Grammar is based on viewpoints (?)

[metal56]

Perhaps when the first Irishperson asked "will you be wanting a cup of tea", they were playing with the language, and people worked out what was meant by referring to the core meanings. How else would such expressions emerge?

Do you think we were playing when we created this little gem in Irish-English:

"I am just after rebooting the computer just a few minutes ago."

And mebbe we were trying to be awkward when we kep answering questions in this way:

"Are you finished debugging that software?" "I am."


And it's possible that we focussed on the duration-of-time and not the point-in-time of a person stay with:

Will you be wanting a sandwich?

How else would such expressions emerge?

Derivation from our original language, mebbe?

[metal56]

I think that such an approach will confuse and possibly demotivate all but those with an interest in Semantics.

I've taught it for the past 5 years, it doesn't demotivate.Try.

[Lorikeet]

OK, Lorikeet. I suppose there must be lots of our colleagues around who feel as you do here. But let me press the issue once again: Why not give them the real scoop from the get go? Perhaps it is more appropriate for me to describe it differently. Why not use an explanation that fits all examples of the use of Past Simple Tense? It's an improvement on the old explanation. It's no more difficult a concept than "Past tense used for past time", and it has the handy advantage of not being a concept full of 'exceptions' or that has to be unlearned later.

Larry Latham

Because it's too hard to explain, Larry. I'm talking beginning here. Really beginning. If I don't understand something well myself, I'm going to screw up explaining it to someone else. And the last thing they need is to be even more confused. I don't think teaching them a different way from the other teachers they have concurrently will help them in this case. I do think, however, that our highest levels (which I'm not teaching currently) could benefit from a second look using a different underlying principle.

[woodcutter]

I still don't think that you quite see what I mean, so I hope you'll do me the favour of casting your judgement on this.

There is a relation between tense and time in English, a sentence such as

"I walked to the park"

is a past sentence because the core meaning of "walked" is "walk in the past".

However, that is pretty much it. There are no other kinds of verb forms with a core meaning including time, there is no grammatical lexical marking of the present or future. "I am walking in the park" has core meanings something like "1st person - existing - walk for duration of time - postion - park". It is only a "present" sentence because all sentences are assumed to be present unless otherwise marked. As soon as another time is indicated by a word with a core time meaning, such as yesterday or tomorrow, it can simply be tagged on to the sentence. In fact one can even launch into "So, I am walking in the park......" because time is not important here.

Where words with a lexical meaning of time do occur out of position, such as "now the cavemen were really happy", then it must be due to some understandable altering of perspective.

A clerk in a shop can walk up to a customer and say "Did you want to see the manager?". They cannot, however, say that if they are having a pleasant conversation and the customer suddenly erupts in anger. The logic of the literal meaning prevents it.

I don't see that there has been any example to refute this so far. "When did you want to go?" "When do you want to go?". The answer is the same, so the use of the past is unimportant. If time is unimportant, then it can be almost anything goes. But again, we cannot say "I met him tomorrow".

[metal56]

I don't see that there has been any example to refute this so far. "When did you want to go?" "When do you want to go?". The answer is the same, so the use of the past is unimportant. If time is unimportant, then it can be almost anything goes. But again, we cannot say "I met him tomorrow".

So how do you explain the speaker's chioces to your students?

"When did you want to go?" "When do you want to go?".

Why would the same speaker use each question alternately with different customers, in the same shop, each day?

[LarryLatham]

Because it's too hard to explain, Larry. I'm talking beginning here. Really beginning. If I don't understand something well myself, I'm going to screw up explaining it to someone else. And the last thing they need is to be even more confused. I don't think teaching them a different way from the other teachers they have concurrently will help them in this case.

And this is why you are an excellent teacher, Lorikeet. Your first concern is always for your students, and what you judge they will be able to understand and learn. How could I feel anything but respect for that?

But I disagree with your judgment. Perhaps it is because I have long ago accepted "distance" as the core meaning of past tense verb forms. I'm comfortable with that now. And I've used it in the classroom many times, and found that students do not have trouble with it...even the beginners. Remember that they are only beginners in English, not in life. If I teach them right from the beginning that distance is a fundamental and vital concept imbedded in thinking with the English language, that it is involved in such dichotomous ideas as this and that, here and there, then and now, as well as in the thinking about verbs (as immediate or remote), they pick up on it easily. Your concern about what they may learn from other teachers is a valid point, and must be factored into every individual teacher's decision about how to teach, but if we're going to make a successful transition from a poor explanation about how verbs work to a better one, there will be some period of time when students will not get it the same way from everybody. But is that a good reason not to adopt the better explanation? Not from my point-of-view.

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

There is a relation between tense and time in English, a sentence such as

"I walked to the park"

But I differ with you already, here, woodcutter. The reason I differ is because I do not see time as the "core meaning" here, but rather a secondary one. The way I see it, the core meaning remains distance, but in this particular case, the distance is in terms of time. There are other kinds of distance that also can be expressed with past tense verb forms...kinds that have little or nothing to do with time, but still express some kind of "distance."

Larry Latham

[LarryLatham]

I don't see that there has been any example to refute this so far. "When did you want to go?" "When do you want to go?". The answer is the same, so the use of the past is unimportant. If time is unimportant, then it can be almost anything goes.

Ahhh, if the use of past tense (notice I did not say here, "use of the past") is unimportant, then why does the speaker use it? Just coincidence? A slip of the tongue, perhaps? A mental coin-flip? I don't think so. There must be some reason which causes a speaker to choose the past tense form rather than the unmarked form. We have to try to find the explanation. We cannot afford to glibly dismiss it as "unimportant." And we dare not suggest as much to our students!

Larry Latham

[woodcutter]

As I said, my ideas here having nothing to do with what sentences will be generated, (see swan) only with what sentences cannot be generated because there is in fact a (minimal) tense - time correlation. Whether I am able to answer the did you/do you want a ticket poser accurately is not the point. You can say 'did you want a ticket' you can say 'do you want a ticket', the customer did, and does, it doesn't matter. The former, as I said, for one thing, carries a more polite feeling, that is one reason why it may be selected. The point is that the former is also literally true, along with being a more distant, polite construction. If not literally true, as in my example of the clerk with the instant-psycho, it is not used.

[LarryLatham]

...along with being a more distant, polite construction. (Emphasis mine)

Precisely! Are people more polite to people they know very well (their brother, for instance), or not well?

Larry Latham

[woodcutter]

I don't know why you ask - I agree that the past form may have a nuance of distance. (though in terms of the ticket scenario perhaps the politeness stems from an acknowledgement the customer has been waiting). We disagree only over the central meaning.

If the central meaning is distance, in what way is that manifested in the sentence-

"I slept in the bed"

Where low-level student X asks the meaning of that sentence, and I say it is
I (sleep-in-the-past) in the bed, what reply would you make?

[metal56]

I don't know why you ask - I agree that the past form may have a nuance of distance. quote]

Or the distance form may have a nuance of past in some of its uses.

[LarryLatham]

If the central meaning is distance, in what way is that manifested in the sentence-

"I slept in the bed"

Where low-level student X asks the meaning of that sentence, and I say it is
I (sleep-in-the-past) in the bed, what reply would you make?

Every teacher, of course, would and should answer it in his or her own way. But it is my hope that more and more teachers will begin to show students how distance defines past tense forms better than time does. Metal56, just above, expresses just the right attitude. It isn't that past forms show a "nuance" of distance. That idea suggests that there is a hint of distance in them. This is misleading, because the notion of distance is robust in past tense forms. It is their defining characteristic. Often, it is indeed true, the distance element is manifested in time, but we teachers should realize immediately that there are other uses of the distance concept that also apply to the use of past tense form. And that's the way we should teach it to our students. I'm tired of so many teachers complaining that it, "...will be hard to teach them that if they're beginners." Nonsense. Why should that be any harder to teach than past tense=past time? Especially when you have to squirm and then either confuse them or cop out with, "You'll get to that in your next class!", when a student asks embarrasing questions about particular uses that do not relate to past time.

OK. You asked about a particular example, and how I would handle it in a beginner class: I slept in the bed.

First, while it is certainly a possible sentence, I would point out that while it is totally "correct", do not expect to hear such a sentence outside the classroom. It is very unusual. If pressed for the meaning of the verb form, I would say that the speaker considers it a fact, and distant in time. It is not immediate.

Larry Latham

[woodcutter]

My wife is Korean, and prefers the floor to our usual bed. So let's say I return from a trip and ask "Where did you sleep?"

She replies "I slept in the bed". How does she know that my question, and how do I know that her answer, refers to the past, and not the future?

[LarryLatham]

Because, as I said above, your question and her answer postulate facts. In the situation you describe, your question does not request her speculation about theoretical possibilities. Events in the future cannot be seen as facts. If distant time is involved in the issue at hand, and it is seen as factual, it must be in past time.

Larry Latham