Teacher Discussion Forums

A senator from Alabama said this on Korean TV yesterday - "I've been prouder of our troops today than I've ever been before".

I take it that this is a mistake - I don't think that a difference in dialect would produce something like that.

If so, then according to mainstream linguistic thought, what is the source of this error? Popular thinking might assume that redneck senators are not very bright and make a muck of such things often, perhaps. However, if we assume that this is just a "slip", then does it go against linguistic orthodoxy to assume that less intelligent people, or people from a particular area or culture, fumble their tenses more often? Are you a misguided -ist of some kind if you somehow feel that it seems typical of his type? Would you find as many slips among New England senators as among Southern?

I think anyone is capable of confumbling "I don't think I've ever been as proud of our troops as I am today" with "I'm prouder of our troops today than I've ever been".

woodcutter wrote: Are you a misguided -ist of some kind if you somehow feel that it seems typical of his type?

Yes, you would most likely be a misguided misbumpkinist. You failed to consider that this man is not a simple bumpkin, he is a professional impersonator of folksiness, an american politician. I, on the other hand as a anti-miscreantist, immediately identified his speech type as political-speak, or, as we say in China, pi hua (fart-talk) .

Mind you, if he was speaking just at the end of a parade or a display then I don't see any problem with the English.

What's wrong with the sentence?

Stephen Jones wrote:What's wrong with the sentence?

The same verb aspect is being used to compare the same emotion felt by the same man. Remove the adjunct and you're left with,
"I've been prouder of our troops, than I've ever been before".

WTF does that mean? Using the present simple with the present perfect would be the logical way to indicate that his pride has increased.
"I am prouder of our troops today, than I've ever been before".

If this were a transitive clause, then the construction would be appropriate.
"I've spouted more platitudes today, than I ever have before".

Using this same construction for a subject complement, like 'prouder', indicates that the speaker is finished feeling 'prouder'. The prepositional phrase 'of our troops' is a complement of 'prouder'. The function of the clause is to express a state or a relationship between the speaker and the troops. The present perfect implies that the state has ended, but that it has had an effect on the present.

In other words, the man's strong feelings of pride have passed, but he would like us to know that they were stronger than any feelings of pride which he has previously experienced. Some people might accept this as an honest expression and, consequently, see no grammatical problem. I myself believe that his grammar indicates that he is compensating for his insincerity by making a clumsy attempt to intensify his statement.

I'm with Stephen. Or he's with me, I hope. And with you. It's hard to tell.

I don't think it's similar to what the speaker meant for one moment but if I were at the end of a long sad day I could easily say "I've been more miserable today than I've ever been".

So if we all place the same interpretation on this, namely :

"The present perfect implies that the state has ended, but that it has had an effect on the present.

In other words, the man's strong feelings of pride have passed, but he would like us to know that they were stronger than any feelings of pride which he has previously experienced. Some people might accept this as an honest expression and, consequently, see no grammatical problem."

then we agree on its being possible.

But then, firmly on the fence, I doubt if that's what the bloke was getting at.

woodcutter wrote: "I've been prouder of our troops today than I've ever been before".

It seems fine to me too. The pride the speaker feels is presented as a continuum from the point where he first felt pride in "our troops" up to and including the moment of speaking; and "today" marks the highest point on that particular graph.

Cf.

1. I've been busier today than I've ever been before.

That said, it's interesting that some don't find it "fine". Calibration for the perfect aspect seems to differ slightly from speaker to speaker.

MrP

Which would you guys expect to be more common: "today has been" or "today was"?

<Which would you guys expect to be more common: "today has been" or "today was"?>

Seems to me that this is exactly the same type dilemma posed by the initial pride in the troops dilemma (which is really no dilemma at all because it seems to me to be more a matter of "this" emphasis versus "that" emphasis rather than "right" versus "wrong"). Seems to me that "Today was . . . "emphasizes the fact that whatever today was, is over and done with, while "Today has been . . . " emphasizes the fact that, whatever it was, was an on-going process (which may or may not still be continuing). Similarly, if someone has been proud of the troops today (as an ongoing process that may or may not STILL be continuing), then in order to emphasize the ongoing nature of the pride, the original quote which started this thread may be the best way to convey the sentiment. If a student were to come up with the same type of sentence which started this thread, instead of getting into a discussion of right and wrong, it might be the perfect opportunity to get into a discussion of exactly what it was the student was trying to convey (or emphasize) and whether the words used were the best way to do that or not.

Since I'm only taking a short break from a marathon session of studying in order to respond to this post, today HAS BEEN (and continues to be) a V-E-R-Y L-O-N-G DAY!!!

Erm, I was kind of hoping that this thread didn't take off over the weekend, because I remembered wrong, and didn't give the exact context, and I don't even know it very well.

He actually said "I've never been prouder of our troops than I've been today".

It was a quote directed at camera, not part of a conversation. U.S forces T.V then used it as a morale booster.

I don't think that it was said at the end of a day at the parade ground, or a day reviewing forces, although, perhaps I would argue it is incorrect to say that anyway if the action is all over, which it almost certainly was. (I'm not sure if that is exactly what Ouyang is arguing) I think the senator just meant in general, today as "these days", but since I can't be sure it doesn't make for a great discussion really.

I think Ouyang could be right in another way though - perhaps the clumsiness of the language was just the image that they wanted to convey. Although Quayle probably suffered due to his gaffes, I think Bush has made political gain out of his use of language.

hah hah! I never could accept the orginal quote you gave, but the real one makes sense. A whole interesting thread based on a miscopy!

Yeah! Woodcutter is back!

I don't see that it is a big deal though, Lori. The real construction is more natural, but shouldn't the grammar work in the same way?

Anyway, even given my mistake, I think it is quite interesting that there are views ranging from absolutely OK to absolutely not OK (with Juan saying it is OK and yet a blunder we all could make?!)

Be fair. I said that if he was trying to say what I thought he was trying to say then he had mixed up two structures but that there was a context in which what he said would have been right.

I'd also say that most of the comments hold good for what you now say he said.

I agree with what you are saying anyway Juan, but when I look back at your "confumbling" statement it makes even less sense than it seemed to before because neither of your versions has the double present-perfect. (i.e they both seem o.k)

Confumbling doesn't seem to be in the dictionary, but it is a damn fine word and if this thread caused you to create it, it has all been worthwhile.

Anyway, in the end, my basic question is this. If a person fumbles tenses, why do they do so? Do all fumblers fumble equally, or do some people fumble more often? Would they have anything in common? Would a dialect speaker, who has more options available in terms of sentence structure (since the national standard can always be employed instead of dialect) be more likely to fumble a tense?