have learned to follow the custom borrowed from Latin and
other latinate languages to set such sentences in what they commonly know as
a past perfect tense.  This tense consists of a combination of the past
tense form of "have" along with a past participle.  The past participle has
served English speakers well as an adjective form of the verb to denote (1)
for transitive verbs, a passive. and (2) for any full verbs, a perfect
aspect (auxiliaries do not participate in tense).  There seems to have been
little resistance to the use of have to denote a perfect aspect in the
present tense.  However, for some reason the use of a past perfect seems
like over-kill to some.  It appears that almost any past perfect can be read
as a simple past if the interpreter is willing to understand the sequence of
sentences in the narrative and adverbial modifications as adequate to the
task of describing the sequence of events.

It is in maintaining a sequence of tenses and in making the indirect
paraphrase of a quotation that the past perfect seems to be the most
indespensible.  The modal auxiliaries also participate in both these
situations where "will" becomes "would" etc without any change in its modal
force.  The auxiliary "have" also becomes "had" without its changing
of perfect aspect.

I think that when the adjective form is found in attributive position before
a noun that is modified by it, the old form tends to be retained as
in "a swollen gland", but not *"a swelled gland."  Yet there is "his gland
has swelled" alongside "his gland has swollen."  The contrast between the
two perfect participle forms in verbs that have them, such as "struck vs.
stricken" "sowed vs. sown" "slid vs. slidden" "thrived vs. thriven" "shrunk
vs. shrunken" "shaved vs. shaven," etc. has the potential of causing
confusion about the formation of a perfect.  One tends to be used
in adjective environments and either one where a perfect aspect is desired.
The passive voice can have two interpretations because of the adjective
form.  For example, when I choose between "She was clothed in gold" and "She
was clad in gold" the former may be interpreted ambiguously as either a
predicate adjective or as a passive voice with her as patient.  In the
latter expression only the predicate adjective interpretation seems ready to
hand.  I think maybe the same sort of double entendre is present in forms of
the perfect aspect.  It has been mentioned previously that "forgot vs.
forgotten" are both selectable for the perfect aspect.  For the attributive
adjective only "forgotten" is available.

Bruce
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>     "Yesterday, she had taken her younger brother, Jonah, for a walk down
> the beach."  (Nicholas Sparks)
>
>         We know that people sometimes put 'had' in front of past tense
> verbs and we know that when they try to put 'had' in front of an irregular
> past tense verb, 'had took' doesn't sound right so they use 'had taken'
> instead of 'took'. It's called 'forcing the iregular past participle'.
>
> Why else did Sparks write what he did?
>  * *
> If anyone has a better explanation, let's hear 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/
>

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/