 |
 | 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 / July 2009The backshift of the simple past tense
Hello everyone, The rule I've found in every grammar I've read is that the simple past tense is backshifted to the past perfect verb form in a reported speech. It's most often added that some general truths don't need to be backshifted but other exceptions to this rule are never mentioned. From some fragments I've gathered from the net it seems to be inaccurate explanation of this point since peoople very often do not backshift the simple past tense at all. Here's an explanation I've found on BBC learning english site: "Either past simple or past perfect is quite acceptable in these examples as it is not so important to show the relationship between the events being spoken about and the original speech" and here's one example given as an illustration: "Alice phoned while you were in the bath". She told me that Alice had phoned while I was in the bath. She told me Alice phoned while I was in the bath. I'd like if someone would explain in more details this point, since I'm really having trouble when I have to decide whether to backshift or not in many situations. Thank you for the answer > The rule I've found in every grammar I've read is that the simple past > tense is backshifted to the past perfect verb form in a reported speech. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > really having trouble when I have to decide whether to backshift or not > in many situations. The points to keep firmly in mind are the significances of the various tenses in English, the actual time being described, and the state of affairs at that time. The simple past tense "refers to time wholly past at the present moment." The past perfect tense "represents a past action or state as completed at or before a certain past time." (Curme, _English Grammar_) Let's see: "Alice phoned while you were in the bath." The telephoning occurred in a time now wholly past; it is thus to be described in the simple past tense, as it correctly is above. "She told me that Alice had phoned while I was in the bath." The reporting done by the person identified as "she" occurred in a time now wholly past; a description of that reporting takes the simple past tense ("she told me"). The telephoning took place at a yet earlier time-- it is a past action that was completed by or before a certain past time, namely that moment in the past when "she" reported it. It thus takes the past perfect tense ("Alice had phoned"), as is, again, correctly shown above. "She told me Alice phoned while I was in the bath." The circumstances are the same as in the case just above. By rule, then, this is technically a defective sentence. But in colloquial, "the [simple] past tense is still often used for the past perfect, as in the early period before the creation of a past perfect". So that last sentence is acceptable in colloquial, but to be avoided in favor of the fuller form in careful or formal speech and writing.  SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > "She told me Alice phoned while I was in the bath." > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So that last sentence is acceptable in colloquial, but to be avoided in > favor of the fuller form in careful or formal speech and writing. Swan, Practical English Usage, (in the section on Tense Simplification) mentions that in _subordinate_ sentences such as the relative one in: [that] Alice phoned ... one has the option of simplifying, say: past perfect -> simple past ---- "I hadn't understood what she said." (More natural than " ... what she had said.) ---- IMO, while the action sequence is clear, one should be able to do so even in writing. Marius Hancu > "She told me that Alice had phoned while I was in the bath." IMO, even this more formal sentence uses tense simplification in the temporal subordinate following "while" past perfect -> simple past in "I had been" -> "I was." How about it? -- Thanks. Marius Hancu Hello again, Thank you very much for the help Eric. I'd like to ask one additional question also related to the possible use of the past perfect versus the simple past in complex sentences. I understand that in the clauses following the conjunction "as if", the simple past form of the verb is used to indicate present state of affairs when the proposition following "as if" is unreal, ie obviously impossible, as in the following sentence: 1.He acts as if he knew everything about that. ( the speaker is sure that "he" doesn't know everything about "that", now) 2.He acts as if he had known everything about that (the speaker is sure that "he" didn't know everything, then) The problem for me is when the verb in the main clause is in the past tense: 3.He acted as if nothing had happened on their return home.( it is implied that "something" happened on their return home) 4.He acted as if nothing was happening on their return home. (it is implied that "something" is happening on their return home) I'd like you to check my understanding of those sentences I gave in the brackets. The additional source of my confusion is this explanation M.Swan gave in his "Practical English Usage": "However, we don't use the past perfect for a past unreal comparison: "He talked as if he was rich, but he wasn't." (NOT..as if he had been rich..) According to this explanation, the example 3 (which sounds OK to me) isn't correct. I'm not sure also if the following two sentences are correct and how to interpret them 5.He pretends as if it didn't happen. 6.He pretends as if he didn't know anything. Thank you for the help I was writing and I didn't see your posts Marius. Thank you very much for the help [...] > The problem for me is when the verb in the main clause is in the past > tense: > > 3. He acted as if nothing had happened on their return home. (it is > implied that "something" happened on their return home) That seems satisfactory. > 4. He acted as if nothing was happening on their return home. (it is > implied that "something" is happening on their return home) The part reading "He acted as if nothing was happening", which I believe is the focus of your concern, is satisfactory[1]. It is the "on their return home" that is troubling (at least to me). I take it that the sense is that his nonchalence was being manifested during the course of the homeward trip; if so, some recasting there is wanted. Sample possibilities: He acted during their return home as if nothing was happening. During their return home, he acted as if nothing was happening. I realize that one can write "John had many adventures on his trip home," and things of that sort, wherein "on" is taken in the sense "during"; but in the subject sentence, I don't feel the word can function in that sense. (I think, though, that that point is outside your chief area of concern.) [...] > The additional source of my confusion is this explanation M. Swan gave > in his "Practical English Usage": [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (NOT..as if he had been rich..) The statement is correct in a sense, but apparently that sense was not fully explained. It again comes down to what the tense forms in English signify and what the conditions to be signified may be. The sense that his rule or guideline encompasses is unreal comparison of conditions both extant at the past moment of the speaking. Let me try to clarify. The statement "as if he had been rich" would, by the nature of the perfect form, signify that at the moment "he" was speaking, a moment now in the past, the speaker was saying that at some time previous to that moment of speech he had been rich (and, by implication, no longer is so). That is a valid use, but with a meaning different from same-moment comparison: "The man was only a chance acquaintance come by in a cheap bar, but his conversation was interesting: it implied a past very different from his present squalid condition. Indeed, he talked as if he had been rich, though now he clearly wasn't." > According to this explanation, the example 3 (which sounds OK to me) > isn't correct. He acted as if nothing had happened on their return home. Same reasoning: the perfect here correctly refers to an action or state that took place or was complete prior to the now-past time at which the action "he acted") took place. The sort of "past unreal comparison" Swan is referring to is one that takes place in the past moment at which the comparison is being made. Compare again: "He talked as if he was rich." "He talked as if he had been rich." The first refers only to the past moment of the speaking: the comparison is between the speaker's apparent and actual states at that moment. The second refers back to a time prior to the moment of the speaking: the comparison is between the speaker's state at the past time of speaking and his state at some time yet prior to that moment. > I'm not sure also if the following two sentences are correct and how to > interpret them > > 5. He pretends as if it didn't happen. > > 6. He pretends as if he didn't know anything. The "as if" is inappropriate: "pretends" effectively says "acts as if" (though with the proviso that the act is a falsehood). "Pretends as if" is thus bad usage. With that initial correction, the questioned forms are: > 5a. He pretends it didn't happen. > 6a. He pretends he didn't know anything. Each is grammatically satisfactory. Sentence 5a says that "he" is acting as though the act in question ("it")--which was in the past--did not happen, even though he knows (or believes) that it did. Sentence 6a says that "he" is acting as though at some time in the past (when, presumably, it would have mattered) he had no knowledge (by implication, knowledge of some specific sort). [1] The choice of indicative or subjunctive for "be" (that is, "was" or "were" is a side issue here. Typically, the indicative is used when we are, as Curme puts it, "for the time being recognizing as a practical working basis the reality of state or act, but not finally committing ourselves to this view: 'If he is doing this, he is in the right.'" But one could equally well, with only slightly differing effect, use the subjunctive: "He acted as if nothing were happening," thus "representing act or state as only conceived, but at the same time recognizing the reality of act or state as a practical working basis . . ." So the subject sentence could be written either way: "He acted as if nothing was happening," or "He acted as if nothing were happening." SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ [...] > The problem for me is when the verb in the main clause is in the past > tense: > > 3. He acted as if nothing had happened on their return home. (it is > implied that "something" happened on their return home) That seems satisfactory. > 4. He acted as if nothing was happening on their return home. (it is > implied that "something" is happening on their return home) The part reading "He acted as if nothing was happening", which I believe is the focus of your concern, is satisfactory[1]. It is the "on their return home" that is troubling (at least to me). I take it that the sense is that his nonchalence was being manifested during the course of the homeward trip; if so, some recasting there is wanted. Sample possibilities: He acted during their return home as if nothing was happening. During their return home, he acted as if nothing was happening. I realize that one can write "John had many adventures on his trip home," and things of that sort, wherein "on" is taken in the sense "during"; but in the subject sentence, I don't feel the word can function in that sense. (I think, though, that that point is outside your chief area of concern.) [...] > The additional source of my confusion is this explanation M. Swan gave > in his "Practical English Usage": [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (NOT..as if he had been rich..) The statement is correct in a sense, but apparently that sense was not fully explained. It again comes down to what the tense forms in English signify and what the conditions to be signified may be. The sense that his rule or guideline encompasses is unreal comparison of conditions both extant at the past moment of the speaking. Let me try to clarify. The statement "as if he had been rich" would, by the nature of the perfect form, signify that at the moment "he" was speaking, a moment now in the past, the speaker was saying that at some time previous to that moment of speech he had been rich (and, by implication, no longer is so). That is a valid use, but with a meaning different from same-moment comparison: "The man was only a chance acquaintance come by in a cheap bar, but his conversation was interesting: it implied a past very different from his present squalid condition. Indeed, he talked as if he had been rich, though now he clearly wasn't." > According to this explanation, the example 3 (which sounds OK to me) > isn't correct. He acted as if nothing had happened on their return home. Same reasoning: the perfect here correctly refers to an action or state that took place or was complete prior to the now-past time at which the action "he acted") took place. The sort of "past unreal comparison" Swan is referring to is one that takes place in the past moment at which the comparison is being made. Compare again: "He talked as if he was rich." "He talked as if he had been rich." The first refers only to the past moment of the speaking: the comparison is between the speaker's apparent and actual states at that moment. The second refers back to a time prior to the moment of the speaking: the comparison is between the speaker's state at the past time of speaking and his state at some time yet prior to that moment. > I'm not sure also if the following two sentences are correct and how to > interpret them > > 5. He pretends as if it didn't happen. > > 6. He pretends as if he didn't know anything. The "as if" is inappropriate: "pretends" effectively says "acts as if" (though with the proviso that the act is a falsehood). "Pretends as if" is thus bad usage. With that initial correction, the questioned forms are: > 5a. He pretends it didn't happen. > 6a. He pretends he didn't know anything. Each is grammatically satisfactory. Sentence 5a says that "he" is acting as though the act in question ("it")--which was in the past--did not happen, even though he knows (or believes) that it did. Sentence 6a says that "he" is acting as though at some time in the past (when, presumably, it would have mattered) he had no knowledge (by implication, knowledge of some specific sort). [1] The choice of indicative or subjunctive for "be" (that is, "was" or "were" is a side issue here. Typically, the indicative is used when we are, as Curme puts it, "for the time being recognizing as a practical working basis the reality of state or act, but not finally committing ourselves to this view: 'If he is doing this, he is in the right.'" But one could equally well, with only slightly differing effect, use the subjunctive: "He acted as if nothing were happening," thus "representing act or state as only conceived, but at the same time recognizing the reality of act or state as a practical working basis . . ." So the subject sentence could be written either way: "He acted as if nothing was happening," or "He acted as if nothing were happening." SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ [...] > The "as if" is inappropriate: "pretends" effectively says "acts as if" > (though with the proviso that the act is a falsehood). "Pretends as if" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> 5a. He pretends it didn't happen. >> 6a. He pretends he didn't know anything. I should have noted that those forms are elliptical for: 5a. He pretends that it didn't happen. 6a. He pretends that he didn't know anything. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Thank you very much for a really informative and helpful answer Eric Walker. I think I understand your point about the Swan's explanation I cited, and your answer left me with the impression that Swan's note in the bracket was misleading in fact. Now I understand that the verb tense in the clause after "as if" would follow the regular tense sequence, the same as in the reported speech like: "He told me that he didn't/ hadn't..". = "He acted as if he didn't/hadn't .." Depending on where we want to put the action in the dependent clause on time chart we would use the past perfect or the simple past for the following verb. I'd like you to correct me if I got this wrong Eric. Let me drag out with my questions a bit more Eric please :) I understand that in the sentence I gave in the beginning of my previous post :: 1. He acts as if he KNEW everything. his "knowing" is situated in the present time ( he knows NOW), despite of the simple past form of the verb "know" used after "as if" Your explanation of the sentence 6a: 6a. He pretends he DIDN'T KNOW anything. is : "Sentence 6a says that "he" is acting as though at some time IN THE PAST (when, presumably, it would have mattered) he had no knowledge (by implication, knowledge of some specific sort)." Am I to understand that the above sentence with the verb "act" instead of "pretend" 6b. He acts as if he DIDN'T KNOW anything. would be interpreted exactly in the same way as the sentence 6a. ? Or I am to interpret "DIDN'T KNOW" situates his knowing in the present as in the sentence 1) above. Or its context dependent? Thank you again for the answers > Thank you very much for a really informative and helpful answer Eric > Walker. You're more than welcome. Giving help is much of what this forum is for. > I think I understand your point about the Swan's explanation I cited, > and your answer left me with the impression that Swan's note in the > bracket was misleading in fact. Not actually misleading, but perhaps some context and a fuller explanation might have helped. But such works often state main principles as aphorisms, and leave complexities for later work. > Now I understand that the verb tense in the clause after "as if" would > follow the regular tense sequence, the same as in the reported speech [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > simple past for the following verb. I'd like you to correct me if I got > this wrong Eric. It's correct. > Let me drag out with my questions a bit more Eric please :) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > his "knowing" is situated in the present time ( he knows NOW), despite > of the simple past form of the verb "know" used after "as if" Clearly, if one writes "He acts as if he knows everything," the matter is simple and clear. In the form with "knew" what we are seeing is the subjunctive past[1]; as Curme notes, "The tenses of the subjunctive have a meaning quite different from those of the indicative. The past subjunctive rarely points to the past. It refers to the present or the future as regularly as does the present tense. . . . The past subjunctive suggests doubt, uncertainty . . . ." We indeed doubt that "he" knows everything. > Your explanation of the sentence 6a: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 6a. ? Or I am to interpret "DIDN'T KNOW" situates his knowing in the > present as in the sentence 1) above. Or its context dependent? So far as I can see, the auxiliary "do" in that sentence should not affect its temporal domain: auxiliary "do" is used for many things, and one of them in modern form is to allow a negating "not" to fall before the infinitive, for purposes of emphasis ("He did not know" as opposed to the older form "He knew not"). So "He acts as if he did not know anything" (to expand the contraction) should have the same temporal sense (though not meaning[2]) as 6a. All that said, in such a construction it might be as well to nail down any uncertainty by "He acts as if he didn't know anything at the time," or some such thing. (I think that all that is correct, but if someone reading this disagrees, please chime in.) [1] Subjunctive because the "as if" marks the statement as being in the potential subjunctive mood, a statement made "not as an actual fact, but only as a conception of the mind." [2] There is a great difference in actual sense because "pretend" definitely conveys the meaning that his manner is deliberately false, that he is falsifying his behavior for some reason (which may be malevolent or benevolent, there is no connotation as to which). To merely say he "acts as if" says nothing whatever one way or the other as to whether his action is honest or deceptive. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > > Thank you very much for a really informative and helpful answer Eric > > Walker. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > Cordially, > Eric Walker, Owlcroft Househttp://owlcroft.com/english/ Hello Eric, Very kind of you to give an elaborate answer to my question again. I'd like to check with you if I understood well if you don't mind. I understand that we would understand "He acts as if he DIDN'T KNOW anything" as having the same TEMPORAL reference as the same sentence 6a, with "pretend" (I understand your point about the difference in the meaning between those two sentence). I understand that it would be probable reading of the sentence but that there is a slight chance that "DID NOT KNOW" could be interpreted as subjunctive, giving the meaning to the sentence that "he does KNOW something, NOW). To resolve any possibility of misunderstanding, the adverbial "at that time" can be added. I'd like if you would check my understanding of your answer. I didn't fully understand to which part "[1]" refers back to, and the entire meaning of the following part of your answer Eric: [1] Subjunctive because the "as if" marks the statement as being in the > potential subjunctive mood, a statement made "not as an actual fact, but > only as a conception of the mind." Thank you again for the help [...] > I'd like to check with you if I understood well if you don't mind. I > understand that we would understand "He acts as if he DIDN'T KNOW [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > possibility of misunderstanding, the adverbial "at that time" can be > added. I'd like if you would check my understanding of your answer. Essentially true. Strictly speaking, I don't reckon "did not know" could be mistaken for the subjunctive, but some readers and listeners not formally aware of the subjunctive and its manifestations could be confused, so explicitly nailing down the temporal reference, though not the most elegant possible expression of the idea, might be the most pragmatic casting. > I didn't fully understand to which part "[1]" refers back to, and > the entire meaning of the following part of your answer Eric: > > [1] Subjunctive because the "as if" marks the statement as being in the >> potential subjunctive mood, a statement made "not as an actual fact, >> but only as a conception of the mind." It refers to why the subjunctive needs to be invoked. The subjunctive mood has two main classes: the potential subjunctive (representing the utterance as not an actual fact but only a conception of the mind-- sometimes referred to as "contrafactual"), and the optative subjunctive (representing the utterance as something desired or planned). There is no difference in form between the two: they are useful designations only for purposes of identifying circumstances in which the subjunctive mood is wanted for proper expression of a thought. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > > The rule I've found in every grammar I've read is that the simple past > > tense is backshifted to the past perfect verb form in a reported speech. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Cordially, > Eric Walker, Owlcroft Househttp://owlcroft.com/english/ Thank you very much for the informative answer Eric. It helps really. I think I understand your point fully now (though I'm never sure :). It's a bit a problem for me to distinguish between the situations where the simple past form of the verb in the clause following "He acts as if.." address a past action, from the same grammatical construction, where the simple past form of the verb is to be understood as hypothetical, unreal, subjunctive form referring to the present. I guess I'm a bit inflexible in learning and that I expect that grammar rules cover the whole body of the language which those rules surely can't, and any inconsistency troubles me as you've surely noticed Eric from my posts here. Best regards [...] > Thank you very much for the informative answer Eric. It helps really. I > think I understand your point fully now (though I'm never sure :). It's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > inconsistency troubles me as you've surely noticed Eric from my posts > here. The difficulties with "as if" arise from two chief sources: first, the mechanical form of the subjunctive is, excepting the one verb "be", not distinctive save in the third-person-singular present tense; and the tendency in modern English to use the indicative rather than the simple subjunctive for statements of possibility that do not involve substantial doubt. The first makes it harder to tell when the writer has invoked the subjunctive; the reader needs to rely more on what the tense is than the form. ("He acts as if he knows/knew.") The second makes it difficult to decide what degree of doubt the writer has. All in all, the subject deserves more space than can conveniently be devoted to it on a forum of dialogue. My suggestion is that you acquire a copy of George O. Curme's classic _English Grammar_. The full work in hardcover costs, even used, roughly the GNP of a third-world nation; but a lightly abridged paperback edition--the Barnes & Noble "College Outline Series" edition--is available so inexpensively that the shipping (even if domestic) will doubtless be more than the cost of the book. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ Thank you very much for the suggestion and the additional explanation of the subject Eric. I've noticed you have mentioned Curme's grammar a few times and I'm sure that you know its value of course. I'll ask around if I can find it somewhere near my place, without having to order it online. Best regards > She told me Alice phoned while I was in the bath. To me, this could mean "While I was in the bath she told me (by shouting through the bathroom door!) that Alice had phoned" SignatureDave >> She told me Alice phoned while I was in the bath. >> > To me, this could mean "While I was in the bath she told me (by shouting > through the bathroom door!) that Alice had phoned" It would be more interesting if she hadn't shouted through the door. |
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.