tense

Share on Facebook

Taka

#271751 Sun, 24 Sep 06 06:22 PM

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.

About the parts in red, which tense would you choose? Or are they both grammatically acceptable?

Taka

Joined on Tue, Sep 7 2004

Japan

Senior Member (2,266)

Tenses

Clive

#271763 Sun, 24 Sep 06 06:56 PM

Hi Taka,

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.

About the parts in red, which tense would you choose? Or are they both grammatically acceptable?

I find the whole paragraph unsatisfactory.

eg the values why is this definite article used?

eg should have created suggests these religions were not created. So how can such religions then become the reason of conflicts?

eg I also question the purpose of the comma after religions.

[ I would prefer 'reason for', although I don't think 'of' interferes with the meaning. ]

I think clarification is needed before your question can be properly answered.

Best wishes, Clive

Clive

Joined on Thu, Oct 28 2004

Canada

Veteran Member (21,191)

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

Articles, Tenses, Commas, Definite articles, Paragraphs

MrPedantic

#271777 Sun, 24 Sep 06 07:58 PM

Should it start:

"Men should have created religions that..."

I wonder?

MrP

MrPedantic

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004

Veteran Member (12,053)

...opella forensis / adducit febris...

Taka

#271779 Sun, 24 Sep 06 08:09 PM

Clive wrote:
why is this definite article used?

I agree. It would be better without the article to indicate their generality.

Clive wrote:

should have created suggests these religions were not created.

I thought 'Should have -ed' could also be used to indicate the speaker's guess at their completion.

e.g
・The operation should have finished by now.
・I'm worried about my doughter; she should have been home an hour ago.

Am I wrong?

Anyway, whether 'should have created' or 'must have created', which tense would be better; present or past? That is my question.

Clive wrote:

I also question the purpose of the comma after religions.

Because I thought that was what religions would do in general, so I used the non-restrictive 'which' (initially I didn't use the comma, though. I thought afterwards that it might be better to use the comma).

Taka

Articles, Tenses, Commas, Definite articles

Clive

#271785 Sun, 24 Sep 06 08:57 PM

Hi,

I thought 'Should have -ed' could also be used to indicate the speaker's guess at their completion.

e.g
・The operation should have finished by now.
・I'm worried about my doughter; she should have been home an hour ago.

Am I wrong? Well, are you guessing at the completion of these religions? I don't think so.

Anyway, whether 'should have created' or 'must have created', which tense would be better; present or past? That is my question.

My point is whether these religions that you are talking about exist at the present time or not. 'Should have' suggests to me that they don't. Do they?

Clive

Tenses

MrPedantic

#271793 Sun, 24 Sep 06 09:35 PM

Maybe:

"...must surely have created religions that..."

Does that catch your meaning, Taka?

MrP

MrPedantic

Ant_222

#271822 Sun, 24 Sep 06 11:39 PM

Hello, here's my try.

Taka wrote:
«...Now such religions sometimes become the reason of conflicts.»

Therefore, the author means existing religions...

I'd say «It was natural that men created religions that...»

EDIT: As to the tenses, I suggest that you use present simple. Since those religions' properties are still actual at the moment of speech.

EDIT2:

Also Taka wrote: «Because I thought that was what religions would do in general, so I used the non-restrictive 'which' (initially I didn't use the comma, though. I thought afterwards that it might be better to use the comma).»

You are not right here. There's a restriction in your original sentence. There, all religions are restricted to only those which teach values different from those of ordinary people. Thus, this is a restriction.

Ant_222

Joined on Sun, May 21 2006

Podolsk, Russia

Contributing Member (1,547)

Tenses, Commas, Present simple

Taka

#271883 Mon, 25 Sep 06 04:46 AM

Clive wrote:
Well, are you guessing at the completion of these religions? I don't think so.

I'm getting confused. What I wanted to say is that I believe that religions were created to teach people different values.

I didn't use 'must have created', because I'm not that certain. In order to make it slightly less certain, therefore, I used 'should have created'; 'must have created' sounds too strong, but 'may have created' sounds too unsure. So I meant to make it somewhere in-between in terms of the degree of certainty.

You don't think I can use 'should have created' to mean that? Why not?

Taka

Clive

#271894 Mon, 25 Sep 06 05:25 AM

Hi,

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.

What I wanted to say is that I believe that religions were created to teach people different values. Then why don't you just express it in this way? It's certainly clearer and more direct. Then go on to add the rest of your thought about religions as the reason for conflicts.

You don't think I can use 'should have created' to mean that? Why not? If you say 'I should have called Tom', I will take this to mean that you didn't call him.

In short, I recommend that you reword. As you can see, I've had trouble understanding your meaning.

Best wishes, Clive

Clive

1 2 3 4 5