Thanks, Jack. Nice of you to drop by. Are you set for, or can you be set
for,html, "color and graphics" by whatever name? .. so that this is bold and
this is bold and red and this is underlined andthis is in italics?
.brad.28dec10.
________________________________
From: "Dixon, Jack" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, December 27, 2010 1:03:58 PM
Subject: Re: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect
Brad:
You may respond to me off the listserv if you want to keep the suspense going --
or on the listserv. I would define the past perfect as the aspect of the past
we use to express the first of two actions that occurred at different points in
the past. That is, past perfect is used to express the action in the remote
past, while the simple past is used to express the action that happened closest
to the present. Clearly, I am wrong.
All I ask is two things: 1) what is the past perfect? 2) what is the source of
your definition/usage if all the other sources are wrong?
If you have answered these two questions in the past, I beg your indulgence. If
you answer these, I'll file away your response so that I will not have to
trouble you again.
Jack
[log in to unmask]
________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Brad Johnston [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: T-J-Ray and the past-perfect
Here's what happens, T.J. I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what
is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the
past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice, they think, I
better look it up, just to be sure.
The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed
at of before a past time spoken of" <Webster's 11th Edition>. They think, hmmm.
The battle of Hastings had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That
doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the
way, to reconsider their entry for the present perfect before the 12th Edition
goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.)
Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that
came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past
perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past
of the the present perfect", which we all know isn't true. <English Grammar,
Sidney Greenbaum, 1986>
Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's
see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past
or prior to another past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other?
<Latin for Dummies, Hull, Perkins, et al.>
Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other
illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He
had died in 1920, before his son was born". <A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language, Longman, 1985>
"The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past",
<Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993>
"The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded
another", <Handbook of Technical Writing, Alred, Brusaw & Oliu, 2003>
"The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with avoir and etre and is used
to say what had happened", <Teach Yourself French Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland>
(Isn't this a dandy?)
"The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the
past", <The Free Dictionary>
"The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended
at another point in the past", <Gareth Jones Website>
"The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or
condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended."
<University of Ottawa>
"The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may
denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past."
<Descriptive English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman>
I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that
if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and
inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are
these people talking about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what
it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or trying to teach it,
since no one seems to know what it is.
Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been
willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is had + the past
participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a
train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more
recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping
dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire.
ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this
listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't.
They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you
see a sample of above. The "definitions" are all over the map and there
are hundreds more like them.
Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect?
If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will,
as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point.
Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at
this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including
but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still
seems far away. Maybe you can help us.
.brad.27dec10.
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/