"Now" in past narratives.

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

Post Reply

Three months after his father’s death, Dave was now running the shop.

The use of "now" is correct there.
6
86%
The use of "now" is incorrect there.
1
14%
 
Total votes: 7
lolwhites
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: France
Contact:
Contact lolwhites

Post by lolwhites » Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:05 pm

Is anyone here going to seriously argue that the only way to be 100% sure of the time under discussion is to look at the context and not the verb forms? I thought we oculd have agreed that much by now, at least.
Top
metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:22 pm

lolwhites wrote:Is anyone here going to seriously argue that the only way to be 100% sure of the time under discussion is to look at the context and not the verb forms? I thought we oculd have agreed that much by now, at least.
Are you speaking generally, or only about the time under discussion in this thread?
Top
LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:47 pm

lolwhites wrote:Is anyone here going to seriously argue that the only way to be 100% sure of the time under discussion is to look at the context and not the verb forms? I thought we oculd have agreed that much by now, at least.
I'm going to seriously argue that the only way to be 100% sure (subject to uncertainties arising from mixed messages eminating from the speaker/author--probably unintentionally, but then again, maybe not) of the time under duscussion is to look at the context and not the verb tenses. I am limiting my argument here to differences between simple present/simple past tenses, since I hold that those are the only tenses in English. Other forms (aspects) do establish temporal relationships. Tenses do not, as I see them.

Larry Latham
Top
lolwhites
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: France
Contact:
Contact lolwhites

Post by lolwhites » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:15 pm

Sorry, Larry, but I've just reread my post and realised that I wrote it in a hurry and said the opposite of what I meant :oops:

I meant Is anyone going to seriously argue against the view that the only way to be 100% sure.... I totally agree that context is the only way to be certain.
Top
woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 pm

No, lol, nobody is. And isn't it the point of the thread to suggest that all non-Lewisites would do so?

As for time/tense and remoteness, Woodcutter has given his puny wisdom already. His worldwide quest is not in that realm!
Top
LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:37 am

lolwhites wrote:Sorry, Larry, but I've just reread my post and realised that I wrote it in a hurry and said the opposite of what I meant :oops:

I meant Is anyone going to seriously argue against the view that the only way to be 100% sure.... I totally agree that context is the only way to be certain.
Ahhhh....of course, none of the rest of us has ever put his foot in his mouth here, lolwhites. :wink: Good to see we're in accord.

Larry Latham
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Applied Linguistics”