Click here to play

tense

1 2
   Share on Facebook  
Taka  #124738  Sun, 07 Aug 05 07:14 PM
When my uncle got married in his mid-twenties, my father, who had lived in the house since he was born, moved to Chicago to work for a company there.


Is it OK to use 'lived' in the sentence instead of 'had lived'? If it's OK, what kind of difference do you native speakers detect between:

(a) When my uncle got married in his mid-twenties, my father, who had lived in the house since he was born, moved to Chicago to work for a company there.

and

(b) When my uncle got married in his mid-twenties, my father, who lived in the house since he was born, moved to Chicago to work for a company there.

?

  
Top 50 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Sep 7 2004
Japan
Senior Member (2,265)
Philip  #124749  Sun, 07 Aug 05 08:37 PM

 Taka wrote:
When my uncle got married in his mid-twenties, my father, who had lived in the house since he was born, moved to Chicago to work for a company there.


Is it OK to use 'lived' in the sentence instead of 'had lived'? If it's OK, what kind of difference do you native speakers detect between:

(a) When my uncle got married in his mid-twenties, my father, who had lived in the house since he was born, moved to Chicago to work for a company there.

and

(b) When my uncle got married in his mid-twenties, my father, who lived in the house since he was born, moved to Chicago to work for a company there.

?

'Had lived' is fine, since the living there happened up until the time of the marriage.  'Had been living' is my preference, because it emphasizes es the continuity of the living there.

  
Top 25 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Jun 23 2005
USA Pacific Northwest (Seattle)
Veteran Member (6,181)
ModeratorProficient Speaker
At reise er at leve! - H. C. Andersen
Eire  #124750  Sun, 07 Aug 05 08:37 PM

I'm not a native speaker, but a teacher of the language. I wouldn't accept the version of the sentence with "lived". It can't have other meaning than that of the sentence with "had lived"(meaning that my father lived in that house before the marriage and then he moved to Chicago). I can not think of other possible meanings.

Hope to have helped you,

Eire.

  
Top 500 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Jul 14 2005
Catalonia
Junior Member (84)
MrPedantic  #124770  Sun, 07 Aug 05 11:22 PM

Hello Taka

I too find the simple past tense unidiomatic – 'since' seems to require a perfect tense (present, past, or future) in such contexts.

MrP

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004
Veteran Member (12,047)
Proficient SpeakerSystemAdministrator
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
Taka  #124833  Mon, 08 Aug 05 05:41 AM
meaning that my father lived in that house before the marriage and then he moved to Chicago


Right. I agree. But if there was no such 'before-ness' in a sentence, do you think the past perfect would be still required when the sentence had '...since S+past' construction?

Example:
I am from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania which is where I lived since I was 5 years old.


http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/d/sdj124/


  
Mister Micawber  #124853  Mon, 08 Aug 05 06:42 AM

Stevie's grammar isn't very good, Taka.  As this sentence stands, it is conceptually incomplete.  Either:

I am from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania which is where I have lived since I was 5 years old.-- (he still maintains a residence in Gettysburg)

or

I am from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania which is where I lived from the age 5 until last Tuesday.-- (he no longer lives there)

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Wed, Aug 4 2004
Yokohama
Veteran Member (21,117)
SystemAdministratorTeachers
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master-- that's all.'
Taka  #124876  Mon, 08 Aug 05 08:23 AM
Hmm...So 'since+S+past' has to be accompanied with either past perfect or present perfect. But what about a 'for+a certain amont of period' construction? If I 'm not mistaken,  both 'I lived in the US for 5 years' and 'I have lived/been living in the US for 5 years' are fine, right?

Why is 'simple past+for+a certain amont of period' OK, whereas 'simple past+since+S+past' is not?



  
Anonymous  #124899  Mon, 08 Aug 05 12:14 PM

Why is 'simple past+for+a certain amont of period' OK, whereas 'simple past+since+S+past' is not?


I presume that it is because the latter presents only one end of the time span, leaving it open-ended at the near end.  The default terminus is Now.


(Rats.  Forgot to sign in AGAIN!  I hate moderating my own posts-- I am so judgmental.)


  
Taka  #125009  Mon, 08 Aug 05 05:57 PM
Open-ended! Very interesting! So, in other words 'for+a certain amont of time' is a kind of closed end?
  
1 2
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL General English Grammar Questions
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service