tense and time (part2)

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 10:37 pm

JuanTwoThree wrote: Now you can explain it by something that was irrelevant minutes ago.

The (C) point didn't refer to your old example, namely, "I was offered the job before I had been there for a year."

Now you have produced new examples, within a few minutes, and they refer to the (C) point. So I have to resort to the (C) point, within a few minutes, naturally.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:07 pm

So back to the first ever example "They arrived before I had packed my bags" which you've been very quiet about all this time.
High time for explanation C, I think.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:57 pm

JuanTwoThree wrote: "They arrived before I had packed my bags."
They offered me the job before I had been there a year.
They gave me the promotion before I had worked there a fortnight.
They fired me from my job before I had worked there a month.
They offered me a rise before I had worked there a day.
They made me a copy of the key to the gold-plated executive bathroom before I had worked there a week.
===============

When I introduced my (C) point, I usually stated beforehand that I still wondered if it was true or not. But I endeavored a try.

The examples above violate our common use. We can use Simple Past for certain. But if we use Past Perfect, it draws attention to the notion of "out of expectation" or "within a very short time".

(C) Finally, the rule of comparison is broken if a very quick action or out-of-expectation is implied, usually with time adverbs like "in no time, very soon, next minute, etc.":
Ex: "He came near village. A farmer walked with him into it. Next minute he was seeing a beautiful village inn in front of them."
Ex: "They walked into the crowd. In next corner he had lost sight of his friends."
Ex: "She ran out before I'd realised what was happening."

Xui

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:00 am

Sorry to be a bore about this, but can I just mention it one more time, since you are taking this paper by Iconoclast so seriously.

Tense = Grammatical alteration to indicate time

Stated purpose of paper = To rescue tense from the clutches of time

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:58 am

woodcutter wrote:Sorry to be a bore about this, but can I just mention it one more time, since you are taking this paper by Iconoclast so seriously.

Tense = Grammatical alteration to indicate time

Stated purpose of paper = To rescue tense from the clutches of time

I am sorry but I didn't study Iconoclast's message at all. I just saw a small part of it, about Present Perfect with or without a time phrase. He or she seemed not able to explain it and jumped to another point. And I stopped reading.

I may agree that "Tense = Grammatical alteration to indicate time". But "Stated purpose of paper" is far beyond me. As for me, I avoid any term a child couldn't understand.

Bests,

Xui

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:33 am

Kelian de Xui! So paranoid these days!

We are on more or less the same side here (well, I think so). I mean that Iconoclast said (stated) in his paper that his aim was to prove that time and tense are not linked. Since a link with time is the fundamental definition of tense, that is, in my view, very silly.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:26 pm

woodcutter wrote:Kelian de Xui! So paranoid these days!

We are on more or less the same side here (well, I think so). I mean that Iconoclast said (stated) in his paper that his aim was to prove that time and tense are not linked. Since a link with time is the fundamental definition of tense, that is, in my view, very silly.
===========

What is really your point? Lewis' theory also implies the same thing, that is, time and tense are not linked, but you seemed to be quite passive about it. His theory suggests tense is related to distance, rather than time. Then as you say, Iconoclast and Lewis are in the same boat, but you seemed to be quite interested in the theory. Excuse me if I was confused.

Xui

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:45 pm

I am afraid there are some few mistakes in Iconoclast's message. I hope he or she can respond some comments that have already posted to him, so we are encouraged to follow.

Xui

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:50 am

"Quick or out of expectation" as an explanation for "before + had+ participle" . Excellent. Though I'm not sure.

Much better than "I have spent a lot of time in locating something like:
Ex: "They arrived before I had had breakfast"
But I failed. Everyone knows Past Perfect happens before a Simple Past." which was your first reaction.

Better than

" three situations where comparisons cannot be performed:
(A) with BE, or notably in passive voice

(B) in negative:

There is also a (C) point, but I know it is irrelevant here"

By the way, where is this "old discussion" that you quoted? I can't find this in amongst your massive contribution:

" (C) Finally, the rule of comparison is broken if a very quick action or out-of-expectation is implied, usually with time adverbs like "in no time, very soon, next minute, etc.":
Ex: "He came near village. A farmer walked with him into it. Next minute he was seeing a beautiful village inn in front of them."
Ex: "They walked into the crowd. In next corner he had lost sight of his friends."
Ex: "She ran out before I'd realised what was happening"

You must have forgotten your last example when you first said that you couldn't find anything similar.

Anyway back to your most recent proposal. I wonder if "quick and unexpected" is more to do with the meaning of "before" than the use or not of the "had". Does "had" make it more "quick and unexpected"?

They ran before the bomb exploded.

They de-fused the bomb before it exploded.

They ran before the bomb had exploded.

They defused the bomb before it had exploded.

I'm not sure.

Going back to the beginning, I'm still trying to get to grips with implicit negatives in all this and I think now that I was wrong:

I can't see that there is any more, or less, information about the bomb exploding, or not, than common-sense. So Stephen, the answer many posts later to

"Quote:
"They arrived before I had had breakfast".
Is there a subjunctive there?"

is No.

But it's all been fairly relevant to Iconoclast's contention that tenses are forms not times. Though what we've proved or disproved escapes me completely.

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:02 pm

I guess you are correct. I should have double-checked your examples.

My thread "The collapse of the conventional grammar?" seems to have disappeared. What a luck.

I spent a lot of time to prepare my reply, which carried answers to all the questions I had posted here. What a coincidence. What a waste.

Who has done this to the thread? I was wasting my time.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:35 am

Firmly on topic:

We seem to have a) tense as form (teach them the unvarying forms and meaning is taken care of by adverbials etc) b) tense as an expression of time or c) tense as obviously a lot to do with time but not exclusively.

One of the things I noticed about Iconoclast's post was that he (?) mentioned the formal elegance of reported speech: will/would can/could may/might leaving poor old must/had to fend for itelf. Conspicuous by their absence were shall and should which only sound as if they are a pair. I have seen it suggested that "Shall we dance?" reports as "He asked her if they should dance" but it's obviously prescriptivist wishful thinking. So the formal elegance has cracks in it unless you look fixedly in the opposite direction when something nasty appears , which it does a lot.

Going back to my original idea: Iconoclast says that the subjunctive, if it exists, has no meaning, is only a fixed form. That may be true of the present subjunctive but not of the past: I would say that it clearly has the force of a negative . "If I were you" "If I had money" "I wish it were Summer" all tell us how things aren't ( ie: I'm not, I haven't, It isn't) .

Remember that "past simple" "past subjunctive" and "remote form" are names (of varying worth!) for the same thing.

So I cannot see how this use of the "past simple", as it is inadequately called, can be pure form without meaning. As I have suggested (not proved or shown) there seems to be an implicit meaning.

Neither can I see any possible explanation of the "2nd conditional" in terms of the "past simple for past events".

In its simplest terms then:

Does "If I came tomorrow" lack any meaning and is it just a form to be taught? I don't think so.

What the hell is that past simple doing next to "tomorrow" in terms of any conventional understanding of "past"?

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:48 am

JuanTwoThree wrote: In its simplest terms then:

Does "If I came tomorrow" lack any meaning and is it just a form to be taught? I don't think so.

What the hell is that past simple doing next to "tomorrow" in terms of any conventional understanding of "past"?
======================

Sometimes I don't quite understand you. Even a child knows we use Simple Past to relate a story, you gave me an example of story using Simple Present. In the Subjunctive, as in your example, it is known to most that we use Simple Past to say a weaker possibility:
===============
Present and future situations

To talk about 'unreal' or improbable situations now or in the future, we use a past tense in the if-clause, and a conditional in the other part of the sentence.

if + past, conditional
conditional if + past

(Ex: ) If I knew her name, I would tell you.
(NOT If I would know … NOT … I will tell you.)
(Ex: ) If you came tomorrow, I would have more time to talk.
(Ex: ) I would be perfectly happy if I had a car.
(Ex: ) What would you do if you lost your job?

We often use were instead of was after if, especially in a formal style.
(Ex: ) If we were rich, I would spend all my time travelling.
http://www.bkkonline.com/nanny/tip/23-nov-99.shtml
===============

So it is just a form and lacks of any meaning. I suspect you don't know about this. Or are people so deeply confused by Lewis' theory.

Xui

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 2:23 am

Has Michael Lewis thought about other languages also? If we substitute "remoteness" for the subjunctive, other languages first don't understand what is remoteness, and then their same problem is inevitable: how to use English to express the subjective in their mother language? The whole thing then is a mess. The subjunctive exists in every language, whereas I don't even know what is remoteness, so I don't know if it exists in any other language or not.

Why shall English claim the subjective is a kind of remoteness? Or is there any more reason for English to rely on the remoteness theory at all? I would like to know about it.

I have asked about this and the answer is somehow missing: Is a nearness forever nearness? I don't think so. All kinds of remoteness come from nearness, because of time. That is to say, time controls remoteness. Nothing escapes from time. Distance, whatever it is in your mind, can never be something to replace time.

Xui

Xui · Post by **Xui** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:11 am

What I want to repeat is, with a few more insights being added, the basic concepts and terms of the conventional grammar can handle enough English tense. I can find no reason to throw away the whole conventionality and replace it with something we still are not sure of. The incubating remoteness theory has a long way to be young enough to stand up. If it can ever start to walk, however, it depends wholly on Time. Nothing do without Time.

It is after we have understood how to express time that we may conceive and judge the remoteness theory. Not the other way round.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:16 am

I'm with you there Xui, that is nearly very well expressed!

Isn't the Lewisite view of tenses a little bit like claiming that the word "blue" does not actually mean blue because we say "I feel blue" and "I saw a blue movie?"