On the effects of over-simplified rules

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:37 pm

How's this for some useless gobbledygook, unexpectedly from my beloved Eastwood (that seems to be similar to what SJ was proposing that made me go, "Hang on a second!", oh so many pages ago now!):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can change the tense when it is uncertain if the statement is true. Compare these examples.

We'd better not go out. The forecast said it's going to rain.

I hope it doesn't rain. ~ It might. The forecast said it was going to rain.

The present tense (is) makes the rain sound more likely. We are more interested in the fact of the rain than in the forecast. The past tense (was) makes the rain less real. We are expressing the idea that it is a forecast, not a fact.
===============================================

Hmm. I notice that "The forecast said..." appears in both examples (similar to "He said he..." in SJ's now-infamous original "minimal pair"

). Nary a qualifying modal or phrase modifying what was said in the forecast itself; and I wonder if we are to assume that the original weather forecast was identically worded in both instances: "It is going to rain this afternoon" (?It was going to rain this afternoon).

How then can the speaker in the second example above feel that the weather report is any less valid, accurate or real? Is this grammar for real?! Are all grammars this "helpful"?!

Still, I suppose you could argue that it's up to us whether we believe the weathermen...

I get the feeling that remoteness might well enter into reported speech, it's just, the examples so far "demonstrating" it have been somewhat lacking (typical British understatement there!).

Probably the best thing to do is to select starting examples that are worded somewhat differently (can we presume they were so from the grammar books?), rather than spinning one example in various dubious, decontextualized ways, to give the students some idea of how things actually are interpreted in the process of being reported...or is that how we've all been doing it all along, and I just haven't realized? Can even the seemingly simplest things in teaching ever really be a given? This is an instance, I feel, where too much is being merely intimated or assumed rather than thrown open to patient scrutiny.

To put it plainly, I am VERY interested in the PROCESSES by which the person doing the reporting has come to believe and therefore wants (apparently) to say something, and get a little tired of just having to take whatever grammarian's word for it regarding the "required" end product.

(That is more aimed at Eastwood than you, SJ!

).

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:02 am

Fluffy furball wrote:We can change the tense when it is uncertain if the statement is true. Compare these examples.

We'd better not go out. The forecast said it's going to rain.

I hope it doesn't rain. ~ It might. The forecast said it was going to rain.

The present tense (is) makes the rain sound more likely. We are more interested in the fact of the rain than in the forecast. The past tense (was) makes the rain less real. We are expressing the idea that it is a forecast, not a fact.

Whoops!

You’d better look again at these sentences, Fluffy. The way I see them, there is no present tense or past tense here! In fact, the verb is identical in both sentences: rain. The structure of the verb phrases here is characterized by the auxiliaries (be) going to, which, taken together, identify Prospective Aspect, not a tense (because no morphology of the verb is involved...only the use of auxiliaries). In the first sentence, the speaker is looking forward (in time) from NOW, even though he's reporting the forecaster--he (the speaker) is still asserting rain in the future. In the second, he is looking forward from a point in the past (in this case, the time when he heard the forecast). The rain is not more or less likely in either case. Not even the speaker's perception of it. The difference between the two sentences only moves the speaker's temporal point of reference.

(I know you knew that. It's just that the fur keeps falling in your eyes, and you get distracted.)

Larry Latham

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:14 am

I suppose you've got a point or two there, Larry...but the first element in any verb phrase still needs to inflect (unless it is a modal), right? Which is probably what writers, even presumably careful ones like Eastwood, are meaning when they write (loosely) about "tense" (and I'd like to point out, just in case you were unaware of the fact, that the quote you've taken is all Eastwood's own words, not mine at all!).

And so, what is it, then, that Eastwood (and SJ) are/were banging on about, exactly?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:25 am

LarryLatham wrote:The rain is not more or less likely in either case. Not even the speaker's perception of it. The difference between the two sentences only moves the speaker's temporal point of reference.

Then why does Eastwood say things like, "The present tense (is) makes the rain sound more likely"? (not that I believe or have accepted what he is saying for one minute, nor, it seems, have you, Larry!).

Interesting that you, a "remoteness" man, are saying that the main difference between the sentences is the "speaker's temporal point of reference".

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:39 am

Is that Clint Eastwood? I didn't know he was into grammar!

Regarding SJ, I don't know. Sometimes he makes perfect sense, and then other times I haven't a clue what he's talking about.

I imagine he would say the same about me.

Larry Latham

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:47 am

SJ has been blowing hot and cold about Lewis on this thread, and as woodcutter said, it's a bit of a pickle generally. All very puzzling...

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:52 am

Fluffy, speaking of me, wrote:Interesting that you, a "remoteness" man, are saying that the main difference between the sentences is the "speaker's temporal point of reference".

Oh, I think you have gotten the wrong idea about me, Fluff. Many verbs do indeed have everything to do with time. Those featuring aspects (using auxiliaries in the verb phrase), are all about the temporal elements of the action.

What you (and perhaps others) might have misunderstood about me is that you've taken my insistence that the difference between present simple tense, and past simple tense is about remoteness (or lack thereof), and not (directly) about time...although I have acknowledged many times that time may be one, indeed the most common, facet of remoteness...to mean that I think verbs are not about time.

Perfect forms, continuous forms, forms with (be) going to are about time and time alone.

Larry Latham

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:04 am

LarryLatham wrote:
Fluffy, speaking of me, wrote:Interesting that you, a "remoteness" man, are saying that the main difference between the sentences is the "speaker's temporal point of reference".
Oh, I think you have gotten the wrong idea about me, Fluff. Many verbs do indeed have everything to do with time. Those featuring aspects (using auxiliaries in the verb phrase), are all about the temporal elements of the action.

I was only pulling your leg, Larry. Good points (in the rest of your post, as well!) about the non-simple verb phrases at least being all about temporality - we'd all do well to remember that in any future discussion.

Let's take five now and wait and see what others think of what's been said on the last few pages...

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:10 am

Just at this moment, Fluffy, my screen says there have been 662 hits on this topic. Do you suppose that you and I and SJ have bumped it that many times ourselves, and there are no others? Or are there a few hundred people out there peeking in on our sense and nonsense, and not daring to jump in?

If there are others, I expressly invite your views. You might think we regulars are viscious dogs, but I assure you we are interested in your ideas, and promise to treat you gently, and with respect. So, come on in, the water's great!

Larry Latham

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:15 am

Just a trick I mean quick question for you, Larry (to save me dusting off my Lewis): In a sentence such as I was wondering if I could take next week off, is there no remoteness in the use of past progressive aspect at all, or does it all reside rather in the "could"? How about in: I was wondering...can I take next week off ?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:22 am

Hmm, a good few hundred of those hits must be me, signing in and out and excitedly clicking on the thread when I see you've posted, rather than just remaining signed in and simply refreshing the screen!

Talking of hits, I can't quite believe how many views my "Interesting, but ultimately distracting dichotomies" has garnered, I can assure you all that I alone didn't rack up 1614 views (even though the bell thing isn't flashing yet)! I was wondering if the tracking device had added a 1 by mistake to the more believeable number of 614. It's a similar mystery with the "Out damned Lewis! Enter the Lacksitall Approach instead!" thread.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:26 am

I was wondering if I could take next week off.

I guess you've had enough for a while, eh Fluffy? Need a week off, I see.

OK, it looks like you've got a double dose of remoteness there. I was wondering...well, you still are wondering, aren't you? But you are addressing the boss, I'd guess, and showing proper deference for his rank being relatively higher than yours. And you do this with remote form. And...if I could take next week off... It is clear that you could have put it differently: ...if I can take next week off. But you chose not to, so we have to imagine why. (Actually, of course, only you know for sure why, although you (if you are a native speaker but not a grammarian) probably could not articulate it.) My guess is that your use of a remote form expresses your uncertainty about the likelihood your request will be granted.

What do you think?

Larry Latham

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:37 am

Fluffy wrote:Talking of hits, I can't quite believe how many views my "Interesting, but ultimately distracting dichtomies" has garnered, I can assure you all that even I couldn't rack up 1614 views (even though the bell thing isn't flashing yet)! I was wondering if the tracking device had added a 1 by mistake to the more believeable number of 614. It's a similar mystery with the "Out damned Lewis! Enter the Lacksitall Approach instead!" thread.

I must admit, I hadn't been aware of those threads until now. You authored them while I was gone. All I can say, judging from the thread itself, is that you are one heck of a good headline writer!

Larry Latham

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:50 am

Even though the employee "is still wondering", to say I'm wondering if I could... would seem a little too...sardonic? (and unconventional compared to using the "proper" distal/remote form).

I was reckoning it was a case of a "double dose" of remoteness - glad you think so too.

Now, about that "The forecast said it was going to rain" again...no remoteness there at all (regarding, I would imagine, the likelihood of rain)?

I myself don't see the remoteness there, but others

might (still)...maybe we can let them express their dissent eh, Larry, while you and I enjoy a well-earnt drink in Dave's Bar!

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:31 am

Let me continue the nightmare of Atreju and try and clarify what I wrote last.

He says/said he wants a glass of water. We can say both about the dying man. We have a choice. Both are true. Many things may nuance the choice.

He whispers/whispered he wants a glass of water. We cannot say the first, you cannot whisper in an abstract sense. The act is past.

We can say he "he whispered he wanted a glass of water". Want and wanted are both factually true. We have a choice.

If we choose to use the past, then the nuances brought will be formality and politeness or lack of concern, because those are the nuances always brought by anything which is less direct, temporally or otherwise.