<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
.
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.
~~~~~~
This is the Polar Bear Gambit and should not be allowed from students, who use the ploy to dodge the question. If we have enough brown shoe polish, we can make a polar bear into a brown bear. There are a thousand variations and they'll try them all. Don't be fooled. All there is is all there is. We don't get to know whether the author fought with his wife at breakfast or has unpaid back taxes.
I will pull up what surrounds the Nicholas Sparks quote and you can see if there is some other reasonable explanation for why he seems to have tried to put 'had' in front of what is, by virtue of its function, a past tense verb and then forced the irregular past participle.
Stand by. I'll find it if I can. I think it's worth doing.
.brad.05may10.
--- On Tue, 5/4/10, Webmail bdespain <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Webmail bdespain <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: forcing the irregular past participle
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 3:04 PM
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/