Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Artris]

The test had a question like "which sentence is correct". Unfortunately a troublesome sentence made it into the final version.

I didn't hear you called my name.

While in its negative form this seems a very odd and little used sentence (searching the web, I can't find it used once) if we look at the positive form:

I heard you called my name.

It doesn't seem so bad. A scenario where it is used would be as follows. John is talking to Susan after a party. Susan didn't go but heard from a friend that her name had been called. Susan says "I heard you called my name."

It follows that Susan may have heard from her friends that everyones name but her own was called, so she could say "I didn't hear you called my name."

Next we can assume the word 'that' is omitted. This gives us:

I heard that you called my name.

You is the subject and comes after that so we can omit 'that'. Anyways in this form that acts as a conjunction with the subordinate clause 'you called my name' as a compliment to the statement 'I heard'.

At this point I think the sentence is correct however, at each point where I have been convinced by one co-teacher or another that I am wrong, another co-teacher has deigned to find some new information. Anyways, skipping to the end, the latest bit is that the sentence is wrong because of something to do with "heard" meaning "know" and therefore requiring a past participle 'had called' instead of 'called'. Basically a co-teacher has suggested that

'I heard that you had called my name'

is correct and therefore

'I heard that you called my name'

is incorrect. Please, someone help! I need some sort of clear cut rule to mark 'I didn't hear you called my name' incorrect or correct. An analysis of the sentence 'I heard that you had called my name' would be useful as well.

Thanks.

[Artris]

So it seems that 'had called' is the past participle with the helping verb 'had'. The meaning is that the action happened in the past, ended in the past and is no longer happening.

The form 'called' is simply past tense. It means that the action happened in the past and has ended. You may call my name again or not at all.

Which is more correct? Honestly both seem to have the same meaning in this scenario in which case I would lean towards 'called' as being the simpler statement and 'had called' as being unnecessarily complicated.

[nathanrutledge]

Job discussion forum please.

Let's consult the trusty Oxford Practical English Usage, Third Revision.

418 Passives (7)-3

hear, see, make, and help

These verbs can be followed, in active structures, by object+infinitive without to (see 281). In passive structures to-infinitives are used. Compare:

I didn't hear you called my name.

you+call = object+infinitive. Called is wrong.

[Artris]

[johnnyrook]

Artris, from your example of:

"I heard you called my name"

wouldn't the correct way to form the negative for the given context be:

"I heard you didn't call my name"?

[Artris]

[nathanrutledge]

[Artris]

Again it seems we both agree for the most part. I am limited in what I can do in this scenario however: I am merely a consultant.

Anyways, there is another reason that in subordinate clause form this sentence is wrong.

Look at 423: Past Perfect
[...]The past perfect is common after past verbs of saying and thinking, to talk about things that happened before the saying or thinking took place.
I told her that I had finished.
[...]

Basically, as is, the action of heard and called would have to happen at the same time. This is not the case so if the student treats [you called my name] as a subordinate clause she will still be wrong because it should be [you had called my name].

[Jane]

Grammar aside, how could anyone who speaks English as a first language think that sentence is correct?!

[Artris]

[The Cosmic Hum]

[winterwawa]

OP, I would explain the sentence like this.

The positive sentence the sentence is "I heard you call my name."

The rule for making the sentence negative is first determine what verb is the main verb of the sentence. In this sentence the main verb is 'hear'

Then look for a helping verb which always carries the tense and aspect in the negative sentence. If the 'to be' verb (is, are, was, were, am) is absent as a helping verb then 'do' must be used to form the negative and thus becomes the helping verb.

Since the helping verb always carries the tense and aspect, the main verb (in this case call) can not be used in the past tense. To do so makes the sentence grammatically incorrect.

SO, the tense (past) and the aspect (negative) are added to the helping verb, in this case 'do'. The past of do is did, the negative is not, contracted to n't.

To illustrate, here is how a grammar book might diagram this.

To begin, use the positive form.

I heard you call may name.

Add the helping verb.

I do heard you call my name.

move the tense to the helping verb.

I did hear you call my name.

Add the negative aspect to the helping verb.

I did not hear you call my name.

Contract the negative.

I didn't hear you call my name.

In conclusion. There is no possible way the sentence
"I didn't hear you called my name." could ever be considered grammatical. Sorry Cosmic Hum, it just can't be.

Why, because the word 'called' is not the main verb, so it can not carry tense. 'I' is the subject, and 'hear' is the main verb. 'you' is the object of the main verb.

I didn't hear you.

While 'call' is the verb of 'you', it is not the main verb in the sentence so can not receive tense nor aspect.

"call my name" simply explains what it is that I didn't hear you do. Other examples could be

I didn't hear you come in the room.
I didn't hear you leave.
I didn't hear you drive up.
I didn't hear the phone ring.

So, in effect, you could say that "you call my name" is the complete object of the sentence.

My two cents. Hope it helps.

[The Cosmic Hum]

winterwawa wrote:

[winterwawa]