The danger of being perceived as mocking is what makes requests in English such a minefield.
The degree of remoteness/deference involved depends on your relationship with the person you are addressing and what you are asking off him. Too liitle deference and you are considered forward, too little and you are considered sarky.
In the example given "what was your name, please?" two things come into play here. Remoteness and time. Tme because you are asking the person what they said before in the past, and remoteness because you have chosen to use the past form to ask them to give you information that is still current in the present.
On the other hand "when did you want to travel" is clearly the use of the remote form for deference since it's only in Basil Fawlty type travel agencies that where you planned to go will have no relation to the actual ticket booked.
It always amazes me when I hear English speakers complain about the complications of using "tu" and "vous" , or "tu" and "usted", when you have the same distinctions in English but no single form to express them.
now
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
I have clearly said this:lolwhites wrote:Go on, then. Can you explain the examples I gave in terms if time? As far as I, and the other native speakers on this forum, can see, they all refer to the moment of speaking and have nothing to do with the past. Nothing you've said demonstrates otherwise.I will prove to you the remoteness to be rubbish.
First, using the conventional way of time expression, I will explain all here and more examples you could possibly invent
As you see, if you cannot understand what is remoteness, how can we talk about it? If you cannot give a better definition, then remoteness is vagueness. Shall we argue here how we shall express vagueness? This is my point. What you brag at is only vagueness.Shun wrote:Secondly, can you please decipher all the terms Metal56 has said? What do these acronyms stand for: COND, PROP, HAB, and IND? If you need help, please ask Metal56. Should you find his definitions are not standard, please provide whatever you know about remoteness or immediacy.
Shun
A LOGICAL WAY OF EXPRESSING TIME
I have discussed the pattern of "I WAS GOING TO buy some beef for dinner" before, actually more than a few times, under different subjects in different forums. I still remember that, in one of discussions, the main point is whether "go to buy" is one action or two, using one tense or two tenses.
Some regarded there are two actions combined, as we have:
Ex: He claims TO HAVE KNOWN her.
Ex: She confesses TO HAVE KNOWN about it for some time.
== We would express exactly which one action is finished. (Our conclusion was that they happen mostly in present happenings, but not unanimously.)
However, some argued "go to buy" is one verb:
Ex: Yesterday I WENT TO BUY some beef for dinner.
== We don't usually say "Yesterday I WENT TO HAVE BOUGHT some beef for dinner." (Our conclusion was that it is usual in reporting past happenings, but not unanimously.)
In all the discussions, however, I can't remember anyone using the word remoteness, or else, I would have asked what it was. Actually, only in this forum have I encountered the "widely-known" remoteness theory.
--------------------
Let's go back to my own part of buying. On the way to the supermarket, if I meet Joe and talk with him, I may tell him what I PLANNED TO DO: "I WAS GOING TO BUY some beef for dinner."
In order to form a comparison of time, as I usually do in explaining tenes, the buy process shall start at home. If I PLAN TO BUY some beef for dinner and have to go to market, I ask my children what they want, "I AM GOING TO the market, what do you want for dinner?" That is, I haven't started to go yet. But as I have walked out home, it is a different story: the planning is over. By the time I have met Joe, I would say I WAS GOING TO buy some beef. Please pay attention also to the fact that I wasn't saying to him "I BOUGHT some beef". That is, at this moment, the going out is finished, while the buying isn't. It is just a logical way of speaking, according to Time.
My all discussions above contained, of course, more than just a few examples. Actually we went through some of Lolwhites', and that is why I have been confident to promise:
I said this because I further assumed that, after all, one has to create sentences only according to time, not to something we don't know, like remoteness. Further, I trust in Otto Jespersen's theory of time comparison, which has been reinforced by my long-term study. Now, let's go visit Lolwhites' examples for remoteness, one by one:
--------------------
--------------------
On the other hand, because I need to use WANTED TO BUY, I have to use WONDERED to coordinate the time. It is because of time comparison: I WONDERED if you WANTED to buy double glazing.
Please note that we are not saying "I wondered if you BOUGHT any double glazing." If so, that means the buying is also finished -- it is time to pay, and this will wake up the customer.
However, if you insist WONDER is not past, you may use Simple Present, which is actually much more common, at least on the internet:
"I wondered if" = 268,000 matches (including most in story writing where Simple Past is the only choice.)
"I wonder if" = 1,590,000 matches.
In other words, the Simple Past form is much less often.
--------------------
On the other hand, auxiliaries in past form is well known and accepted even long before remoteness theory has ever existed. As auxiliaries are a special group of verb forms, you may start another thread for them in the past forms, maintaining your remoteness, and I will follow.
--------------------
As for "What WAS your name?", I did answer the following at once:
I maintain that "What WAS your name?" happens only in the middle of a dialogue. That is, it is etiquette we ought to exchange names before further conversation. Now in the middle of it, I may use Simple Past to go back our etiquette:
A: Did you see my car key around here?
B: Yes sir, we picked up a key. When did you lose it?
A: Last Wednesday.
B: Yes. It then is yours. But you have to sign up with identification.
A: Of course. Thank you very much.
B: What was your name, please?
Therefore, I still find it odd to say at the very first of the conversation:
?"Hello, good morning madam, what was your name?"
Also, in filling a form, I don't think we shall ask "What WAS your name?", instead of the Simple Present. Of course, I have checked it on internet. Those matches for "what was your name" are mostly with again. Plus, all of them are in the middle of a dialogue.
At least, there are no matches for "hello what was your name", which supports my conjecture that we don't use "What WAS your name?" at the very beginning of a dialogue.
--------------------
Metal56 has also given another example for remoteness:
--------------------
In conclusion, all of Lolwhites examples can be well explained by simple theory of time comparison. Please note that, people are not quite aware of this kind of comparison, and the noticeable evidence is, as I have repeated for many times, people prefer to discuss tenses on one-sentence basis. Yes, nearly everyone agrees with me that the context is important to decide a tense, but what they are doing constantly, on one-sentence basis, gives easy way to the birth of falsity. In my opinion, falsity is a must, if we depend on the one-sentence basis. The bad thing is, as their reality of explaining tense is disappointing, they clench on the new dream and never let go, building castle in the air. Adopting remoteness is tantamount to jumping from the pot into the fire.
--------------------
THE LOGIC OF REMOTENESS
What then is the logic of remoteness theory? Lolwhites denied my intrepretation of remoteness, which is about time:
Please note that what kind of distance it is. Ironically, we are using Simple Past here, and therefore it is a remote distance. Then the question is, why shall we create a remote distance from the person? Are we so hostile that we have to build up a remoteness, even invisible, to keep the person away from us? What if this nonsensical theory gets known to most people? Now, after some meditation, I only know that using Simple Past, my friend wanted to form a remote distance from me. What shall I do? As normal human being, I had better not believe it. There is not an iota of truth in the theory. I regard it as an insult of intelligence.
But if it is not an invisible remote distance between the interlocutors, then what kind of a distance it is? The only precious point of remoteness is vagueness, which protects teachers from further asking by students.
Also, what is the logic in the claim that one can give a judgment to all these things instantly:
Remoteness, bringing together the notions of modality (COND, PROP, and possibly HAB), distance from present (past), distance between the speakers (politeness), distance through mediation by someone else's consciousness (IND).
I am definitely a liar if I claim I can incorporate it into every sentence in my message, within the instant I type it. Are you people aware of the phenomenon that one cannot do the typing while, at the same time, making a dialogue with someone? Our brain cannot cope with two different cognitions at the same time. Now, on one hand we have to express ourselves in the message we are typing, and on the other hand check the most complicated notion of Remoteness. Can you really do that? Even if we torture our students, they still cannot do it. Remoteness theory is rubbish, terrible one if we give it to young students. We've deprived them of sense of time, and this is unpardonable.
As no one really knows what remoteness or immediacy is, using tenses correctly are sheer by luck. However, it is the name of the game that will save the students: the names of Simple Past, Simple Present, Future Tense, etc. are already good enough to guide them like Global Positioning System. Therefore, now as I heard of "remote verb form", I was deeply frustrated. My head was dropping. We would no longer have past/present tenses anymore, but remote verb form and immediate verb form. You don't even know what you are doing.
I advice we shall live honestly.
Shun Tang
I have discussed the pattern of "I WAS GOING TO buy some beef for dinner" before, actually more than a few times, under different subjects in different forums. I still remember that, in one of discussions, the main point is whether "go to buy" is one action or two, using one tense or two tenses.
Some regarded there are two actions combined, as we have:
Ex: He claims TO HAVE KNOWN her.
Ex: She confesses TO HAVE KNOWN about it for some time.
== We would express exactly which one action is finished. (Our conclusion was that they happen mostly in present happenings, but not unanimously.)
However, some argued "go to buy" is one verb:
Ex: Yesterday I WENT TO BUY some beef for dinner.
== We don't usually say "Yesterday I WENT TO HAVE BOUGHT some beef for dinner." (Our conclusion was that it is usual in reporting past happenings, but not unanimously.)
In all the discussions, however, I can't remember anyone using the word remoteness, or else, I would have asked what it was. Actually, only in this forum have I encountered the "widely-known" remoteness theory.
--------------------
Let's go back to my own part of buying. On the way to the supermarket, if I meet Joe and talk with him, I may tell him what I PLANNED TO DO: "I WAS GOING TO BUY some beef for dinner."
In order to form a comparison of time, as I usually do in explaining tenes, the buy process shall start at home. If I PLAN TO BUY some beef for dinner and have to go to market, I ask my children what they want, "I AM GOING TO the market, what do you want for dinner?" That is, I haven't started to go yet. But as I have walked out home, it is a different story: the planning is over. By the time I have met Joe, I would say I WAS GOING TO buy some beef. Please pay attention also to the fact that I wasn't saying to him "I BOUGHT some beef". That is, at this moment, the going out is finished, while the buying isn't. It is just a logical way of speaking, according to Time.
My all discussions above contained, of course, more than just a few examples. Actually we went through some of Lolwhites', and that is why I have been confident to promise:
Shun wrote:First, using the conventional way of time expression, I will explain all here and more examples you could possibly invent.
I said this because I further assumed that, after all, one has to create sentences only according to time, not to something we don't know, like remoteness. Further, I trust in Otto Jespersen's theory of time comparison, which has been reinforced by my long-term study. Now, let's go visit Lolwhites' examples for remoteness, one by one:
--------------------
The case is much same as above. It starts at home as I AM PLANNING TO go to Hong Kong, for example. By the time I have made decision and go to book a flight, it is another story. The agent in the travel center must have understood I have already made up my mind, so she or he would ask, "When DID YOU WANT to travel?" Please note that s/he wasn't asking "When DID YOU TRAVEL?" That is, the wanting is now finished, but not the travel. It is simply a logical way of telling the Time.Lolwhites wrote:Client: I'd like to book a flight to Hong Kong.
Agent: When did you want to travel?
--------------------
As for WANTED TO BUY, it can be explained as same as the example above. It is a way of selling. As I suggested that you have already finished the wanting, you may not probably change your mind, eating your words. The only consequence is, of course, to finish the buying part. It really doesn't matter much whether you buy this one or that one.Lolwhites wrote: Salesman to potential customer: I wondered if you wanted to buy any double glazing.
On the other hand, because I need to use WANTED TO BUY, I have to use WONDERED to coordinate the time. It is because of time comparison: I WONDERED if you WANTED to buy double glazing.
Please note that we are not saying "I wondered if you BOUGHT any double glazing." If so, that means the buying is also finished -- it is time to pay, and this will wake up the customer.
However, if you insist WONDER is not past, you may use Simple Present, which is actually much more common, at least on the internet:
"I wondered if" = 268,000 matches (including most in story writing where Simple Past is the only choice.)
"I wonder if" = 1,590,000 matches.
In other words, the Simple Past form is much less often.
--------------------
I have even said this, without knowing remoteness. Same as the few ones above. In the middle of a conversation, WAS HOPING or HOPED is very likely compared with another statement. Also, Simple Past can start itself as a time frame.Lolwhites wrote: Employee to manager: I was hoping you could give me a pay rise this year.
On the other hand, auxiliaries in past form is well known and accepted even long before remoteness theory has ever existed. As auxiliaries are a special group of verb forms, you may start another thread for them in the past forms, maintaining your remoteness, and I will follow.
--------------------
As for "What WAS your name?", I did answer the following at once:
I said it is frequent, but the question now is that someone insisted an example without again.Shun wrote:Even so, the case can be explained even without formality. It happens many times a day. I asked someone, "What IS your name, please?" Next moment I forgot the name, so I had to ask again, "What WAS your name again?" In this case, I was pointing out you DID tell me the name, but I forgot and wanted to ask again what WAS the name you had told me.
I maintain that "What WAS your name?" happens only in the middle of a dialogue. That is, it is etiquette we ought to exchange names before further conversation. Now in the middle of it, I may use Simple Past to go back our etiquette:
A: Did you see my car key around here?
B: Yes sir, we picked up a key. When did you lose it?
A: Last Wednesday.
B: Yes. It then is yours. But you have to sign up with identification.
A: Of course. Thank you very much.
B: What was your name, please?
Therefore, I still find it odd to say at the very first of the conversation:
?"Hello, good morning madam, what was your name?"
Also, in filling a form, I don't think we shall ask "What WAS your name?", instead of the Simple Present. Of course, I have checked it on internet. Those matches for "what was your name" are mostly with again. Plus, all of them are in the middle of a dialogue.
At least, there are no matches for "hello what was your name", which supports my conjecture that we don't use "What WAS your name?" at the very beginning of a dialogue.
--------------------
Metal56 has also given another example for remoteness:
It can now be explained same as "When DID you want to travel?" above. Please note that we do not actually say, "DID sir BUY that jacket, (or just wear it in the shop)?Metal56 wrote:DID sir plan to buy that jacket, (or just wear it in the shop)?
--------------------
In conclusion, all of Lolwhites examples can be well explained by simple theory of time comparison. Please note that, people are not quite aware of this kind of comparison, and the noticeable evidence is, as I have repeated for many times, people prefer to discuss tenses on one-sentence basis. Yes, nearly everyone agrees with me that the context is important to decide a tense, but what they are doing constantly, on one-sentence basis, gives easy way to the birth of falsity. In my opinion, falsity is a must, if we depend on the one-sentence basis. The bad thing is, as their reality of explaining tense is disappointing, they clench on the new dream and never let go, building castle in the air. Adopting remoteness is tantamount to jumping from the pot into the fire.
--------------------
THE LOGIC OF REMOTENESS
What then is the logic of remoteness theory? Lolwhites denied my intrepretation of remoteness, which is about time:
The poor thing is, we would never check exactly what we want to express, when we accept the remoteness theory. What a disappointment. Now I try to check up for you.Lolwhites wrote:Oh yes it is! The speaker uses a remote form to "distance" himself/herself from the listener in order to sound more polite.Shun wrote:But please note that Lolwhites' example "What WAS you name, please?" (even without again) is not remote at all.
Please note that what kind of distance it is. Ironically, we are using Simple Past here, and therefore it is a remote distance. Then the question is, why shall we create a remote distance from the person? Are we so hostile that we have to build up a remoteness, even invisible, to keep the person away from us? What if this nonsensical theory gets known to most people? Now, after some meditation, I only know that using Simple Past, my friend wanted to form a remote distance from me. What shall I do? As normal human being, I had better not believe it. There is not an iota of truth in the theory. I regard it as an insult of intelligence.
But if it is not an invisible remote distance between the interlocutors, then what kind of a distance it is? The only precious point of remoteness is vagueness, which protects teachers from further asking by students.
Also, what is the logic in the claim that one can give a judgment to all these things instantly:
Remoteness, bringing together the notions of modality (COND, PROP, and possibly HAB), distance from present (past), distance between the speakers (politeness), distance through mediation by someone else's consciousness (IND).
I am definitely a liar if I claim I can incorporate it into every sentence in my message, within the instant I type it. Are you people aware of the phenomenon that one cannot do the typing while, at the same time, making a dialogue with someone? Our brain cannot cope with two different cognitions at the same time. Now, on one hand we have to express ourselves in the message we are typing, and on the other hand check the most complicated notion of Remoteness. Can you really do that? Even if we torture our students, they still cannot do it. Remoteness theory is rubbish, terrible one if we give it to young students. We've deprived them of sense of time, and this is unpardonable.
As no one really knows what remoteness or immediacy is, using tenses correctly are sheer by luck. However, it is the name of the game that will save the students: the names of Simple Past, Simple Present, Future Tense, etc. are already good enough to guide them like Global Positioning System. Therefore, now as I heard of "remote verb form", I was deeply frustrated. My head was dropping. We would no longer have past/present tenses anymore, but remote verb form and immediate verb form. You don't even know what you are doing.
I advice we shall live honestly.
Shun Tang
I wanted to see more examples from you.lolwhites wrote:Go on, then. Can you explain the examples I gave in terms if time? As far as I, and the other native speakers on this forum, can see, they all refer to the moment of speaking and have nothing to do with the past. Nothing you've said demonstrates otherwise.I will prove to you the remoteness to be rubbish.
First, using the conventional way of time expression, I will explain all here and more examples you could possibly invent
You miss the point. These examples may not be the most common use of the "Past", nevertheless they exist and have to be explained. It can't be done in terms of time so we need to find another explanation. They, and all other uses of the Past, can all be accounted for by Remoteness; they can't all be accounted for by past time.You can't depend the remoteness theory on just a few examples here, can you?
Any example of "Past Simple" can be acounted for by remoteness; not every example can be accounted for by reference to Past Time. Even you haven't tried to do that. I'm dying to know how "When did you want to travel?" (from an earlier post) refers to past time.
Shun
That's a very interesting issue. In my humble opinion, given that a great many speakers have been known to utter, "go and buy"--albeit erroneously in terms of grammar--I'd say the utterance provides more than some indication that those speakers view 'go to buy' as two acts. What other evidence, really, aside from speaker knowledge, does one actually need to produce?shuntang wrote: I still remember that, in one of discussions, the main point is whether "go to buy" is one action or two, using one tense or two tenses.
You're right. There isn't an iota of truth in interpreting Remoteness in that way.shuntang wrote:Then the question is, why shall we create a remote distance from the person? Are we so hostile that we have to build up a remoteness, even invisible, to keep the person away from us? What if this nonsensical theory gets known to most people? Now, after some meditation, I only know that using Simple Past, my friend wanted to form a remote distance from me. What shall I do? As normal human being, I had better not believe it. There is not an iota of truth in the theory. I regard it as an insult of intelligence. But if it is not an invisible remote distance between the interlocutors, then what kind of a distance it is? The only precious point of remoteness is vagueness, which protects teachers from further asking by students.
The term Remoteness, with regards to tense, as I understand it, and as it was explained on usingenglish.com, refers in general to the temporal distance between two events in time, like this,Utterances spoken at the present
I ate. (Simple Past; not connected to the Present)
I have eaten. (Present Perfect; connected to the Present)
I had eaten.... (Past Perfect; connected to another Past event)
I will eat. (Non-Past; not connected to the Present or the Past)
It's it wonderful, though?shuntang wrote:Therefore, now as I heard of "remote verb form", I was deeply frustrated. My head was dropping. We would no longer have past/present tenses anymore, but remote verb form and immediate verb form. You don't even know what you are doing.
Casiopea,
Hello, Cas, you are here. Welcome! It seems that I cannot post new topic in UsingEnglish.com anymore, I don't know why. Maybe you can tell me?
Perhaps I pushed wrong buttons, but I really don't know.
The remoteness said there, or by you above, is so similar to time, so I guess I've known the whole thing. We have discussed enough.
Shun
Hello, Cas, you are here. Welcome! It seems that I cannot post new topic in UsingEnglish.com anymore, I don't know why. Maybe you can tell me?
Perhaps I pushed wrong buttons, but I really don't know.
The remoteness said there, or by you above, is so similar to time, so I guess I've known the whole thing. We have discussed enough.
Shun
Last edited by shuntang on Sat May 29, 2004 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's news to me.shuntang wrote:Hello, Cas, you are here. Welcome! It seems that I cannot post new topics in UsingEnglish.com anymore, I don't know why. Maybe you can tell me? Perhaps I pushed the wrong buttons, but I really don't know.
I'd try again if I were you. 
I beg to differ:shuntang wrote:...Present Perfect can be said word for word again to Simple Past, this is I promise you, as same as before.
Use the Present Perfect when you want to place 100% focus on an event/act, irrespective of whether it's over (i.e. I have eaten) or is still in progress (i.e. I have lived here for 3 years).
Use the Simple Past when you want to place 100% focus on the completion of an event (e.g. I ate; I lived here for 3 years).
The difference between the Present Perfect and the Simple Past is that the former has nothing to do with whether or not an event is over or still in progress. It has to do with the event as a topic. The Simple Past cannot express that meaning.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Casiopea, Did you see my post, "go figure"? There are only a few verbs that can be linked to another verb like this: "stop","try","come and "go". There are als a couple of idiomatic expressions such as "wait and see", "come up and see [me some time], "wait and see" and "get down and bogie".That's a very interesting issue. In my humble opinion, given that a great many speakers have been known to utter, "go and buy"--albeit erroneously in terms of grammar--I'd say the utterance provides more than some indication that those speakers view 'go to buy' as two acts. What other evidence, really, aside from speaker knowledge, does one actually need to produce?
The Americans often leave the "and" out after "come" and "go".
eg "Come fly with me," and "Go get it."
See my Venn diagram for how this fits in with the other verb structures.
http://www.geocities.com/endipatterson/Catenative.html
The trouble is I haven't found a way of linking the non-modal verbs followed by the bare infinitive - "come" and "go" to the verbs linked by "and". Any suggestions gratefully received.
Keep telling him, Casiopea, you are right and Shun is wrong, but that doesn't stop him searching for more elaborate ways to "prove" that he's right. I think it's a matter of faith to him.Use the Present Perfect when you want to place 100% focus on an event/act, irrespective of whether it's over (i.e. I have eaten) or is still in progress (i.e. I have lived here for 3 years).
Use the Simple Past when you want to place 100% focus on the completion of an event (e.g. I ate; I lived here for 3 years).
The difference between the Present Perfect and the Simple Past is that the former has nothing to do with whether or not an event is over or still in progress. It has to do with the event as a topic. The Simple Past cannot express that meaning.
As soon as you tell me to focus, I notice the difference:Casiopea wrote:I beg to differ:
Use the Present Perfect when you want to place 100% focus on an event/act, irrespective of whether it's over (i.e. I have eaten) or is still in progress (i.e. I have lived here for 3 years).
Use the Simple Past when you want to place 100% focus on the completion of an event (e.g. I ate; I lived here for 3 years).
As above, "it is over" means it is finished by now, a past.
Whereas, "still in progress" means unfinished by now, a present.
Present Perfect does have dual functions to express either a past or a present time. Now, being irrespective of them is not to focus on them, so I don't understand the whole thing: to place 100% focus on not to focus. It is absurd. Do you want me to focus or not focus?
----------------
I find the negative statements here cannot help much. The only positive "It has to do with the event as a topic" suggests that we would have a lot of topics in a book. It is absurd.The difference between the Present Perfect and the Simple Past is that the former has nothing to do with whether or not an event is over or still in progress. It has to do with the event as a topic. The Simple Past cannot express that meaning.
Cas, please listen to Andrew Patterson. Please turn to his topic.
Shun Tang
This is your standard smoke-and-mirrors escape, Shun. You have done nothing other than pontificate on a one-sentence basis until this point. Why move the target now? And what is the bold type supposed to prove?
I'd tend to agree with you on the contextualisation point - albeit for reasons not connected with knee-jerk attempts to save face.
However: try to develop a coherent place in your argument for the idea of the 'paragraph' (your word, applied frequently down the years) and you'll find - probably more so than with isolated utterances - that communication context is a social contract between addresser and addressee, not something that reduces exclusively to an itemised rule-based grammar (something that is context-free by definition) or some overarching theory of context. So you'll get no mileage from that as a justification of your present position.
A suggestion: do a google search on 'Structuration theory' and Teun van Dijk's work on Sociocognition in language. Both these are landmark advances because they get us out of the ridiculous constraints of both Chomskyan formalism (language is exclusively a cognitive matter) and Hallidayan structuralism (language is a social construct which individuals conform to through habituation). To justify any of the points you repeatedly try to make you'll have to get your head round this stuff.
Regards, Al
I'd tend to agree with you on the contextualisation point - albeit for reasons not connected with knee-jerk attempts to save face.
However: try to develop a coherent place in your argument for the idea of the 'paragraph' (your word, applied frequently down the years) and you'll find - probably more so than with isolated utterances - that communication context is a social contract between addresser and addressee, not something that reduces exclusively to an itemised rule-based grammar (something that is context-free by definition) or some overarching theory of context. So you'll get no mileage from that as a justification of your present position.
A suggestion: do a google search on 'Structuration theory' and Teun van Dijk's work on Sociocognition in language. Both these are landmark advances because they get us out of the ridiculous constraints of both Chomskyan formalism (language is exclusively a cognitive matter) and Hallidayan structuralism (language is a social construct which individuals conform to through habituation). To justify any of the points you repeatedly try to make you'll have to get your head round this stuff.
Regards, Al
Al,
As I say, everyone agrees that the context is important in deciding a tense, do you? If you do, why do you then have to avoid and escape from the reality? Wouldn't you want to see how they can shift between remoteness and immediacy in a paragraph? Wouldn't you want to count how many topics in a paragraph as Cas claimed "Present Perfect has to do with the event as a topic"?
As you don't know, in UsingEnglish.com, I had the longest thread, longer than anywhere else, defending against their varying suggestions that between Simple Past and Present Perfect, there is some difference. If they had achieved workable definitions, why Cas would have needed to try new ones here? And have the new ones posted any threat to me? Don't be joking.
To tell the truth, I was reacted to this:
------------------------
Shun Tang
Al, you must be joking? Save face from whom? Escape from whom? Who has given me a question in term of tense I failed to follow? I will not promise I will answer anything correctly. But please, why shall I escape from tenses questions I have not yet seen?You wrote:This is your standard smoke-and-mirrors escape, Shun. You have done nothing other than pontificate on a one-sentence basis until this point. Why move the target now? And what is the bold type supposed to prove?
I'd tend to agree with you on the contextualisation point - albeit for reasons not connected with knee-jerk attempts to save face.
As I say, everyone agrees that the context is important in deciding a tense, do you? If you do, why do you then have to avoid and escape from the reality? Wouldn't you want to see how they can shift between remoteness and immediacy in a paragraph? Wouldn't you want to count how many topics in a paragraph as Cas claimed "Present Perfect has to do with the event as a topic"?
As you don't know, in UsingEnglish.com, I had the longest thread, longer than anywhere else, defending against their varying suggestions that between Simple Past and Present Perfect, there is some difference. If they had achieved workable definitions, why Cas would have needed to try new ones here? And have the new ones posted any threat to me? Don't be joking.
To tell the truth, I was reacted to this:
If you Al couldn't see Andrew want me to stop, it is your problem. I recommend that one-sentence basis stop for a while. It is time for studying tenses in a paragraph. The bold type implied I mean it.Andrew Patterson wrote:Keep telling him, Casiopea, you are right and Shun is wrong, but that doesn't stop him searching for more elaborate ways to "prove" that he's right. I think it's a matter of faith to him.
------------------------
If they have linked anything to tense, please tell me. I only know the basic part of English: tense.You wrote:A suggestion: do a google search on 'Structuration theory' and Teun van Dijk's work on Sociocognition in language. Both these are landmark advances because they get us out of the ridiculous constraints of both Chomskyan formalism (language is exclusively a cognitive matter) and Hallidayan structuralism (language is a social construct which individuals conform to through habituation). To justify any of the points you repeatedly try to make you'll have to get your head round this stuff.
Shun Tang
Hello Al,Al wrote:This is your standard smoke-and-mirrors escape, Shun. You have done nothing other than pontificate on a one-sentence basis until this point. Why move the target now? And what is the bold type supposed to prove?
I'd tend to agree with you on the contextualisation point - albeit for reasons not connected with knee-jerk attempts to save face.
However: try to develop a coherent place in your argument for the idea of the 'paragraph' (your word, applied frequently down the years) and you'll find - probably more so than with isolated utterances - that communication context is a social contract between addresser and addressee, not something that reduces exclusively to an itemised rule-based grammar (something that is context-free by definition) or some overarching theory of context. So you'll get no mileage from that as a justification of your present position.
A suggestion: do a google search on 'Structuration theory' and Teun van Dijk's work on Sociocognition in language. Both these are landmark advances because they get us out of the ridiculous constraints of both Chomskyan formalism (language is exclusively a cognitive matter) and Hallidayan structuralism (language is a social construct which individuals conform to through habituation). To justify any of the points you repeatedly try to make you'll have to get your head round this stuff.
Regards, Al
This post is not in reply to your post. It's
To Whom It May Concern:
For those of you who are new to or just getting the hang of Shun Tang's presentation and style, allow me this opportunity to share with you this: He has been at this for the past five years--on this board as well as on other boards--and he's had a rather difficult go of it, too. What you've said or wanted to say or haven't yet said, he's heard and has been told again and again, over these past five years, and those are just the years I am aware of; there're probably more. My advice to those of you who are tired of it all is to not get upset or frustrated but to move away from the keyboard and slowly walk away. [/i]
All the best,
Cas,Casiopea gave advice to readers here and wrote:What you've said or wanted to say or haven't yet said, he's heard and has been told again and again, over these past five years, and those are just the years I am aware of; there're probably more. My advice to those of you who are tired of it all is to not get upset or frustrated but to move away from the keyboard and slowly walk away.
At least you didn't deny we have had a long discussion over there.
Last year as I first visited that forum (in which I am still posting and discussing these days), you warned readers of me at once with similar message, and we people there still had a long talk. But last time you warned them at the very beginning, while this time at the end of the discussion. Personally, I find this kind of advice childish, implying they cannot walk away by themselves.
If you didn't clearly noted that "those are just the years I am aware of", they may think I am a liar because I have told them I have studied English tense for decades.
Before internet, I had to ask about tenses in letters. I didn't trust English grammars anymore after I had recognized that they all had hidden away past time adverbials for Present Perfect, and then concluded the tense doesn't stay with past time adverbials. I had to ask EFL professors, as I thought they must have known something about the tense. As I reported here, in a way of answering my questions, they posted me an old issue of ELT Journal, published by Oxford University Press in association with The British Council, October 1984. In the Journal there is a comment in which P.S. Tregidgo asked to people How far have we got with the Present Perfect? Then it reinforced my suspicion that people use tenses very well, but don't know how to explain why we use them. Even today on internet, we may still find frustrated teachers confess the tense is difficult and ask for help. What do all these tell us? The answer is I am a trouble maker just because I am in the same position as theirs?
The date of the old issue of ELT Journal they posted me would have implied approximately how long I had continued the discussion. I didn't subscribe it. I have only one issue of the Journal, the one they posted to me free of charge. Please update your information about how long I have been learning English tenses.
If we know, on one hand, that Apartheid is not righteous, why do we, on the other hand, keep annoying that some people in South Africa are demanding equality? What I mean is, if in explaining Present Perfect we are on one hand still hiding away the Past Family (such as in the past xx years) so that it is easier for us to explain it, why do we on the other hand condemn the ones who don't believe the explanation?
What I am arguing is that, even you keep hiding away the Past Family, you still fail to explain tenses. What if I admit yes, you have a good explanation now because of concealment of the Past Family, does it make you feel any better and more logical? If I stop pointing out the sin and you will live on the righteousness, tell me. I can change my mind very easily.
Shun Tang
It is often claimed that 'now' in fiction is quite different from 'now' in conversation.LarryLatham wrote:This discussion has given me new understanding of Michael Lewis' meaning for what he terms the "immediacy" of present forms. He contrasts that with "remoteness", which is associated with some other forms. While remoteness is not hard to comprehend, immediacy is somewhat more complex. But this discussion of NOW helps me to realize that Lewis' immediate has possibilities that are more varied than simply 'at the present moment'. It was a niggle that has bothered me a little, but a little less now.
Thanks, guys.
Larry Latham
'Now' in fiction refers to the present time in the on-going fictional situation, but 'now' in conversation refers to the present moment, which is changing, as often observed in anutterance like (2).
(2) Not now, not now. Now!
The time each 'now' refers to is a different moment. On the other hand, the following is an example of 'now' in fiction.
Immediate contexts and reported speech
(3) She leaned against the high-backed bus seat and watched the last of the fast-food restaurants and muffler shops fall away. Now it was just the countryside — newly ploughed fields and belts of trees that were turning that fabulous cloudy green that belongs only to April.
(S. King, Rose Madder2).
'Now' is used here in a sentence in the past tense. We don't use it in conversation that way. I propose to analyse it as follows. 'Now' in (3) should be processed in the immediate contexts created by the preceding utterance. After reading the first sentence, we find that the second sentence represents her judgment. If so, 'now' should refer to the time at which the judgment was made, and in fact this is the optimally relevant interpretation.
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/PUB/WPL/ ... uchida.pdf