> Brad,
   This sentence doesn't make any sense to me.
> "The focus of the thread is whether the timing sequence, essential to the
> proper use of the past perfect, must be contained in the sentence or can
> it be compelled by context."

   The Reacher item certainly uses past perfect in a necessary way. Your
other examples are of uses not so essential. Why would you call them
incorrect? Are unnecessary words always incorrect? Is it incorrect to
say "The plane will leave in an hour?" Would the same rule apply to
pronouns? You seem to have missed the point of my post.

   Like the rest of the list, I have a feeling the discussion really goes
nowhere, but that may be because you keep ignoring other people's
points. We can agree to disagree on issues like this; it's part of what
allows a collegial list to keep going.

   You should think about writing your position into an article. Maybe the
Ateg Journal would consider it. If you do so, though, you should
include a thoughtful description of what other people think. Other
people view the past participle differently, and that is not a trivial
consideration. You can't win anyone over if you don't respect their
current views.

Craig
>
>
> Hi, Craig, nice of you to stop by. Your grammar book is on its way to me
> via inter-library loan.
>  
> You say,  "The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that most people
> don't equate correctness with "minimum words."
>  
> Nor do I.
>  
> The focus of the thread is whether the timing sequence, essential to the
> proper use of the past perfect, must be contained in the sentence or can
> it be compelled by context. The Reacher item is an example of "compelled
> by context", which has nothing to do with the number of words unless it
> involves idle but meaningful words in front of verbs.
>  
> "where Lucy had sat", cannot be otherwise.
>  
> .brad.07aug08.
>  
> ~~~~~~~~
>
> On Fri, 9/5/08, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  
> Brad,
>
> It's a big jump from "compelled by context" to "correct". Would that be
> true of other choices as well? It would be easy to cut the first "he" and
> the second "block" in the first sentence, but I would hardly call them
> incorrect. "Reacher was hungry and [he] needed more coffee, so he led
> Vaughn another block north and another [block] west to the dinner."
>
> We can cut "the place was" and let "practically empty" follow a comma or
> just use a "which" (one word replaces two). How about "Reacher stood [for]
> a second and [then] slid into the booth....". If we can do without "for"
> and "then", are they incorrect as well?
>  
> We have a parallel situation with "will" when used as a mainly time
> reference auxiliary. "The plane will leave/leaves in an hour." Would "will
> leave" be incorrect as well?
>  
> The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that most people don't equate
> correctness with "minimum words."
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/