|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MrPedantic
#89756 Thu, 14 Apr 05 12:59 AM
|
|
| ..do not get overly confused by the esoteric debate between Mr. P and JTT... |
|
And then, of course, Chelsea won, even though they lost...
MrP
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Tue, Oct 12 2004
|
...opella forensis / adducit febris...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just the truth
#89765 Thu, 14 Apr 05 01:33 AM
|
|
Abbie wrote:
1. Mourinho has been given a two-match touchline ban and WOULD HAVE HAD to sit in the stands with a minder anyway.
Here we are talking about the "future in the past".
At the time the speaker is talking, Mourhino had already received the ban (past). He knew then that for the next match (future, when he got the ban) he would have to sit in the stands.
Two weeks ago Mourhino got a ban. (past) Two weeks ago (past) he knew that in one week's time, (future) he would have to sit on the bench
=============
JTT: It's not quite so esoteric as you imagine, Abbie. This is not as "future in the past". This is an unrealized conditional. You and Mr P are more familiar than me with the timing of these events as soccer is for me, not a big deal.
as a 'future in the past' does not make use of the perfect. The perfect describes a finished event, in this case a potential finished event.
We see this is the case from what Mr P wrote, to wit,
"If he had attended the Chelsea/Bayern M. game, he would therefore have had to watch it from the stands, with a minder (to protect him from troublesome fans)."
======================
At first, few had much faith in the lanky man from Illinois {Abe Lincoln 1853}. But ten years later he would become President.
This, above, is a 'future in the past'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Mon, Dec 27 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just the truth
#89802 Thu, 14 Apr 05 05:29 AM
|
|
2. I realized I'D HAD it in my pocket all along.
3. As a member of the Parent Support Group of a secondary school, I HAVE HAD the opportunity to interact with teachers in various programs and activities.
For example, what would be the difference if the tenses (in caps) are replaced by:
2: ‘had’?
3. ‘had’?
=====================
JTT: Let's just see what the differences are, Clarence.
2. I realized I HAD it in my pocket all along.
JTT: There's no major difference in meaning here. We don't always have to use the past perfect as the 'rule' suggests, ie. there is no compulsion to do so.
I believe that where it is used, in situations like this, it tends to add a degree of importance to the statement. Using the past perfect adds a little oomph to the statement. A person might use the simple past to "downplay" the event.
3. As a member of the Parent Support Group of a secondary school, I HAD the opportunity to interact with teachers in various programs and activities.
JTT: Using the present perfect adds some importance to the statement, makes it more current, makes it more formal, adds some oomph to it. We would tend to use the simple past when we simply wanted to describe the situation without giving it currency, importance, formality or added oomph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
#89825 Thu, 14 Apr 05 08:48 AM
|
|
Another country heard from.
1. Mr. Pendantic has explained this extensively by providing the relevant context.
2. This is the exact analog of the corresponding present-point-of-view sentence, thus:
2a. (Now) I realize that I have had it in my pocket all along.
2b. (At that time) I realized that I had had it in my pocket all along.
In both 2a and 2b the realization is of a situation which was already in effect before the realization and continued up to the point of the realization. The obvious difference is that the realization occurs in the present in 2a, in the past in 2b.
2c. *(Now) I realize that I have it in my pocket all along.
2d. (At that time) I realized that I had it in my pocket all along.
In 2c and 2d the analogy is spoiled by the ungrammaticality of 2c because of "all along", but 2c is OK without "all along". Nevertheless, this is not to the point. It's a mere curiosity that I mention in passing. The point is that 2d is a common non-canonical variant of 2b which means the same thing and is equally acceptable.
3. "As a member of the Parent Support Group of a secondary school, I HAVE HAD the opportunity to interact with teachers in various programs and activities" suggests the present point of view.
It suggests "As a member of PSG, which I currently am, I have had (over the time I have been a member) the opportunity to ... ", i.e., "I have been for some time a member, so I have had for some time the opportunity ..." or "Since I now am a member, ..."
In contrast,
"As a member of the Parent Support Group of a secondary school, I HAD the opportunity to interact with teachers in various programs and activities" suggests the past point of view. It suggests "As a member of PSG, which I used to be, I had (at that time, but not necessarily now) the opportunity ..." or "When I was a member, ..."
As with almost all contrasts between present perfect (HAVE HAD) and simple past (HAD), the present perfect form leaves the past open to the present -- the past continues into the present, so that a whole sweep of time up to the present is under consideration.
And the simple past form closes off the past from the present-- I want to say it's a past walled off from the present -- so that only that period of time which already ended in the past is under consideration.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
|
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just the truth
#89841 Thu, 14 Apr 05 09:55 AM
|
|
3. "As a member of the Parent Support Group of a secondary school, I HAVE HAD the opportunity to interact with teachers in various programs and activities"
suggests the present point of view.
It suggests "As a member of PSG, which I currently am, I have had (over the time I have been a member) the opportunity to ... ", i.e., "I have been for some time a member, so I have had for some time the opportunity ..." or "Since I now am a member, ..."
As with almost all contrasts between present perfect (HAVE HAD) and simple past (HAD), the present perfect form leaves the past open to the present -- the past continues into the present, so that a whole sweep of time up to the present is under consideration.
JTT: I found this very hard to phrase because there is a nuance that I don't want ESLs to miss.
I don't think that a 'suggestion' of the present is compelling enough to state that this membership continues to now. The suggestion is there, no doubt about it but there is no definite way to tell, with the available info, that #3 means that the person is a current member.
As we're all aware, the present perfect is used to bring finished events into the "spotlight". It's used to point out the continued importance of past actions but it doesn't require that the action 'continue into the present'.
ONE job of the present perfect is to show continuation. Such could be the case here but it's not necessarily so. Sometimes, the only thing left open to the present is the effect of finished events. In these situations, present perfect and past tense are identical in that they both describe finished actions/events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarence
#89875 Thu, 14 Apr 05 11:50 AM
|
|
Hi All,
Thanks a lot for all your replies!
Yes, I’m really glad I finally asked the question. It has been bothering me for quite some time; I’m disturbed and ‘lost’ whenever I come across these tenses. And I was thinking: “How do I ask a question like this?”
Yes, I do find the answers quite complicated for me to digest. So I’ve put down what I could understand under "CONCLUSIONS" below; please do correct them if they are wrong.
Overall, I still find myself not very comfortable with ‘1’. Is there any reference book or website I could find out more? Thanks.
Clarence.
PS. As there is much discussion about the Mourinho sentence, I have also attached the article for everyone's reference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mourinho has been given a two-match touchline ban and WOULD HAVE HAD to sit in the stands with a minder anyway.
Past1 : Mourinho has been given a two-match touchline ban
Future1 : WOULD HAVE HAD to sit in the stands with a minder anyway
CONCLUSIONS:
==========
- Future1 => ‘future in the past’ = a future event mentioned in Past1.
(We can therefore conclude at the present, Mourinho has NOT sat in the stands?)
- Or, Future1 => unrealized conditional = a conditional future event mentioned in Past1.
(Then ‘WOULD HAVE to’ would => ‘future in the past’.)
- Question: Since Future1 refers to the future, => WOULD HAVE and HAVE could be also used in the sentence. If so, what would be the difference in meaning?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. I realized I'D HAD it in my pocket all along.
Past1 : realized
Past2 : HAD HAD it in my pocket all along
CONCLUSIONS:
==========
- Past2 is EARLIER than Past1.
- If Past2 uses ‘HAD’, => Past2 is at the same time as Past1? Or it is understood that Past2 occurs BEFORE Past1? (Since the thing must surely be in the pocket BEFORE the person realizes it.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. As a member of the Parent Support Group of a secondary school, I HAVE HAD the opportunity to interact with teachers in various programs and activities.
Past1: HAVE HAD the opportunity to interact with teachers in various programs and activities.
CONCLUSIONS:
==========
- If ‘HAD’, => event occurred in the past (just reporting an event in the past); whether Past1 still true now is not known
- If ‘HAVE’, => Past1 is still true now
- If ‘HAVE HAD’, => Past1 occurred in the past; event has some effect till the present.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Mon, Feb 28 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarence
#89879 Thu, 14 Apr 05 11:56 AM
|
|
Guess where Jose will be when the big match starts?
==================================
CHELSEA manager Jose Mourinho will not be at Stamford Bridge to see his side play Bayern Munich in the first leg of their Champions League quarter-final.
07 April 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA manager Jose Mourinho will not be at Stamford Bridge to see his side play Bayern Munich in the first leg of their Champions League quarter-final.
Instead, he will be 'somewhere peaceful' from where he will watch the game.
Mourinho has been given a two-match touchline ban and would have had to sit in the stands with a minder anyway.
As part of the ban, Mourinho is not allowed to speak, telephone, pass notes or make hand signals to his players or his staff.
Chelsea assistant boss Baltemar Brito has hinted that Mourinho's absence is a protest against the ban - and Chelsea's refusal to appeal against it.
Brito said: 'He's not happy. He feels hard done by over the ban situation.'
Recent reports have suggested Mourinho may be considering his future, and Brito's comments are unlikely to end speculation.
He added: 'When Jose comes to a club or starts a new job, he gives 100 per cent and expects 100 per cent back.
'It is something you would have to ask Jose directly but I acknowledge that Jose felt he did not get 100 per cent back.'
Instead, Mourinho will 'be in a private place, a peaceful place to watch the game. He will have no contact with the staff'.
However, Uefa's William Gaillard has admitted it would be hard to stop Mourinho contacting his staff, if he is at home.
Gaillard told BBC Sport that a Uefa minder would not be with the Chelsea boss.
'If he stays at home, we could not send anyone there to monitor him - we have to respect his privacy,' he said.
REGULATIONS
Asked whether he was concerned Mourinho might try to call his coaches, Gaillard added: 'Even if we were worried, what can we do? Regulations have limits.'
Mourinho has played down his touchline ban and said his players know exactly what they must do.
'I cannot communicate with them during the game but because of the time we work together, they understand the way I think, the way I feel,' he said.
'The players have a good enthusiasm and confidence and we are very together.'
- Wire Services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
#89959 Thu, 14 Apr 05 05:06 PM
|
|
Hi, JT,
I don't think that a 'suggestion' of the present is compelling enough to state that this membership continues to now. |
|
Exactly! That's why I avoided saying "it means XYZ" and said "it suggests XYZ", fully realizing that it may also suggest other nuances to others.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
just the truth
#90058 Thu, 14 Apr 05 11:35 PM
|
|
Exactly! That's why I avoided saying "it means XYZ" and said "it suggests XYZ", fully realizing that it may also suggest other nuances to others.
CJ
Hello to you, Jim. I understand that that was your intention, but I thought it vitally important to ESLs to realize that any two ENLs, [when they know the context, for example, it's the speaker's retirement party, the speaker is no longer a member] would realize that this was a finished event.
It is exceedingly difficult for many ESLs to grasp that the present perfect sometimes ONLY means the 'effect of a past action'. I believed this offered a chance to illustrate that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|