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

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:56 am

metal56 wrote:
fluffyhamster wrote: 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." ????????????????????????????'

Oh, I thought you had a problem with it too when you said (of SJ's example):

He said his holiday started next Friday.

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

Me, I reckon if his holiday does indeed start next week, that's what he'll be reported as saying ('He said his holiday starts next week, so he'll probably be free to meet you'), but if it was postponed, I think something like

'He said his holiday's been cancelled/he has to work, so he can't meet, unfortunately'

would be a more sensible thing to say than

'He said his holiday starts/started next week, but you know, I don't know why I just said that, because actually, it doesn't (?didn't? ??hadn't?! %#$started!*&) start next week because it's been cancelled...(pant pant <<GASP>>)'

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:02 am

That is, I think there are limits to "implicature".

'He said his holiday starts next week...but who knows if he'll actually get the time off'

v

'His holiday got cancelled - (he said it started/would start next week but) that damn boss/company of his is so demanding...you know how it is...and I was so looking forward to going trainspotting, or to a linguistics convention with him'

Ladies love linguists...

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:58 am

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

Other elements influence tense choice but often time is much more important thatn just one more element. In many, if not most, cases where the choice is between a past and a present tense the time frame is the only matter that makes the decision.

Now the choice if time frames is subjective, and many other factors apart from objective time influence the choice of that time frame, but to confuse time with the fime frame is as heinous a mistake as confusing tense with time.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:42 am

He said his holiday started next Friday.

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

All right I will be more precise. When reporting the phrase "My holiday starts next Friday" the choice of 'starts' or 'started' depends on the emotional closeness of the reporter to the fact.

If we have the phrase "My holiday started next Friday" then obviously 'starts' is not an alternative.

You are however straining at the leash with some of the examples you give. It is highly unlikely that somebody would use the phrase My holiday started next Wednesday. tout court, and even in the more likely example My holday started next Wednesday, but they went along and cancelled it. 'started' would almost certainly carry contrastive stress. And much more likely would be My holiday was to have started next Wednesday or My holiday should have started next Wednesday.

And another point to bear in mind. The use of the Past Simple for remoteness is normally only in circumstandes where there can be no confusion over the time frame, or the time frame is of little importance.
A waiter may ask a customer "And what did you want to drink sir?" to show the appropriate degree of obsequiousness, but a tailor who asked "And on which side did it lie, sir?" would be doing well if all he lost was his customer.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:57 am

fluffyhamster wrote:
'He said his holiday starts/started next week, but you know, I don't know why I just said that, because actually, it doesn't (?didn't? ??hadn't?! %#$started!*&) start next week because it's been cancelled...(pant pant <<GASP>>)'

Pant on. Adding a, possibly ellipted, adverb might help:

He said that, originally, his holiday started next week, but now ...

And why even more ellipsis? Because it's blo*dy exhausting to have to say:

He said that, originally, his holiday had been scheduled to start next week, but now ...

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:59 am

Stephen Jones wrote:
Not only that, but much more. Time is only one element that must be fitted in.
Other elements influence tense choice but often time is much more important thatn just one more element. In many, if not most, cases where the choice is between a past and a present tense the time frame is the only matter that makes the decision.

Now the choice if time frames is subjective, and many other factors apart from objective time influence the choice of that time frame, but to confuse time with the fime frame is as heinous a mistake as confusing tense with time.

In many, if not most, cases where the choice is between a past and a present tense the time frame is the only matter that makes the decision.

That still doesn't explain tense and choice. It just leaves us with more exceptions. A bad thing, IMO.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:06 am

All right I will be more precise. When reporting the phrase "My holiday starts next Friday" the choice of 'starts' or 'started' depends on the emotional closeness of the reporter to the fact.

Or the time gap between the original and the reported moment.

It is highly unlikely that somebody would use the phrase My holiday started next Wednesday.

Is that based on intuition or concordancing?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:22 am

I completely fail to understand what you mean by this leaves us with more exceptions.

Could you be so kind as to expand?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:51 am

Is that based on intuition or concordancing?

A google search for the string "started next Wednesday" brings up 33 entries. Not one of them is the type of construction you are referring to.

"was to start next Wednesday" brings up only one example but it is with the meaning we are talking about.

I'll stick with my intuition unless you can provide proof to the contrary.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:05 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:
Is that based on intuition or concordancing?
A google search for the string "started next Wednesday" brings up 33 entries. Not one of them is the type of construction you are referring to.

"was to start next Wednesday" brings up only one example but it is with the meaning we are talking about.

I'll stick with my intuition unless you can provide proof to the contrary.

I would have to agree with Stephen. I did a search on Google and also saw nothing that would disprove his (and my) intuitions. Which rather begs the question, where did metal get his example from?

Even if he didn't make it up and found it somewhere, that is no guarantee that it wasn't made up by somebody else in some distant, long-lost but possibly similar discussion context.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:40 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:I completely fail to understand what you mean by this leaves us with more exceptions.

Could you be so kind as to expand?

Your statement:

In many, if not most, cases where the choice is between a past and a present tense the time frame is the only matter that makes the decision.

That just helps students become even more convinced that it's all about time and not at all about likelihood or social relationships. Teachers normally dole out such statements as yours and student are told that all tense choices outside those used to refer to time are exceptions.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:03 pm

I think the most important thing ultimately isn't the explanations, but the examples, that we dole out. If the examples are pretty clear, convincing, correct and completely account for the thing being "studied", there probably won't be the need for any explanation (explanations can be good or bad, but explanation itself is neither good or bad, just simply "necessary if it's necessary").

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:56 pm

That just helps students become even more convinced that it's all about time and not at all about likelihood or social relationships. Teachers normally dole out such statements as yours and student are told that all tense choices outside those used to refer to time are exceptions.

Instead of strawman arguments we now have strawman teachers.

And of course you don't bother to let us know what you dole out.

I am suggesting that we teach two uses of the past tenses; for events in the past time frame and to express remoteness, either emotional or social or factual (though for historical reasons the hypothetical past could well be treated seperately). Either wey we don't get beyond three. Hardly a plethora of exceptions, and we avoid the intellectual contortions you and Larry have to go through to avoid bringing in the element of time.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:45 pm

Instead of strawman arguments we now have strawman teachers.

Would that be a fallacy ad hominem?