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

[fluffyhamster]

It is obvious that there are two schedules.

Yeah I often say strange or silly things. Sorry.

[LarryLatham]

Yes, it is often the unusual use that proves the point, or makes the nature of the core meaning clearer.

Hmm, correct, but it doesn't sound just a bit odd to you? It seems too marked to me, creates a clash (as does any VP beginning with a "past" element) in this context (in which future events are being discussed).

Sometimes a slightly odd sound to a ("correct") sentence can serve users by calling particular attention to the idea expressed, as if intended to suggest a kind of emphasis. Native speakers, with some regularity, can intentionally mark their language so as to point to particular aspects of their communication that they want interlocutors to especially notice.

This is a skill set that advanced learners of English can make use of. Exposure to it in the classroom is, I believe, a legitimate use of time there.

Larry Latham

[fluffyhamster]

I just had a brainwave (probably my last before I go to bed shortly).

Do you guys remember the long 'On the effects of oversimplified rules' thread, that turned into a reported speech slogfest? Well, I was just thinking, '...they are/were arriving...' achieves 'the kind of emphasis that will be noticed' (to paraphrase Larry*) just as well as if not better than '...they arrived...'.

I'm not trying to irritate anyone here, and certainly won't be rushing off myself to see and then prove if my intuitions are correct. I am just expressing an opinion, and trying to intimate that simply taking other people's theories or word for something (even when it is backed up with "evidence") is how we "ended up" with a load of shaky grammar rules and explanations in the first place.

Granted, theories provide us with a starting point, but it's finally down to the individual to come to their own understanding of how things fit together and work, and because "grammar" is never amenable to totally explicit inspection, those understandings will remain provisional even (and perhaps especially!) for native speakers (I made a similar point about NSs on another thread a short while ago).

Sometimes a slightly odd sound to a ("correct") sentence can serve users by calling particular attention to the idea expressed, as if intended to suggest a kind of emphasis. Native speakers, with some regularity, can intentionally mark their language so as to point to particular aspects of their communication that they want interlocutors to especially notice.

[LarryLatham]

I'm not trying to irritate anyone here, and certainly won't be rushing off myself to see and then prove if my intuitions are correct. I am just expressing an opinion, and trying to intimate that simply taking people's theories or word for something (even with "evidence") is how we "ended up" with a load of shaky grammar rules and explanations in the first place. Granted, theories provide us with a starting point, but it's finally down to the individual to come to their own understanding of how things fit together and work, and because grammar is never amenable to totally explicit inspection, those understandings will remain provisional even (and perhaps especially for!) native speakers (I made a similar point about NSs on another thread a short while ago).

I could not agree with you more, Fluffy. I'll even go further to insist that all knowledge is provisional and subject to regular reexamination. It's precisely how we learn and improve. It's also how students in an English language class learn best. (That's as opposed to being told what is 'correct' and what is not).

Larry Latham

[Stephen Jones]

If you want to see a much less contrived example of the Past Simple used with a future time adverbial just take examples from reported speech.

He said his holiday started next Friday.

Incidentally the difference between that phrase and
He said his holiday starts next Friday
is purely the one of the emotional remoteness felt by the person reporting the speech.

Are you saying that tense is used to mark time, and also non-time?

If you weren't so busy setting up strawmen this would have been obvious.

[quote="Metal56]Are Tense and Time the same in English?[/quote]

Purposely skirting the point. There are two tenses in English; each is associated with a time frame - past and non-past as you put it. Thus the Past, Present and Future of the real world must be fitted into the two time frames of the English tense system.

[fluffyhamster]

If you want to see a much less contrived example of the Past Simple used with a future time adverbial just take examples from reported speech.

He said his holiday started next Friday.

That's exactly what I was thinking (and more or less said: 'Do you guys remember the long 'On the effects of oversimplified rules' thread, that turned into a reported speech slogfest? Well, I was just thinking...'), but I p*ssyfooted around and didn't in the end explicitly add a reporting verb to metal's original example (I just made the simple a progressive aspect). I wish I had made the reporting verb explicit, however, because without it the past progressive would still sound odd to my ear:

'By their present schedule they ARRIVE in Paris next Monday, though according to their original plan they ARRIVED there next Wednesday.'

> By their present schedule they ARRIVE in Paris next Monday, though they said they...are/were arriving...there next Wednesday.

-By their present schedule they ARRIVE in Paris next Monday, though according to their original plan they ?were arriving (>are arriving) there next Wednesday.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the "Simple past" example that metal introduced becomes clearly ungrammatical if a reporting verb is added (I know it's "obvious" to say that, but...):

*By their present schedule they ARRIVE in Paris next Monday, though they said they arrived there next Wednesday.

I also recall reading something in Swan about "tenses" being of differing complexities across adjacent clauses (perhaps he called it something like tense simplification - versus relative complexity of form). Then, there are also factors such as progressive aspect being used for incompleteness, "backgrounding" factors, tentativeness etc (as well as a whole range of other forms and modals to choose from in expressing future time other than Simple past). But perhaps these last few points are just a load of old rot.

Incidentally the difference between that phrase and
He said his holiday starts next Friday
is purely the one of the emotional remoteness felt by the person reporting the speech.

Umm, 'Yes'.

[metal56]

I just had a brainwave (probably my last before I go to bed shortly).

Do you ever go to bed longly?

[fluffyhamster]

He said his holiday started next Friday.

Incidentally the difference between that phrase and
He said his holiday starts next Friday
is purely the one of the emotional remoteness felt by the person reporting the speech.

I was just looking at "one" of the examples I myself offered:

> By their present schedule they ARRIVE in Paris next Monday, though they said they...are/were arriving...there next Wednesday.

I am still tempted to change the BE before the -ing from a 'are/were' option to just 'are', not just because the example that followed on was this:

-By their present schedule they ARRIVE in Paris next Monday, though according to their original plan they ?were arriving (>are arriving) there next Wednesday,

but also because I feel enough "emotional remoteness" inheres in 'though/but' to "allow" the use of 'are'; besides, I think 'He said his holiday started next Friday' sounds too "remote" in every sense!

It's a shame most of the discussion on the 'On the effects of over-simplified rules' thread concerned a very thirsty/dying man's present need for water (interesting and topical though that example context was).

[metal56]

<purely the one of the emotional remoteness felt by the person reporting the speech. >

Always?


He said his holiday started next Friday.

So he had to cancel, postpone or change it then?

[fluffyhamster]

I just had a brainwave (probably my last before I go to bed shortly).

Do you ever go to bed longly?

I don't get as much sleep as I should when there are people to spank on Dave's, that's for sure...but seriously, is there something strange with using 'shortly' that way? I had a vague misgiving as I typed it, but shortly I mean soon decided it looked fine.

[metal56]

Thus the Past, Present and Future of the real world must be fitted into the two time frames of the English tense system.

Not only that, but much more. Time is only one element that must be fitted in.

[metal56]

I wish I had made the reporting verb explicit, however, because without it the past progressive would still sound odd to my ear:

You are doing the same as you did with "shout me when". You always talk about that which sounds doubtful to YOUR ear as being doubtful usage.

[fluffyhamster]

metal, at least the examples I "swear by" might well make sense to almost everyone! (winding you uuuuppppp! ) Anyway, I'm not saying the examples are impossible or extremely doubtful, I'm just talking about intuition regarding the probabilities (rather than the possibilities - wow, the noun 'possibilities' sounds a lot better than 'probabilities', whereas 'probable rather than possible' language is the equally attractive ordering of the adjectival phrasing/spin whereby Lewis popularized 'probable' over and literally before merely "possible" language. How do the differing forms grab you?).

Hmm, was that a phantom post I saw you make, or am I just hallucinating and in need of more sleep?! I guess I upset you, or you decided spanking Stephen was going to be more exciting in the long run than stroking a hamster.

Hmm, what you posted to SJ seems to be saying the exact opposite of what you and Larry have been claiming ever since the "travel itinerary mixup"!

<purely the one of the emotional remoteness felt by the person reporting the speech. >

Always?


He said his holiday started next Friday.

So he had to cancel, postpone or change it then?

Or are there some mysterious forces at work in reported speech that mess up but don't totally contradict what you've been saying? I'm presuming not, because we can say 'He said his holiday starts next week' just as easily as 'He says his holiday starts next week' (but not ?'He says/said his holiday started next week').

[metal56]

I'm presuming not, because we can say 'He said his holiday starts next week' just as easily as 'He says his holiday starts next week' (but not ?'He says/said his holiday started next week').

Fluff ...

Why can't we say, "He says/said his holiday started next week." ????????????????????????????'

[LarryLatham]

Quote:
Are you saying that tense is used to mark time, and also non-time?


If you weren't so busy setting up strawmen this would have been obvious.

So...I can take this for a "yes", then?

Larry Latham