Science is not just about a careful and systematic approach to
expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal with other
interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields and
subfields. One person cannot simply declare himself right; positions are
subject to peer review.
Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect, passive) as
"certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the opposite--a
good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps
especially his/her own. Even when evidence seems overwhelming, as it is
for evolution and global warming, a good scientist presents those as the
best current explanation of the evidence, not as a final and definitive
answer. This may seem wimpy to some, but it is a cornerstone of what
good science is all about.
When someone wants to offer a new way of seeing things within the
academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the Literature
in some form or another. Those who propose the new way of seeing things
are under the obligation to show that they have reviewed the current
literature and understand it before they offer something new. That
doesn't mean presenting the weaknesses of that view, but presenting its
strengths. The burden, as it should be, is not on the status quo
position, but on the person who is proposing the new view to explain why
it better accounts for the observed facts.
I don't present this as a post to Brad; like many on the list, I
find discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But I think it's
important to assert ground rules that can make it possible for us to
discuss issues in a useful way.
It is helpful to know what most experts currently believe about a
topic. We should be able to post that without fear of attack.
Craig
On 12/6/2010 9:51 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
> Karl,
>
> I'm sorry you're angry but remember, YOU took it to the list and YOU
> are the person who is angry. And YOU are the person who called me a
> "troll", which is OK. That's what angry people do. No problem.
>
> But as long as were here, let's let the list look at your definition
> and let them decide if it is what we (Karl and Brad) are looking
> for, which is the kind of definition you say "can be found in any
> decent grammar text".
>
> These are your words exactly, from 02dec10. "My definition: The past
> perfect in English is a compound tense that combines the primary
> past tense with the perfect, which is a secondary tense system. The
> past perfect prototypicaly functions to locate an event prior to a
> second past event."
>
> I replied, (this is exact): "Don't be impatient. We're getting
> there. The question was, How do you define it? Tell me what the past
> perfect is." And you replied, "The past perfect functions to locate
> an event prior to a second past event". So if I say, "I went to the
> store yesterday and bought potatoes", the past perfect functions to
> locate the prior event, going to the store, from the second event,
> buying the potatoes? 'Zat how it works? Or do you want to adjust
> your definition? And you replied, "No, I don't want to change it. It
> is correct." So, ATEG, here is the definition: "The past perfect
> functions to locate an event prior to a second past event". Is it
> good or is it not-so-good? Is it what we're looking for? or can we
> do better? (Remember, we're talking about Teaching Grammar. That's
> what this is all about.)
>
> .brad.06dec10.
>
> ------------------------- *From:* Karl Hagen <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask] *Sent:* Mon, December 6, 2010
> 8:39:21 PM *Subject:* Re: common irregular verbs
>
> Pot, meet kettle. Everyone else on the list agrees with Eduard. For
> my money, the real arrogance is in thinking that you are the only
> one who knows the truth about the perfect.
>
> Further, my discussion about the perfect with you was off the list,
> and you have just misrepresented what I told you in private to the
> entire list.
>
> For the record, I gave you a definition, and then I corrected your
> imprecise paraphrase of my definition. I did not back away from it.
>
> I should have known that you were too stupid to understand the
> distinction.
>
> Also, I stand by my use of the perfect in my last message to the
> list. It's Standard English, and the only thing you demonstrate by
> trying to ridicule it is your complete ineptitude as a judge of
> English grammar.
>
> Once again you have demonstrated why you deserve to be shunned, and I
> deeply regret my folly in writing to you.
>
> This will be my last message to you. I am adding you back to my idiot
> filter.
>
>
> 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/