Tense

1 2 3 4 5
   Share on Facebook  
Clive  #273250  Wed, 27 Sep 06 10:16 PM

Hi again,

Men should have created religions, which can/could teach the values that are/were different from those of ordinary people. Now such religions sometimes become the reason of conflicts.

Taka, I think you are saying that 'Men should have created religions ...' is a present presumption of a past event. I can understand why you would have a presumption about an event related to last week, but I don't understand why you have such a presumption about an event that is so much part of the remote past, and which is at best a pretty vague activity ('creating a religion' is not the work of a day). It seems like an odd presumption to have. When you say 'He should have arrived in Montreal yesterday', you need to have some grounds for your presumption. When you say 'Men should have created religions . . . ', what grounds do you have for this presumption? That's why I read it more as regret toward something undone, unfinished.

To me, this paragraph gets even more odd, because your second sentence then goes on to speak in a way that seems to indicate that such religions were in fact created.  ie such religions . . .  become In other words, your second sentence seems not to 'fit' with your first sentence.

My interpretation of your paragraph is very clear to me, I don't have doubts in my mind. I'm just having a lot of trouble in explaining in a clear and rational enough way to you why I see it this way. Language is an imperect communicatiuon tool, isn't it?

Slava, please feel free to help out yet again!

Best wishes, Clive


  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Oct 28 2004
Canada
Veteran Member (22,571)
ModeratorTeachers
El tango argentino es un pensamiento triste que se puede bailar (The tango argentino is a sad thought which can be danced) Enrique Santos Discépolo
MrPedantic  #273281  Thu, 28 Sep 06 12:22 AM
What about:

"...Men must have created religions to teach values that were different from those of ordinary people. Now such religions sometimes become the cause of conflicts..."

Is that any closer to your meaning, Taka?

MrP
  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member (12,168)
Proficient SpeakerSystemAdministrator
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
CalifJim  #273290  Thu, 28 Sep 06 12:51 AM
If I start with 'I believe that men created religions...', should the rest of the sentence be the past tense, as '...that could teach values that were different from those of ordinaly people'? Or is the present tense also accpetable if my focus is on their present activity?

My two cents.

Yes, the rest of the sentence should be in the past tense, and yes, the present tense is also acceptable, as you suggest.

CJ

More on should have later, if time.

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member (17,794)
ModeratorProficient Speaker
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
CalifJim  #273327  Thu, 28 Sep 06 02:36 AM
should have has the unfortunate double role of expressing present expectation or unheeded past advice. 

They should have arrived there by now.   (The expectation is that they have arrived by now.)
They should have been more careful about what they said.  (The implied advice was that they be more careful; they did not follow this implied advice.)

I've noticed that many should have's of expectation involve time, being somewhere by a certain time, and other events expected to have happened "by now".  These often occur in a context where the speaker is waiting (expecting something).

In my mind, the situation in which men create religions is not remotely something anyone would be waiting for, so that reading is totally blocked when I read Men should have created religions ....  The only interpretation left for me is that these men failed to follow some advice, explicit or implicit.  Though the blocking of one interpretation suggests strongly that the other reading (advice) must be intended, this interpretation is equally implausible on purely practical grounds, i.e., implausible because of our knowledge about the world.  In cases where none of the available interpretations is plausible, the result is an anomalous expression.

From the discussion above, I gather that the intended meaning was the expectation meaning, so a paraphrase like [One would expect / We can only assume] that men created religions ... is the sort of thing needed here to convey that thought.

CJ

  
Taka  #273626  Thu, 28 Sep 06 04:28 PM
 CalifJim wrote:


From the discussion above, I gather that the intended meaning was the expectation meaning, so a paraphrase like [One would expect / We can only assume] that men created religions ... is the sort of thing needed here to convey that thought.



CJ, unlike Clive, do you mean you think it is possible for 'should have ...ed' to have the expectation meaning no matter how long ago?
  
Top 50 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Sep 7 2004
Japan
Senior Member (2,351)
CalifJim  #273739  Thu, 28 Sep 06 09:55 PM
do you mean you think it is possible for 'should have ...ed' to have the expectation meaning no matter how long ago

Yes.  I don't think, theoretically, it makes any difference how far in the past your time reference is.  In practical terms, however, we rarely have need to use the expectation meaning of should have for events that we have been expecting to happen for a long time.

Congress has been working on this legislation for more than 35 years.  They should have come up with a coherent  and comprehensive solution by now.

Erosion has been active along this river channel for millions of years.  It should have remodeled the entire flood plain by the end of the last ice age.  (The reason it hasn't is that ...)

Given the mass of the universe, some scientists think that the expansion of the universe should have slowed down even before the creation of the solar system.  (Their evidence is very controversial.  ...)


The farther back in time we go, the more metaphorical the "waiting" is!  Also, the inanimacy of the subject often helps steer us toward the expectation meaning.

CJ




  
Clive  #273762  Thu, 28 Sep 06 11:23 PM

Hi Taka,

The original paragraph was: Men should have created religions, which can/could teach the values that are/were different from those of ordinary people. Now such religions sometimes become the reason of conflicts.

You said earlier: What I wanted to say is that I believe that religions were created to teach people different values.

I have been trying to explain my main position that 'should have created' is not the same as 'were created'. Thus, I think you are misstating my position (no doubt because my explanation was inadequate) by saying: CJ, unlike Clive, do you mean you think it is possible for 'should have ...ed' to have the expectation meaning no matter how long ago? I tried to make the point that such expectations are rarer as the 'event' goes far back in time and suggest that the event did not happen.

For example, Erosion has been active along this river channel for millions of years.  It should have remodeled the entire flood plain by the end of the last ice age.  (The reason it hasn't is that ...)

Nor can the event be said to have happened in CJ's other two examples.

Do you still think you can write the sentence as you did originally, with should have created, or have you revised your opinion?

Best wishes, Clive

  
Taka  #274545  Sat, 30 Sep 06 02:35 PM
 Clive wrote:


You said earlier: What I wanted to say is that I believe that religions were created to teach people different values.

I have been trying to explain my main position that 'should have created' is not the same as 'were created'. Thus, I think you are misstating my position (no doubt because my explanation was inadequate)

Then, what is the difference between 'I believe that religions were created' and 'I assume that religions were created (CJ's restatement)'?

 Clive wrote:

Do you still think you can write the sentence as you did originally, with should have created, or have you revised your opinion?

My interest is in something different now.

Right now, I'm trying to learn what exactly 'should have..ed' is.

  
Schetin  #274556  Sat, 30 Sep 06 03:14 PM

Taka,

I think you can get any of the effects, or even both, if you want to. The point is that you get the one you want.

Obviously, Clive and CJ have given feedback enough for you to make up your mind as to how to get what you want, lest there be misunderstanding on the part of the reader. As you read your text, you see a misunderstanding is possible, even though some readers may have no problem with figuring out what you mean to say. In live languages, there are many a case with no single solution, where you have to decide on your own whether the text is read unambiguously. I'm sure there are suchlike cases in your native language as well.

Slava

  
Top 500 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Sep 4 2006
Moscow, Russia
Full Member (243)
1 2 3 4 5
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL General English Grammar Questions
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service