I think there are many little things that we overlook because we see what we expect to see. These are easily ignored. The chart that labels the present as past and the past as present is one such example of a trifle that we correct as we are disposed to see it. No doubt we have all seen the message whose words are all written with every letter scrambled but the first and last. Surprisingly the brain is still able to interpret and read the grossly mispelled words and interpret the message.
Pesonally, the fact that many grammars designate the second participle as a past participle is rather irksome to me. It gives the impression that tense is involved when nothing is further from the facts in the case. What is generally called a past participle is typically descriptive of a perfect or completed activity or situation. Indeed, for intransitive verbs the contrast between the first and second participles is the denotation of present versus past. However, for transitive verbs the contrast is between active and passive voice. In the participles the real commonality in denotation between intransitives and transitives would be that between imperfect and perfect aspect. The former term would then stand for what many make the present or active participle and the latter term would be for what is often called past or passive.
So the human brain is busy again seeing what it expects to see, even when it isn't there!
What is clear from all your posts is that you don't understand tenses. The Past Perfect is not unique to English, and it has a definite function on the time axis that cannot be reduced to the function of the Past Tense. In your redundant examples of "wrong usage" of "had" you fail to provide evidence that the Simple Past can peform the same function the Past Perfect performs.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Johnston <
[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:24
Subject: Re: common irregular verbs
To:
[log in to unmask]> Sorry to the list for feeding the trolls. I (had thought)
> thought this was a
> private message from Brad, and didn't realize he (had sent)
> sent it to everyone.
>
>
> ~~~~~
>
> THIS is why I persist. People, even ATEG people, DO put 'had' in
> front of past
> tense verbs.
>
>
> It's an inch deep but a mile wide. It's everywhere. As long as
> learned ATEG
> professionals persist, unwittingly, I shall persist as well.
>
> "feeding the trolls", Karl? Et tu, Brute?
>
> I should thank you, Brute, for proving my point so splendidly.
> Yes. Thank you. I
> hope some of the others are paying attention.
>
> .brad.06dec10.
> ________________________________
> From: Karl Hagen <
[log in to unmask]>
> To:
[log in to unmask]> Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 12:47:40 PM
> Subject: Re: common irregular verbs
>
> Sorry to the list for feeding the trolls. I had thought this was
> a
> private message from Brad, and didn't realize he had sent it to
> everyone.
> On 12/6/2010 9:37 AM, Karl Hagen wrote:
> > While it is true that there's a lot of mindless copying among
> grammar> books, that's not the issue here. Neither is the
> complexity of
> > Huddleston and the others. Huddleston and Pullum is a
> reference grammar.
> > It is _not_ intended for children, so there's no reason for
> them to
> > simplify.
> >
> > Anyway, complaining about the problems that grammar books for school
> > children have is a red herring. You still need to show that there's
> > something wrong with the technical understanding of the
> perfect in
> > standard grammar references like Huddleston and Pullum. Then
> we can talk
> > about how to present it to children.
> >
> > And no, there is nothing the matter with the paradigms you
> quoted. They
> > are correct, no matter what you say. Find me a book that says
> otherwise.> Until you can, your opinion has no weight. It's your
> bald assertion
> > against the entire weight of all the grammatical authorities.
> >
> >
> > On 12/5/2010 7:38 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
> >> You sent this back to me without comment. It reflects much of
> what's>> wrong with <many> most grammar texts. Much of
> grammar text content is
> >> mindless, careless repetition of things that don't make
> sense, as this
> >> one demonstrates. There's a lot of plagiarism in the grammar
> trade. One
> >> grammar text author told me what he wrote had to be right
> because he
> >> copied it from another text. I believe him because he lifted
> things from
> >> me, word for word -- things he clearly doesn't understand but used
> >> anyway.
> >> /Some Common Irregular Verbs, page 37./
> >> //
> >> /Past begin choose drink eat grow hide/
> >> /Present began chose drank ate grew hid/
> >> /Past Participle begun chosen drunk eaten grown hidden/
> >> **
> >> /There's a little something the matter with them, don't you
> think? Look
> >> carefully or you'll miss it./
> >> //
> >> There's a LOT the matter with them and y ou did miss it.
> >> Is it any wonder kids hate grammar when so much of it either
> doesn't>> make sense, like what you see above, or is presented
> in a way that is
> >> unnecessarily convoluted and complicated, e.g, Huddleston,
> Wardhaugh,>> et al?
> >> .brad.05dec10.
>
>
>
> 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"