TJ,
I was thinking about "When I finished [reading]the book, I returned it
to the library." I think perfect aspect gives a sense of completion
and verbs like "finished" or "completed" work in the same territory.
But I agree: "had finished" would make it more explicit.
Craig>
Craig,
> Your first and third points are fine. I disagree about "finished"
> because by itself it does not separate the two events in time.
>
> tj
>
>
>
> On Tuesday 01/04/2011 at 7:02 pm, Craig Hancock wrote:
>> TJ,
>> In "After he had finished the book, he returned it" there are
>> three
>> ways in which time reference is being established. One is "after" as
>> subordinating conjunction. Another is "finished," which construes the
>> reading as over. The third is the past perfect. As alternative,
>> consider "When he had read the book, he returned it," where all the
>> weight of time relation falls on the past perfect. "When he read the
>> book, he returned it" would sound as though both were happening at the
>> same time. It's not unusual, of course, to have redundancy within the
>> grammar.
>> Here's another example, this time in consecutive sentences. "When
>> my
>> wife came home, she was in for a great surprise. I had cleaned the
>> house." The past tense alternative, "I cleaned the house," would imply
>> that it happened after her return rather than before.
>>
>> Craig
>> >
>>
>> A fairly direct definition might include what follows:
>>>
>>>
>>> A succinct explanation of the past perfect tense may be found in
>>> George Curme’s A Grammar of the English Language. Curme
>>> defines the
>>> past perfect tense: This form represents a past action or state as
>>> completed at or before a certain past
>>> time. His example is “After he had finished the book, he
>>> returned
>>> it.” Two actions whose sequence is made explicit by the two tense
>>> forms.
>>>
>>>
>>> The past tense regularly is found to function with an adverb of time
>>> instead of a second verb in the the past tense: The bell had rung
>>> before midnight last night.
>>>
>>>
>>> The past perfect tense is often found in the progressive form: The
>>> bell had been ringing for a long time by midnight.
>>>
>>>
>>> The past perfect tense may be found in both the active and passive
>>> voices: The bell had been rung before midnight. The sexton had rung
>>> the bell before midnight.
>>>
>>>
>>> These last two possibilities may be found together: The bell had been
>>> being rung when he got there.
>>>
>>>
>>> As with the present perfect and the future perfect tenses, the past
>>> perfect is a device for distinguishing between two points in time.
>>> The present perfect denotes an event occurring in the recent past: He
>>> has graduated by now. The future perfect deals with an action
>>> expected to occur prior to a later action or time in the future: He
>>> will have graduated by 2012.
>>>
>>>
>>> tj
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 01/04/2011 at 1:07 pm, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Herb,
>>>> Great plan. There would, I think, be two parts to
>>>> it--what do
>>>> we agree
>>>> to assign the term "past perfect" to (as a form) and how does that
>>>> form function in discourse. I think it would also help to look at the
>>>> past perfect at work in a text that most people admire. Maybe I'll
>>>> take on that part of it.
>>>>
>>>> Craig>
>>>>
>>>> Craig,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good suggestion, that we have a substantive, productive
>>>>> discussion of the past perfect. Brad wants a definition that will
>>>>> work
>>>>> for a fifth grader, and we've pretty much agreed that a simpler
>>>>> treatment
>>>>> works at that level but that such a treatment doesn't work as a
>>>>> description of a grammatical phenomenon. The quest for a definition
>>>>> is
>>>>> itself part of the problem since what grammarians do is describe
>>>>> phenomena. Definitions, to the extent that they are possible and
>>>>> useful,
>>>>> have to change over time, and language change is never smooth,
>>>>> allowing a
>>>>> neat change to a definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll work on a description of the past perfect, considering its
>>>>> history
>>>>> and the fact that it's a composite form combining tense and aspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Herb
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 11:58 AM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: NOT In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
>>>>>
>>>>> Geoff,
>>>>> The problem, as I see it, is that we have NOT had
>>>>> a
>>>>> productive
>>>>> discussion of the past perfect. To do so would require taking Brad
>>>>> out of the equation. He brings up the question, then denounces any
>>>>> position he doesn't agree with. People get angry and it goes downhill
>>>>> from there. Brad seems intent on denying center stage to any position
>>>>> other than his own.
>>>>> I'm not sure I would call what he adds "spice."
>>>>> Last time I
>>>>> was at 4
>>>>> C's, two people told me they quit the list, citing Brad. We are
>>>>> losing
>>>>> people, and unfortunatly, people who are themselves teachers, not
>>>>> just
>>>>> gadflys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's more than a little irony in this discussion about the need
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> list moderation, presumably due to our past perfect friend (PPF -
>>>>>> that's to be dinstinguished from a BFF). The irony, quite simply, is
>>>>>> that said friend generates more discussions about topics both
>>>>>> important and quaint than just about anybody else, so if we kissed
>>>>>> PPF
>>>>>> goodbye, the number of postings would drop dramatically. If you
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> like the past perfect discussions, don't participate - and if you
>>>>>> want
>>>>>> to talk about something else, then serve up something that the group
>>>>>> will find more interesting than the past perfect! Besides, our PPF
>>>>>> adds a certain amount of shall we say spice to the conversation -
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> all, he got this topic going!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geoff Layton
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 21:58:39 -0500
>>>>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Linguist List works as a moderated list only because it is
>>>>>> funded
>>>>>> by grants and by contributions from its user community so that it is
>>>>>> able to hire and train graduate students to do monitoring and
>>>>>> various
>>>>>> other support tasks. I remember when it was not moderated, and it
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> prone to the sorts of problems we're talking about now. While
>>>>>> LinguistList is an invaluable source of information for the
>>>>>> profession, I do miss the free exchange of ideas, in spite of the
>>>>>> occasional bad manners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can always delete or block postings from particular participants
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> we wish, but, much as I dislike the occasional tone discussions have
>>>>>> taken here I would regret to see the list moderated, even minimally.
>>>>>> It is unfortunate that some choose not to participate because of
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> occasional unpleasantness, but writing teachers, language arts
>>>>>> teachers, linguists, grammarians, editors, etc. are all prone to the
>>>>>> same fits of temper and bad manners as the rest of the population.
>>>>>> Blocking the extremes unfortunately also blocks the occasional very
>>>>>> interesting thought. A civil society deserves that adjective only
>>>>>> because it tolerates the odd incivility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Herb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 5:39 PM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would second Dick's suggestion; however, the problem, I think,
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be to find someone to do the moderating. As I understand it, this
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> be a time consuming task on some lists (perhaps not quite so bad on
>>>>>> ATEG), and I suspect there isn't enough money to hire a moderator.
>>>>>> Any
>>>>>> suggestions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
>>>>>> improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Sent: Mon, January 3, 2011 4:23:38 PM
>>>>>> Subject: In support of a (minimally) moderated listserv
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This listserv is currently unmoderated and entirely unrestricted in
>>>>>> content, allowing anyone to post anything whatever and relying
>>>>>> solely
>>>>>> on occasional appeals to participants' better natures to preserve
>>>>>> civility.
>>>>>> At the same time many have lamented that the listserv has lost
>>>>>> membership because of the online behavior of one or two persons.
>>>>>> Some
>>>>>> repeatedly try to persuade those individuals to act better, even in
>>>>>> the face of abundant evidence that all previous such efforts have
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> exactly the opposite effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I favor a lightly moderated listserv, with a published set of
>>>>>> minimally restrictive standards and intervention by a moderator only
>>>>>> in the rarest, most egregious, and most persistent violations of
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> standards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The argument for non-moderation is that academic discourse should be
>>>>>> an open marketplace, with all ideas free to compete without
>>>>>> restriction imposed on the basis of orthodoxy or popularity. I agree
>>>>>> completely. No one should ever be excluded from this listserv
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> their ideas are unorthodox or unpopular or considered discredited.
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> can all cite ideas once considered crackpot that are today's
>>>>>> paradigms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Openness is but one of two essential factors in a functioning
>>>>>> marketplace of ideas. The other is dialogue. Ideas must be exchanged
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> debated.
>>>>>> People who propose ideas must be willing to defend them and to
>>>>>> respond
>>>>>> to reasonable objections to their arguments. People must also feel
>>>>>> free to engage in debate with others without fear that by so doing
>>>>>> they will be subject to personal attacks or harassment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some proponents of an unmoderated list might argue that any
>>>>>> restrictions, no matter how reasonable or minimal, would create the
>>>>>> slippery slope to totalitarianism, and that we have no choice but to
>>>>>> suffer bad behavior even if it means members flee the list in
>>>>>> droves.
>>>>>> I would argue that reasonable people can draw a reasonable line, and
>>>>>> that standards would in fact preserve rather than stifle discussion
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> dialogue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Standards, as I said, should be minimal. You may propose or discuss
>>>>>> any ideas within the broad framework of teaching grammar and (even
>>>>>> broader) language in general. You may disagree with, challenge, or
>>>>>> even express antipathy or respond sarcastically toward the ideas of
>>>>>> others, but you may not attack other members personally, or
>>>>>> ridicule,
>>>>>> intimidate, or harass them (on or off list). You must be willing to
>>>>>> engage in debate and to respond to reasonable challenges to the
>>>>>> ideas
>>>>>> you express. You may not shout the same assertions over and over
>>>>>> without ever explaining or defending them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The moderator's job would be to do very little. In the face of
>>>>>> egregious violations of these standards, the moderator should
>>>>>> privately remind the offender of the standards. If the first
>>>>>> admonition goes unheeded, the moderator should issue a second
>>>>>> reminder
>>>>>> with a warning. If that too fails, the moderator may remove the
>>>>>> offender from the listserv. How do we safeguard against abuse by the
>>>>>> moderator? We must assume that a reasonable person can apply
>>>>>> reasonable standards. We can direct that the moderator notify the
>>>>>> list
>>>>>> of any removal (quoting the prior warnings issued) and hold off if
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> is considerable opposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I have learned anything from this listserv over the years it is
>>>>>> that some people make a sport of disrupting listservs. No social
>>>>>> pressure will ever moderate their behavior--in fact, provoking such
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> reaction is exactly what they most enjoy. Only the threat of removal
>>>>>> will have an effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now anyone is free to oppose (or second) my proposal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>> 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/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/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> 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/
>
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/
|
