Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 6 Oct 1997 02:02:52 -0700 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Alan asked:
My question, then, is: can you use "must" in the
past, particularly since> the context makes it clear that the author
is referring to people who lived> long ago?> > Here's part of the
sentence:> >
"Since women were an integral part of a group that had not taken the>
concept of individualism to its extremes [...] their behavior *must*>
reflect their respect for tradition."> > Anxiously awaiting your
opinions,> > Alan Hynds> -------------------
---------------------
Alan, It's been years since I've studied linguistics and various kinds of
grammars, but if my memorry serves me correctly, must is often viewed as a
modal, the past tense of which--mought, I believe--is now archaic. If I
were writing that sentence, I would use "must have reflected." If you
want to make the meaning still stronger, I suppose you could use "had to
have reflected." I find thee latter a bit too strong for (most)
historical reconstructions, but as the translator, I realize, you have an
obligation to reflect the author's intent.
Marie
-------------------
Marie Wilson Nelson
National-Louis University
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|