I have found two sentences in "Sense and Sensibility" in which the choice of
the tense is not quite clear to me:
1) "Upon my word, I am not acquainted with the minutia of her principles. I
only know that *I never yet heard* her admit any instance of a second
attachment's being pardonable."
2) "Look at those hills! *Did you ever see their equals*?"
I'd have used the present perfect in both sentences. Why did she choose the
simple past? I'm pretty sure the Americans usually do this, nowadays.
Bye, FB
John Briggs - 29 Feb 2004 01:01 GMT
> I have found two sentences in "Sense and Sensibility" in which the choice
> of the tense is not quite clear to me:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I'd have used the present perfect in both sentences. Why did she choose
> the simple past? I'm pretty sure the Americans usually do this, nowadays.
Most texts seem to print "minutiae of her principles".
She is reproducing rather formal speech, for which I sippose the simple past
was commoner then than now. Example 1 sounds rather odd these days, but
example 2 is perfectly idiomatic.

Signature
John Briggs
Vanya - 29 Feb 2004 03:47 GMT
> I have found two sentences in "Sense and Sensibility" in which the choice of
> the tense is not quite clear to me:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Bye, FB
I would have too, but I don't see anything wrong with the simple past.
And I would have said, "... their equal."
Vanya (an american)