It's "true/false" or "depends" time agai

[metal56]

That's right, Jose. The same goes for The English Verb, as you say. And in that case too, many people "read" it and decide that there's nothing much there. I say, "Baloney!" There is much too much in The English Verb to absorb in a single reading. I read it eight times while I was actively teaching, and was informed anew every time, even on the eighth go through. Of course, maybe I'm denser or stoopider [sic] than the average teacher, but then you do what you have to do.

Larry Latham

It's that kind of book for me too. Yes, 8-9 times is advisable.

[Stephen Jones]

Would you be so good as to point out some of those places and explain why he is wrong?

Again!

I've just returned my copy to the library so I'll restrict myself to pointing out the two points we have discussed ad nauseum on this forum.

• The attempt to do away with time as a factor in the choice of the past simple and use distance as the only factor.
  The nebulous factor called modality and the attempt to explain the use of all modals with reference to it.

[LarryLatham]

The attempt to do away with time as a factor in the choice of the past simple and use distance as the only factor.

You're only showing that you did not understand his argument here Stephen. I don't believe you've thought deeply enough about it. Lewis has made no attempt to "do away with time as a factor in the choice of the past simple." But time is not the central issue; it is one part of remoteness. I know I'm not going to convert you here, because you have your mind made up. But so do I until I see some solid evidence to the contrary. Time and time again, my observations of real life constructions using simple past verb forms show me that Lewis is right on the money. You and others who insist that time is the basic issue have an embarrasing time of it trying to explain some uses of simple past forms. Remoteness, as a theoretical principle, comfortably explains every use of the form.

The nebulous factor called modality and the attempt to explain the use of all modals with reference to it.

Lewis makes his disclaimer up front and crystal clear regarding modality. He openly admits that his ideas do not explain all parts of modality, and agrees with other observers that modality is one of the messier area of English grammar. He then proceeds to provide some ideas which are of immense help in making an admittedly fuzzy situation relatively clear for most uses. There are, however, some unanswered questions, just as Lewis states.

I still can not see why you disagree with him so much, Stephen. You haven't offered any clearer alternatives.

And, by the way, your attitude as shown by your exasperated "Again!" at the beginning of your last post isn't necessary or appreciated. You seem to feel that you've answered all questions about why Lewis is wrong. I feel compelled to tell you that you have not. I guess you think that we should all accept your judgment without asking for an explanation. When you do offer something, it is fuzzy and vague, and simply not enough, at least not for me. I am willing to read what you write about why he's wrong, and if you can present a clear and convincing case, I will gladly grant your point. So far, however, you have not been in the least convincing. So...if you wish, try it again.

Larry Latham

[metal56]

Would you be so good as to point out some of those places and explain why he is wrong?

Again!

I've just returned my copy to the library so I'll restrict myself to pointing out the two points we have discussed ad nauseum on this forum.

• The attempt to do away with time as a factor in the choice of the past simple and use distance as the only factor.
  The nebulous factor called modality and the attempt to explain the use of all modals with reference to it.

list]The attempt to do away with time as a factor in the choice of the past simple and use distance as the only factor.

You have definitely misread that. Distance in TIME, likelihood and social relationships are all accepted by him.

[Stephen Jones]

Lewis accepts distance in time but refuses to accept the direction of it as being relevant. So when asked to explain why we don't use the past simple to describe events which are distant in the future he produces a nebula of obfuscation

I have already pointed this out in a previous posting.

There is no way Larry you can make me think that
The wave swept away all my family just a second ago
can be construed as being more remote than
Haley's comet next arrives in 170 years time.
yet is is impossible to substitute 'sweeps' for 'swept' in that sentence.

Larry, as always, faithfully gives Lewis's view:

Lewis says that use of past simple indicates the user's concept of a remote fact. Only one of your sentences above could be construed by the speaker as a remote fact, and that one contains the past simple tense verb. The other sentence, though "remote" in the sense of far away, could not be interpreted as a fact, as it hasn't happened. Your assertion that, "...yet is is impossible to substitute 'sweeps' for 'swept' in that sentence", is exactly right, of course, because such a substitution would create an unmarked sentence. How could any person utter such a sentence and leave it unmarked? Impossible to imagine. It is--must be--marked by remoteness.

This is not muddled expression on Larry's, or Lewis's part, it is muddled thinking.

[LarryLatham]

Why, for goodness sake? What is muddled about it? It seems clear to me. I truly am interested in, and will be grateful for, your clarification. Lewis begins with the first form, a.k.a. Present Simple Tense, by suggesting that it is, pure and simple, a statement of fact, as seen by the user. Period. He makes a convincing argument that time is not an element in the choice. In fact, he insists, again convincingly, that it is the unmarked form, asserting only what the speaker sees as fact...period, with no overlay of temporal or modal elements.

If you get that far, he then introduces the second form, a.k.a. Past Simple Tense, and suggests that this form is like the first form in every respect save one: the speaker sees the fact as remote. This means that if time is involved, only events in past time qualify, because future events cannot be seen as factual.

What is muddled there?

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

Wouldn't it be simpler to think of the remote and the proximal in the indicative mood as a dichotomy separate from the future. Traditional grammar says that there are only two tenses - past and present, but it is clear that sometimes the past is used for other kinds of remoteness instead.

In English, then, future is indicated rather than tensed.

Of course in one sense distant future can be more remote than recent past. Indeed we could argue that it always is, since at least the past has some reality by virtue of having actually happened, its just that the future isn't included in remoteness of tense because there is no such thing as a future tense.

When we get to the subjunctive mood, it is as if everything is on an equal footing, it's as if the future is now no more unreal than the other tenses.

This isn't coming from any book by the way, I just sit down and think about how the language is actually used so if its rubbish, it's my rubbish.

[Metamorfose]

Indicative mood? Subjunctive mood? How helpful can be this to English? Once here I was told to avoid terms like infinitive for it isn't proper for English.


In a sentence like:


(1) It's time we began class.

I know I can more or less paraphrase it as it's time for us to begin class or it's time we should have begun class What can you say about it? It's a past tense used for something which is desirable or even obligatory but hasn't yet been fullfiled? (RA Close) Is it remote reference for future or present?

José

[LarryLatham]

I'm with you, Jose! Although I find things to like in Andy's post above (it isn't rubbish, though I have no idea what "...the future is indicated not tensed" means), I'm not very happy with indicative or subjunctive moods. I believe such analyses adds a lot of complexity and no clarity to English grammar. Why not just say that an event is seen either as a plain (or unmarked) fact, or as marked for remoteness? It seems to cover everything, and is so much simpler to remember, both for students and teachers. It does not seem necessary nor desirable to speak of "moods" in the way one usually finds in grammar textbooks.

The only thing different between:

It's time we began class, and It's time we begin class

or, for that matter, between If you were to go, and If you are to go

...is that one of each pair is more remote in the speaker's mind. Guess which one!

Larry Latham

Where's Stephen?

[revel]

Good morning all!

Improvising here, so this could be a can of worms I'm opening....

How about looking at how reality is perceived by English speakers and then reflected in their language? I sometimes consider debates about remoteness (fascinating, but not explained in my classroom for lack of personal experience in the matter and time restrictions based on students' not doing their practice homework at home) and subjectiveness and especially "Three Conditionals plus Zero" to be building the house roof down. The simple, text-book explanations of the uses of the two "simple" verb tenses at least serve to satisfy a student's need for explanation, as well as make clear what the writer expects the students to do in any exercise (how many times have I said: "In this exercise the present continuouss is making reference to something that is happening at this moment, while the "simple" is marking a habit, a custom or a truth", something then easily observable in the contextual sentences in the exercise, objective being the contrast between these two uses and grossly putting aside other uses of these two phenomena in English?). And yet, why would we say "I am teaching English" if it is evident in the context of the situation that that is what I am doing? Yes, yes, we can imagine a context in which such a sentence would be used, but when I ask us to look at reality construction, I am not talking about individual examples we can give, but rather why we have and use such a construction in the first place.

Let me remove my ideas from those nasty, simplistic verbs (which actually aren't nasty at all and are really quite simple, to their advantage). Let's talk about the use of possesive adjectives? Why do English speakers say "I smashed my thumb" while Spanish speakers would say "I smashed the thumb." Perhaps my quick explanation is over-generalization, but I do consider English speakers more possesive than Spanish speakers. Not only do we have seven different possive adjectives, one for each of the persons represented by the seven personal pronouns, but we have the wonderful genativo sajón that puts the object possessed right next to the person that posseses it. Spanish speakers have only five possesive adjectives (and thus their use of "your" in English all the time, even if the object is not mine) and when demonstrating possesion put the object possessed in the first slot, using the good old "book of Mary" word order. And, historical reasons aside, why is "I" still a capitalized word while in Spanish it only has an upper case letter at the beginning of a sentence or question? Could such reflect different ways of perceiving the self between the two cultures that are then reflected in the language used to describe inner reality?

Soooo, to beat that poor little verb over the head with remoteness or mood or plusperfect or conditionality seems to me to be divorcing it from its use. Maybe an alter ego (read CONTEXTMAN) should be writing this post instead of I.

(ps. written with only one coffee under my belt, sorry there!)

peace,
revel.

[LarryLatham]

The simple, text-book explanations of the uses of the two "simple" verb tenses at least serve to satisfy a student's need for explanation, as well as make clear what the writer expects the students to do in any exercise (how many times have I said: "In this exercise the present continuouss is making reference to something that is happening at this moment, while the "simple" is marking a habit, a custom or a truth"

Thanks, revel, for reminding us to repeat clearly the warning that the discussions (arguments) that we have here are not for the classroom. No teacher in her right mind would attempt to work lesson plans around lectures such as these.

But...having said that, I'm afraid I have to make an issue about the quote from you above. It is exactly this attitude from teachers which licenses the persistence of confusion for students of English grammar. "Oh, this is so much simpler", teachers allege. But what's really a shame is that the very teachers who say such things are the ones who know better, or should. So very, very many teachers don't even know what troubles they are causing for students and other teachers down the road, which is to say that they are ignorant of the problems because they don't know the grammar, and assume that because the coursebooks explain it that way, and because the students need to do exercises in the coursebooks, then that must be the right way!

The truth is, and you should know this, revel, that a better way to explain Present Simple and Past Simple is no more complex, indeed is even easier to comprehend, than the nonsense too often found in coursebooks. That stuff might sound simple to you, but think about how it sounds to a student! What do you mean "something happening at this moment"? So many (literally thousands) of examples exist right here in my coursebook, teacher, of Present Simple or Present Continuous sentences where it is very clear that the "something" is not happening at this moment. I am confused! And what does it mean to "mark a habit, a custom, or a truth"? Do I have to check out each sentence to see if it's about a habit? Or a custom? Or a truth? What is a habit anyway? If I do something occasionally, is that a habit? And what's the difference between a habit and a custom? How will I ever be able to go through all that while I'm talking? I am confused, confused, confused. (But I'd better not say so or the teacher will think I'm dumb!)

Isn't it so much easier, really, just to say to students that a speaker chooses Present Simple verbs to talk about something he thinks is true, when he only wants to say that it is true?

There, that wasn't complicated was it? Students are not really likely to have trouble with it. And what's more, they won't have any trouble with it down the road in classrooms they visit after they've left you. In fact, maybe they will offer a silent thanks to you for helping them get a clear, simple picture of English verbs. As for the coursebook exercises...with that understanding, they'll be able to do the exercises correctly. On the rare occasions where the coursebook takes a different view, that only offers you an opportunity to discuss it with your students to help them get more engaged in their own development of understanding.

Well, I don't want to hog the soapbox here at your expense, revel. You don't deserve that, and besides, I only want to make the point that we teachers must stop this nonsense about sticking to the same old stories about verb tenses because we think they're easier when we know full well that we only make trouble for students later on. Easier for whom?

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

What is muddled there? Rolling Eyes

This

Lewis begins with the first form, a.k.a. Present Simple Tense, by suggesting that it is, pure and simple,a statement of fact, as seen by the user..........
This means that if time is involved, only events in past time qualify, because future events cannot be seen as factual

Halley's comet next arrives in 170 years time. uses the Present Simple, precisely because it is viewed as a simple fact.

Both sentences use the simple tense. Both describe facts.

[LarryLatham]

What is muddled there? Rolling Eyes

This

Lewis begins with the first form, a.k.a. Present Simple Tense, by suggesting that it is, pure and simple,a statement of fact, as seen by the user..........
This means that if time is involved, only events in past time qualify, because future events cannot be seen as factual

Halley's comet next arrives in 170 years time. uses the Present Simple, precisely because it is viewed as a simple fact.

Both sentences use the simple tense. Both describe facts.

Ah, but Stephen, let's look at which thinking is muddled. You are assuming that because the arrival of Halley's comet is 170 years into the future, that the event is seen as a future fact. I think your assumption is muddled. For the simple reason that it has not happened yet, I believe that the comet's arrival itself cannot be seen as a factual event. So that leaves the question of what's factual in that sentence, since it is presented as such with a Present Simple verb form. If Lewis is right, then something has to be seen as factual by the maker of this sentence. If you will allow for schedules to be seen as facts, then the answer is quite simple: "Halley's comet arrives in 170 years time" is not a future fact (future facts, by definition, do not exist), it is a scheduled fact. It has not arrived, and so the arrival cannot be a fact, but it can be seen as a scheduled fact; there is a schedule for it. There is nothing particularly surprising here, because bus schedules, train departures, and airline flights are routinely seen as scheduled facts in sentences such as, "My flight to Paris leaves at 6:00 o'clock in the morning", or even, "Joe and I are going to the cinema tomorrow afternoon".

So, I do not believe you have successfully sacked Michael Lewis's contention that Present Simple forms signify an unmarked fact, while Past Simple forms signify a remote fact, as seen by the user. At least not here, not yet.

Larry Latham

[Andrew Patterson]

Larry wrote:

I have no idea what "...the future is indicated not tensed" means

Simple: English doesn't have a future tense. It is indicated through:
1. The use of catenatives including modals, and especially will. (I'm sure you will remember all that about the core meaning of will.) Modals and catenatives overlay their meaning. Non-modal catenatives can also provide a lexical meaning, but don't where future is concerned since they are all modal equivalents; and
2. Time adverbials. (Hope Shun doesn't see this.)

I'm with you 100%, Larry, on your comment that whether it can be perceived as a shedualed fact is the determining factor.

[LarryLatham]

Ahhh...OK, thanks for the clarification, Andy. At first blush, anyway, your argument (for indication of the future rather than verb morphology -- tense) makes sense. My only confusion is about the catenatives, which I wholly do not understand...but that's my problem. I completely agree that there is no future tense in English. If there were, it would be extremely surprising, since there is no other tense reserved exclusively for a particular time designation.

What continues to amaze me is that there are coursebooks in use, and many, many teachers who still tell their students that Present Tense is for events in present time, Past Tense is for events in past time, and Future Tense is for events in future time. That may have passed muster in times well gone by, but we now know it's total nonsense. And that students will be greatly confused by it somewhere along the way.

Larry Latham