 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006usage of different tenses in one sentece
Hi all, I need some guidance here for usage of different tenses in one sentence. I'm not an English native speaker. - What's the general rules of combining two tenses especially present and past tense in one sentence? - If let's say I make an essay, then I need to provide an argument about some issues that happened in the past but it's still becoming hot topics at the present time and is still discussed today, what's the general rules or the correct tenses that I should use? Example: ABC company was operated in 1950 and it has contaminated the environment during its operation at that time and has closed its operation at let's say 1975 but they still owned the land. Now, in 2006, the people surround that company will file a lawsuit for this matter. Let's say today that I need to provide some proofs against ABC company. On my essay, what tenses should I use in this sentence: -Though people surround the ABC company don't use the water from the aquifer as drinking water, ABC company is responsible because it has contaminated environment where the people live. (I use present tense in the whole sentece and this is incorrect) Facts: - some people may still live in the area nearby ABC company and they still don't use the water from the aquifer as drinking water - ABC company operation was done long time ago but their action is discussed today and representative of ABC company is also present. On the sentece above, ABC company may also refers to the representatives, are they responsible today or responsible years earlier. Advice, guidance, correction and other example are appreciated. Many thanks to all. -ML- > - What's the general rules of combining two tenses especially present > and past tense in one sentence? The rules for tense use are not so simple that a "general rule" can be given in a usenet reply post. The one rule you should definitely be aware of, though, is the so-called "sequence of tenses" rule: . When the principal proposition contains a past indicative, any following use must also be a past tense. "He wants to do it before his father comes home." But: "He _wanted_ to do it before his father *came* home." The sole regular exception is if the second statement represents something habitual, customary, characteristic or universally true: He asked the attendant what time the train usually *departs*. Columbus proved that the world *is* round. There are various other instances in which even the most punctilious writer will break the rule, but it is better not to over-complicate the picture. Stick by that rule and you will be safe--though it is a rather foolish rule. It is foolish because it requires follies of illogic like this: "I spoke on the telephone with his wife a few seconds ago, and she told me that he *was* in bed sick." What, now, 15 seconds later, he's jumping all about and doing a jig? But it *is* the rule. I recommend to you a copy of George O. Curme's classic _English Grammar_. While new hardcover copies are available for approximately the GNP of a third-world country, used paperbacks can be easily had at trivial cost from internet book sellers. Sections 118 and on deal with tense use. > I recommend to you a copy of George O. Curme's classic _English > Grammar_. While new hardcover copies are available for approximately > the GNP of a third-world country, used paperbacks can be easily had at > trivial cost from internet book sellers. Sections 118 and on deal with > tense use. I'd recommend getting a book that /isn't/ fifty years out of date. > > I recommend to you a copy of George O. Curme's classic _English > > Grammar_. While new hardcover copies are available for approximately [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'd recommend getting a book that /isn't/ fifty years out of date. I'd recommend anyone reading this thread do a little homework on Mr. Walker's posts and Mr. Wallace's posts and only then decide whose advice to take, on books or anything. Google is your friend. >>> I recommend to you a copy of George O. Curme's classic _English >>> Grammar_. While new hardcover copies are available for approximately [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Google is your friend. Yup. Search on "felicity", and you'll get 90,000 hits -- all signed by Walker, here. Joshing aside: the fact remains that Curme's book was largely valid in the 1930s, and perhaps the 1940s, but it is /extremely/ out of date now -- as you can tell, by reading the "felicitous" postings of Curme's No.1 booster. [...] > Joshing aside: the fact remains that Curme's book was largely valid in > the 1930s, and perhaps the 1940s, but it is /extremely/ out of date now > -- as you can tell, by reading the "felicitous" postings of Curme's No.1 > booster. I stand by my remark: Google is your friend. Still, an expressed belief that the grammar of the English tongue--the grammar, mind, not the vocabulary or idiom--has changed materially in the past fifty years should in itself tell any inquiring soul all that need be known here. (You know, Mr. Wallace, there is no harm when you participate in threads with regulars here, some of whom seem to appreciate the comic relief your bizarre personal theories of language generate, but when you parade those grotesqueries before innocents who come to these forums seeking real information about real problems, not comedy, you do them a grave injustice.) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the vocabulary or idiom--has changed materially in the past fifty years > should in itself tell any inquiring soul all that need be known here. That would be "the English /Language/", WP. English is not a tongue, it is a /language/. Please discover the difference. (You have no idea how many people would thank me, if I could get that idea through to you) (OK: One person; but he would be really happy). And yes, English has changed immensely, in the years since your buddy's book was first printed. That you do not realise this has always proven quite frightening, to me. Get this idea solidly in your head: Curme is no longer relevant to the English language. > (You know, Mr. Wallace, there is no harm when you participate in > threads with regulars here, some of whom seem to appreciate the comic > relief your bizarre personal theories of language generate, but when > you parade those grotesqueries before innocents who come to these > forums seeking real information about real problems, not comedy, you do > them a grave injustice.) I talk about English; you talk about your long-dead heroes, "felicity", and "tongues". And, nine times out of ten, you try to willy-nilly apply rules that govern completely different things. You did not earn the cognomen "Wrong-Page Walker" for no reason. Face it, Eric: I'm a damned sight smarter and better educated than you'd like to think. I just don't take you very seriously, and respond to your postings accordingly, because the daft things you come up with are so amusing to me. . Would saying "I spoke on the telephone with his wife a few seconds ago, and she told me that he *is* in bed sick." not be the same as "Columbus proved that the world *is* round"? >> - What's the general rules of combining two tenses especially present >> and past tense in one sentence? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > trivial cost from internet book sellers. Sections 118 and on deal with > tense use. In article <454d2c87$0$4673$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, > Would saying "I spoke on the telephone with his wife a few seconds ago, > and she told me that he *is* in bed sick." not be the same as "Columbus [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > trivial cost from internet book sellers. Sections 118 and on deal with > > tense use. I will decline the implied invitation to top-post. Consequence one is a slight increase in potential confusion. Consequence two is adherence to usenet protocols. This, in spite of the fact I am a Vegemite addict! I agree with everything written by Eric.* I think saying "Columbus proved that the world *is* round" states an immutable fact. The world was round when he said it and, son of a gun, it's _still_ round. Stating "I spoke on the telephone with his wife a few seconds ago, and she told me that he *is* in bed sick." is not the same as saying "I spoke on the telephone with his wife a few seconds ago, and she told me that he *was* in bed sick." "_was_ sick" shows that, at the time she said it, he was sick. He might no longer be (even though, in this specific construct, the conversation was only a few seconds ago. The rule comes into its own when the conversation was a day ago.) "_is_" sick shows that he was sick when the conversation took place and, according to the wife who must be clairvoyant, he will still be sick at any time when the conversation is to be repeated. An obvious nonsense. *Almost everything. I don't agree that the example quoted by Eric is a folly of illogic. I think it's quite logical because of what I just said, myself. All opinion, of course. The soap-box is empty now. Who's nexT? > I will decline the implied invitation to top-post. Consequence one is a > slight increase in potential confusion. Consequence two is adherence to > usenet protocols. This, in spite of the fact I am a Vegemite addict! :) Sorry. I didn't realise I was in breach of netiquette. Thanks for the tip. In article <45505858$0$4669$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, > > I will decline the implied invitation to top-post. Consequence one is a > > slight increase in potential confusion. Consequence two is adherence to > > usenet protocols. This, in spite of the fact I am a Vegemite addict! > > :) Sorry. I didn't realise I was in breach of netiquette. Thanks for the > tip. He he don't thank me, just send Vegemite. It's urgent! > In article > <45505858$0$4669$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > He he don't thank me, just send Vegemite. It's urgent! where do you want me to post it to? ;) > Would saying "I spoke on the telephone with his wife a few seconds ago, > and she told me that he *is* in bed sick." not be the same as "Columbus > proved that the world *is* round"? Is his being in bed sick a condition that is "habitual, customary, characteristic, or universally true"? (If so, he needs a better doctor.) > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > - What's the general rules of combining two tenses especially present > and past tense in one sentence? That depends entirely on the sentence, and what it has to say. > - If let's say I make an essay, then I need to provide an argument > about some issues that happened in the past but it's still becoming hot > topics at the present time and is still discussed today, what's the > general rules or the correct tenses that I should use? > > Example: ABC company Just "ABC" (delete "company". was operated -- was operating (Past Progressive, interrupted by "that time"). > in 1950 and it has contaminated -- contaminated (no had)(Simple Past, showing that the activity stopped). > the > environment during its operation at that time Delete "at that time" (repetition) > and has closed -- closed (Simple Past) > its > operation at "In", not "at". > let's say 1975 but they still owned the land. Now, in > 2006, the people surround -- surrounding (an adjective -- but it's not quite the right word; you'll need to find one that means what you want to say -- I would use the phrase "in the surrounding area"). > that company will file a lawsuit for this > matter. Let's say today that I need to provide some proofs You're using "proof" uncountably, so don't add the plural 's'. > against ABC > company. On "In", not "on". > my essay, what tenses should I use in this sentence: > -Though people surround the ABC company don't use the water from the > aquifer as drinking water, ABC company is responsible because it has > contaminated environment -- the environment > where the people live. (I use present tense in > the whole sentece and this is incorrect) It's not incorrect at all (it has contaminated the environment, and the environment is still contaminated now). Using the Simple Past of "contaminate" ("contaminated"), rather than the Present Perfect might be slightly better, but not enough to worry about. > Facts: > - some people may still live in the area nearby "Near", not "nearby". > ABC company and they > still don't use the water from the aquifer as drinking water > - ABC company operation was done long time ago -- operations were concluded a long time ago > but their action is > discussed today and representative -- a representative > of ABC company is also present. On > the sentece above, ABC company may also refers "Refer", not "refers" (there's an auxiliary verb in the clause, so the main verb stays in the infinitive). > to the representatives, > are they responsible today or responsible years earlier. Because of what your sentence needs to describe, it is almost essential that you use different tenses. What ABC did is affecting people now, and they will be going to court over it (past > present > future). > Advice, guidance, correction and other example are appreciated. > Many thanks to all. > > -ML- > Hi all, > > I need some guidance here for usage of different tenses in one > sentence. > I'm not an English native speaker. Perhaps the simplest way to decide is to ask 'is it still true today?'. For example: " The building was designed by a famous architect and is still in use." "Set # 6 was intorduced in 1894 and contains 105 stones." (The number of stones in set # 6 is the same today as it was in 1894.) GFH |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.