backshift of zero or first conditional?

   Share on Facebook  
Anonymous  #526101  Thu, 12 Jun 08 02:07 AM

1) Hi, Please tell me if this is a backshift of a zero or first conditional. Is backshifting of zero or first conditional OK??? If he did write the book, it was after the last remaining people fled to *** and after a long journey to the land of ... 2) Is this kind of mixing of past perfect and past allowed??? He discovered that the promise was broken, schools were distroyed, people had gone to other lands, and the leaders had become corrupt.
  
CalifJim  #526115  Thu, 12 Jun 08 02:48 AM
Anonymous
If he did write the book, it was after the last remaining people fled to *** and after a long journey to the land of ...
It's a "backshift of a zero conditional".  That is, it's a conditional with a simple past in both clauses.  (By the way, I like to give this conditional the name "the detective conditional" because it sounds like a detective is deducing facts from some evidence he has discovered.  This is not a standard grammatical term, however!!!)

Anonymous
Is this kind of mixing of past perfect and past allowed??? He discovered that the promise was broken, schools were d[ e ]stroyed, people had gone to other lands, and the leaders had become corrupt.
Yes.  It's quite natural and common to mix these two tenses.

CJ 

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member (16,975)
ModeratorProficient Speaker
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
Anonymous  #526146  Thu, 12 Jun 08 04:34 AM

Thank you. I may be naive to ask you this: What is the reason to shift-back further only the following two events and leave the other two events just once back (as it seems -- I don't how many times back since the past can go back far in the past with the ability to accommadate how many ever times back intact)?? He discovered that the promise was broken, schools were d[ e ]stroyed, people had gone to other lands, and the leaders had become corrupt. How about here??? Why use a past perfect in one and not in the other?? (I didn't see any context for further mentioning of development in the text) When he arrived, it had developed into ***, and they became his worst enemies.
  
Marius Hancu  #526473  Thu, 12 Jun 08 08:19 PM
 You can't go back too many times. Choose a critical moment/event in the past: everything earlier than that should be past perfect. 

 When he arrived, it had developed into ***, and they became his worst enemies.

This is correct.  Only what ("it") developed before his arrival is past perfect. Those events before his arrival constituted the basis of their conflict, after that everything goes simple perfect.  

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Wed, Apr 26 2006
Montreal, Canada
Veteran Member (11,673)
Proficient Speaker
CalifJim  #526582  Fri, 13 Jun 08 02:42 AM
Anonymous
He discovered that the promise was broken, schools were d[ e ]stroyed, people had gone to other lands, and the leaders had become corrupt. How about here??? Why use a past perfect in one and not in the other??
  Excellent question.

This has to be read as an enumeration of four states that were discovered.

1.  The promise was (in the state of being) broken.  (Not the event:  Someone broke the promise.)

2.  Schools were (in the state of being) destroyed.  ( Schools appeared to be in ruins. -- Not the event:  Someone destroyed schools.) 

3.  [ People were not there anymore (state, the result of an event, not an event) because ] they had (previously) gone to other lands. (event)

4.  [ Leaders were corrupt (state, the result of an event, not an event) because ] they had (previously) become corrupt. (event)

It was simply the choice of the author to present the facts in this way.  We may disagree about whether this was the clearest, most effective way to present the facts, but that is the way he chose.

CJ 

  
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL General English Grammar Questions
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service