tenses

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Share on Facebook

MrPedantic

#155550 Sun, 06 Nov 05 01:28 AM

Tallulah Tam wrote:

[various scenes]

Hello Tallulah

True enough...But I said: "The question here implies some previous discussion of 'him', which eliminates the ambiguity." (The question was "Did you ever meet him?")

As these googles show, the question is used in contexts where a reference to "him" has already been made:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22did+you+ever+meet+him%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

MrP

MrPedantic

Joined on Tue, Oct 12 2004

Veteran Member (12,047)

...opella forensis / adducit febris...

Tallulah Tam

#155601 Sun, 06 Nov 05 06:13 AM

Yes, I changed it slightly from meet to met.

There is a very subtle difference that a native speaker such as myself would know and instinctively adjust the sentence accordingly.

"During the seminar you attended last week, did you ever meet HIM?" (That man over there). Simple Past.

Implies that at least I thought he would be at the seminar. - (Did you meet?)

"Have you ever met HIM?" (That man over there) Does not. Present Perfect.

Tallulah Tam

Joined on Sun, Jul 17 2005

Alabama, USA (British)

Full Member (234)

If at first you don't succeed sky-diving is not for you.

MrPedantic

#155621 Sun, 06 Nov 05 09:26 AM

But the question is whether "did you ever meet him?" implies a certain context for a subsequent "Yes, I met him five years ago."

I'm not sure your new suggestion works in the dialogue:

Two women are sitting in a bar in Palma de Mallorca chatting.

One woman notices a man across the room looking their way. She leans over to the other woman and says:

""During the seminar you attended last week, did you ever meet HIM?"

The other woman replies, "Yes, I met him five years ago."

The first woman then asks "Where?"

The second woman states "At a conference."

MrP

MrPedantic

Tallulah Tam

#155675 Sun, 06 Nov 05 02:42 PM

You are right, that does not make sense, I should have said, "In a different conversation."

If someone asked, "During the seminar you attended last week, did you ever meet HIM?" and the other person replied:-

"Yes, I met him five years ago." It indicates that the first person was not listening to the question.

By the way Mr Pedantic, to be pedantic myself, (which I am generally not) the examples I gave before the seminar example were different dialogues in the SAME scene. Smile [:)]

Tallulah Tam

Conversations

MrPedantic

#155698 Sun, 06 Nov 05 04:26 PM

...different dialogues in the same scene...

Fair enough.

"During the seminar you attended last week, did you ever meet HIM?" (That man over there). Simple Past.

Implies that at least I thought he would be at the seminar. - (Did you meet?)

And how would you distinguish between these three sentences, in the context of your dialogue:

1. "During the seminar you attended last week, did you ever meet HIM?"

2. "During the seminar you attended last week, did you meet HIM?"

3. "During the seminar you attended last week, did you happen to meet HIM?"

MrP

MrPedantic

Simple past

Tallulah Tam

#155721 Sun, 06 Nov 05 05:52 PM

Mr P. Before rushing out to church - I live in the Bible Belt you know. Smile [:)]

"During the seminar you attended last week, did you ever meet HIM?"

1) She knew that he would be there and it was assumed that she met a lot of other people, but did she ever meet HIM?
Or the other way round, he was an important man he had a lot of people to meet, did he ever get around to meeting her?

"During the seminar you attended last week, did you meet HIM?"

2) It was expected that he would be there to meet her. A definite appointment had been made.

"During the seminar you attended last week, did you happen to meet HIM?"

3) It was not known whether he would be there or not. By the way, did you happen to meet HIM?

Tallulah Tam

Anonymous

#155829 Mon, 07 Nov 05 12:32 AM

The correct response is ' I've known him for 5 years'.

Anonymous

paco2004

#155841 Mon, 07 Nov 05 01:42 AM

Hello guys

I come to feel I have misunderstood the usage of "know". I thought previously "know someone" could be a dynamic verb to mean "get acquainted with someone", but now I understand "know someone" can be only a stative verb to mean "be acquainted with someone" or "keep a relationship with someone". So let me confirm on this occasion whether my current understanding is right or not.

(1) (x) I knew her five years ago.
This is wrong. "Five years ago" is a point-time adverbial and so it can't go with a stative verb "know".
(2) (o) I've known her for five years.
This is right. It means we got acquainted with each other five years ago and still now we keep an intimate relationship.
(3) (o) I knew her for five years, but we lost touch two years ago.
This is right. As the state of my knowing her is now a past event, we can describe it in simple past tense. It could be rewritten like below.
"I had known her for five years, but we lost touch two years ago."

Is this understanding of mine right?

paco

paco2004

Joined on Wed, Nov 17 2004

Senior Member (4,095)

In Japan today even dogs are learning how to bow-wow in English.

Dynamic verbs, Past tenses, Simple past, Stative verbs, Tenses, Verbs

Tallulah Tam

#155873 Mon, 07 Nov 05 05:06 AM

Hello Paco,

All three are correct.

I knew her five years ago means you have lost touch with her. Perhaps you met her on holiday, five years ago in 2000 and spent a short time with her. Or perhaps you were at college with her but you no longer know her. You knew her then, but not now.

Number 3 means over the course of any five years you knew her, (could be from 1990 to 1995 or from 1995 to 2000) but you have lost touch with her now.

Someone else will have to explain the grammar. Smile [:)]

Tallulah Tam

Grammar, Numbers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7