Search results for 'tag:Marriage tag:Past tenses' matching tags 'Marriage' and 'Past tenses'

Re: inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Goodman — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:13:52 GMT

Hoa Thai wrote:

Dear all,

First, I would like to thank you in advance for reading this rather lengthy post of mine. I do need to lay out my thinking and reasoning as wide as I can so you can best help me to untangle my own confusion knot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

After a whole day contemplating on freeing myself from this closet of my mind regarding the choice between grammatical correctness and expressional naturalness, I would like to re-explore the marriage between the simple past tense and present perfect - one more time.

As CalifJim clearly explains in one of his writings, simple past represents time specificity; while present perfect serves time non-specificity (i.e., sometime in the past, including the recent time frame). Obviously, âspecificâ and ânon-specificâ cannot be the same. However, in terms of time, a ânon-specific time setâ does include a âspecific time elementâ (e.g., yesterday afternoon is âspecificâ in the time scale between the moment of big-bang and this very moment).

In addition to that, we all know a ânon-specific recent pastâ does not include a âspecific far pastâ â distinctively, the former is younger than the later.

Therefore, (I think) the distinction between âinclusionâ and âseparationâ must have contributed to the way people express themselves.

Moreover, when âthe lastâ enters a picture â as we often compare âthe last yearâ with âlast yearâ â even though, it symbolizes the last one of any sequence (i.e., non-specific), its nature conveys time-specificity â all are before it and none is after it.

In comparing to âthe lastâ - âthe bestâ or âthe worstâ is quality-based and time-unbiased â none or more are before it and none or more are after it; and they are all inferior. However, the superlative âtheâ does indicate a uniqueness, so when it happens, the time involved is specific!

After the above postulation, I can reason that:

âWhat was the best movie you have ever seen?â means âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the best?â - and that must be logical and natural since âall movies you have seenâ covers the time you saw the first one to the time you saw the last one (time non-specific) and âthe bestâ associates with one point in time (time specific). Time inclusion is in play. (Note that: âWhat is the movie you have seen best?â makes little sense).

Now comes the expression that raised different opinions in the earlier thread (Post: 441847 ):

âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â â If we think it means âWhat was the movie that you have seen last?â, then we are trapped in a time conflict because âyou have seen lastâ combines time non-specific present perfect âhave seenâ and time specific âlastâ to support the same object, the movie.

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation?

If we allow the interpretation of â Among â¦you have ...., which one was the â¦â, then we can conclude that simple past and present perfect can comingle provided that we look at the sentence from the âtime inclusionâ point of view.

Now letâs move on to the next angle of this marriage dealing with the name of great grandmothers (GGMs).

If a GGM passed away far back in the past, should we ask âWhat is her name?â or âWhat was her name?. Some say, âName is name - dead or alive!â thus, âWhat is her name?â is fine. However, some might disagree - âName is not mortal; it is buried with the dead!â (side note: in some part of the world, the dead is given a new name since people would not dare to call out the old one disrespectfully); thus, they would go with âWhat was her name?â

For the first set of people, they would prefer this question: âWhat is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â For the second set of people, âwasâ should replace âisâ.

Question #2: If âwasâ is the better choice, do we face the same problem like that of âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â

Letâs compare âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â and âWhat was the name of the last GGM you have lived with?â Structurally, the two sentences are very similar, except that âhave livedâ comes with preposition âwithâ. (I think) that difference must have allowed us to easily accept the second one. Intuitively, we must have associated âhave livedâ with the GGM and âwasâ with the name.

In other words, if what I think is acceptable, then the âobject separationâ gives the sentence its naturalness and logical weight. Meanwhile, it seems odd to us to associate âhave seenâ with the movie and not with its title! The âobject uni-identificationâ causes us to question. (Side note: sometimes, we have seen a movie and remembered the actors and its story but its title). The difference between âtime inclusionâ or âtime separationâ in fact enters into our mind as a byproduct but not the cause for our confusion. Take a look at this question: "What is the title of the last movie you have played with?" Can you tell any difference between that one and "What is the name of the last GGM you have lived with?"

Finally, for those of us who believe the addition of the word ârecentlyâ would provide the âtime separationâ between ârecentlyâ (present perfect) and âwasâ (simple past) in order to resolve the seemingly faulty logic, (I think) it would not make any difference. In short, if we can convey âWhat was the movie you have seen recently called?â to mean âTell me about the movie you have seen recently â What was it called?â, then it should be acceptable â the movie becomes a whole, and the title is a part.

Thatâs it! Thank you all for trying to understand what has been going on in my mind. I am anxiously looking forward to your comments since I hope that your generosity will help me advance to a new gate on my learning journey.

Best Regards.
Hoa Thai

Hi Hoa Thai,

Let me be the brave one in the attempt to tackle this long thread, if no one already posts a reply by the time I am done with writing You obviously have a high degree of the English language and I can comfortably say most will agree. But you seem to have been bothered by what had been said in the previous posts about the mixed usage of simple past and present perfect. The problem to me really has more to do with one's logic and persepctive, rather than his grammatical knowledge, and you seems to be stuck at the sentence which you posted 2 days ago. "What was the last movie you have seen?â can not be a viably grammatical sentence no matter how we dress it. The rules I learned told me that simple past and present perfect just can't be married and expected to sound happily together. Consider this sentence "when was the last time you have talked to your ex-husband?". Do you agree or not agree that this is not a sound sentence? If you say "I haven't talked my your ex-husband after the devorce but I e-mailed him", then the conjunction [but] will validate the use of mixed tenses. But they can not exist in the same frame of sentence sturcture.

Your questions:

Question #1: Can we interpret âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â to mean âAmong all movies you have seen, which one was the last?â I don't think so, "what" usually requires a defined answer and "among" offers alternatives in my opinion. If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation? "Ever" in this context does not sound right. "Last" is an adjective, but not a comparative adjective as in "What was / is the most scary/ borning/ bloody movie [that] you have ever seen?" Because we are associating movies by their names which do not change even as time passed, we can use either past or present [was/ is] to refer to the movies with resepct to the rest of the context in present perfect.

By the same token, we often hear people say soemthing like: "what was the lady's name we have just met?" which is fine either with [was / is] becasue "was" paints a picture of the time she was introduced to you, and "is" paints a picture of her face with her name in general.

Other than that, I really don't know how to break it down further.

And regarding â recentlyââ¦

Itâs not a proprietary word to mean present perfect, if there is any hint / notion that this is the case, itâs not true.

"I recently took a business trip to Washington DC". Simple past with no defined time. âRecentlyâ here defined it only as short time ago.âOk

Re: what tense

Goodman — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:34:38 GMT

Tommyensr wrote:

for example,

When we arrived at the concert, the band had been performing for half an hour already. Fortunately, the concert was three hours long, so we saw most of it.

from the example, the concert had not ended yet completely.

How [do you] to write the sentence to explain something or some events [which] had started in the past and kept continually till it completely ended before another event happens ?

thank you very much sir

The rule of thumb for past perfect is that the context should we have two events that took place in the past with one preceding the other. i.e. John and Mary had been married for over 10 years before they filed for divorce 3 months ago. Although the fact is unknown whether the devoice is finalized, they both stayed in marriage for that duration until something caused them to file divorce. If a event is terminated, a simple past tense is adequate and past perfect is not necessary. I really canât think of a situation which will fit the description you described in your last post.

Re: Wedding Invitations

Pioussoul — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 05:25:25 GMT

Julie127 wrote:

All:

Would someone please help me? I am about to get married and want to send out my invitations. Would someone please tell me if the grammar and punctuation is correct?

Two lives, two hearts,
joined together in friendship
united forever in love.
It is with joy that we,
David and Rhonda Powell
request the honour of your presence
at the marriage of our daughter
Julie Elizabeth
to
Mr. Jacob Ross Anderson,
son of Delbert and Vicki Anderson,
on Saturday, the fourteenth of July
Two thousand and seven
at five-thirty P.M.
The Brookshire
405 Greif Parkway
Delaware, Ohio 43015

I really wonder why the past tenses of joined and united are used here. For me, shouldn't they be present or future tenses?

Would some experts shed some light? I'm really confused and don't see the perspective of native speakers.

Re: Please check this article

julielai — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:22:24 GMT

People thought differently then

Many classical novels focus on the theme about social standing and
love,disaproved by society (parallel issues) .In these books the main characters fight
for the right to be loved and to live happily.One such romantic
fiction is George Sand's "Consuelo".The story takes place in first
in Italy and later on in the occupated Czech Repuclic.
   The protagonist id a young gypsie girl named Consuelo.She lives
miserably in Venice as an orphan after the loss of her mother.The
only people who care about the poor heroine are her music teacher
and a boy by the name of Andzoleto.The outstanding details of Consuelo's
personality are shown by the author in every scene.Despite the life,which
for her is extremely troublesome,she is a very nice,kind,gentle and
loving person.Even though the young woman isn't as beautiful on the
on the outside she has a very big heart and a tender and melodical
voice.Consuelo is in love with Andzoleto,a very good friend of hers.When
invited to be a singer at the biggest opera in Venice with him she achieves
more than he does.Andzoleto breaks her heart and she runs away to The
Czech Republic,where she is a music teacher.
   In the"Giant Castle"Consuelo meets a thirty-year-old aristocrat-
Albert. According to the locals the man is insane and dangerous.While
living there the young woman rarely sees him.The peculiar person happens
to be very intelligent and caring.He shows affection and love towards
the shy and extremely noble girl.Albert's family stand their ground
against the marriage.Consuelo is afraid and her actions are based on
her desire to make everyone happy.She is confused-if she marries Albert
they will both be rejected and hated by his family and all the other
high-positioned people.
    After passing many obstacles and suffering the two young people
finally live happily together.Nevertheless the opinion others expressed
about their relathionship played (why past tense now?) a major role in their destiny.I beleive
that if in those times humans weren't pressured bt their social standing
and the society's opinion about them, they would definrtly have lived better.
Even disapproved and disliked by some Consuelo's and Albert's will to be together
gains respect,praise and admiration by all common people.

You have to explain the difference in attitude and thinking. How do people think about such matters now?

Re: tense sequence

CalifJim — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 06:01:10 GMT

It is only a matter of time before (something happens)

means

We are not going to need to wait very long before (something [will/is going to] happen).

So It was only a matter of time before (something happened)
(the past tense form of the same expression)

means

We were not going to need to wait very long before (something [would/was going to] happen).

In short, this part of the sentence is written from the past point of view. The writer knows what happened, that is, he knows what was going to happen, and he tells this from the point of view of someone who was there in the past.

He is saying: We were at a point in time where not much more time was going to pass before this happened: Money transformed ... love and marriage. And, he adds, this is like what money has done already, namely, money has transformed almost everything else ... This last addition is back in the present point of view, of course.

CJ

tense sequence

Teo — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:50:47 GMT

It was only a matter of time before money transformed that most intimate of private domains, love and marriage, as it has almost everything else in this booming country. (Shanghai Journal)

Why use the past tense here?

Re: Brokeback Mountain

Lazarus — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:01:38 GMT

Meantolearn wrote:
It's a movie's title.

Someone asked why not "Brokenback Mountain"? Can anyone explain?

Do you say, "I've got a broke back" or "I've got a broken back"?

Thx

Note: Broken is the past participle of the verb break and usually used as an adjective. For instance, a broken arm, leg, head, window, glass, heart, marriage, family ...etc. Broke is simply the past tense of break.

"Brokeback" is a name, so it can be whatever it likes. In a sentence, you would say "I have a broken back."

Lazarus

Brokeback Mountain

meantolearn — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:47:10 GMT

It's a movie's title.

Someone asked why not "Brokenback Mountain"? Can anyone explain?

Do you say, "I've got a broke back" or "I've got a broken back"?

Thx

Note: Broken is the past participle of the verb break and usually used as an adjective. For instance, a broken arm, leg, head, window, glass, heart, marriage, family ...etc. Broke is simply the past tense of break.

Re: My Last Duchess by Robert Browning

abbie1948 — Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:32:04 GMT

Hi Antonella,

Let's give it a go. I am going to try and give you some ideas.

First, the Duke of Ferrara was a real man, who had 2 wives. Everything else in the poem has been imagined by Browning.

1.. Start by giving a brief definition of a dramatic monologue and its features. I gave you a very brief definition in my last post.

A dramatic monologue should have the following:
* a speaker (the Duke)
* an audience (the envoy) (and the reader of the poem)
* an occasion (the Duke is negotiating for his second wife)
* interaction between the speaker and the audience (the envoy is silent. The Duke is of higher social status, but he is couteous to the envoy because he wants something from him - to marry the daughter of the envoy's master, and the dowry she will bring - but maybe the dowry is more important!)
* revelation of character (both intended and unintentional)

2. a)What are the circumstances in which the action takes place?

The action takes place in an upstairs room in the house of a rich and powerful man.
"We'll meet the company below, then" (Line 48)

The Duke is negotiating with the envoy of a Count to marry the Count's daughter.
"... his fair daughter's self, as I've avowed
At starting, is my oject" (lines 53-54)

He shows him the picture of his first wife
"That's my last Duchess painted on the wall" (line 1)

b) What explains the occasion of the narrative? Why does the Duke tell the envoy all these things? And what do we learn about earlier events?

From the Duke's point of view, he is demonstrating to the envoy that he is a rich and powerful man. He speaks proudly of his "nine-hundred-years old name" (line 33) and of his possessions, which we are intended to understand are by famous artists (Fra Pandolf, the painter; Claus of Innsbruk, the sculptor - both imaginary people) and are valuable - he describes the sculpture of Neptune as "thought a rarity" (line 54). We also know that the speaker is a Duke "That's my last Duchess" (line 1), whilst the envoy is the representative of a Count - a man of lower rank, and the Duke refers to "The Count your Master" (line 49) which may be courtesy, but may equally well be an emphasis of his own social status in relation to both the Count and the envoy.

We know that the Duke has been married before ("my last Duchess"), and we may assume that his wife is now dead, as he refers to her in the past tense "She had a heart....
How shall I say? ... too soon made glad," (lines 22-23) "..she liked whate're she looked upon" (line 23-24). The fact that he is seeking a second wife is also an indication that his first wife is dead.

We can assume that the negotiations for his second marriage are progressing, as the Count has sent an envoy to meet with him, and the Duke is at the stage of refering to a dowry
".. no pretence
Of mine for dowry will be disallowed" (lines 50-51)

We learn that the Duke disliked his first wife's behaviour; he thought her "Too easily impressed" (line 23), and she did not honour his name (or himself?) highly enough
"... she ranked
My gift of a nine-hundred-years old name
With anybody's gift." (lines 32-34)

Perhaps we can assume that his first wife, as his second, came from a lower rank than he, because of the way she behaved. Mr. Pedantic, on an earlier page of this thread, suggests that the fact that she rode a mule, rather than a horse, may indicate that she was of lower rank.
" ... the white mule
She rode with round the terrace ---" (lines 28-29).

c) The character of the Duke, and what he reveals about himself

This is probably the major part of the eassy, as this is where the real drama comes in.

The Duke intends to portray to the envoy that he is a courteous man. He calls him "sir" - the usually way at that time of being polite to a man. (line 54). He invites him to sit down (line 5), and suggests they walk downstairs side by side, instead of the envoy walking behind him, which would be usual for a man of lower rank.
"Nay, we'll go
Together down, Sir!" (lines 54-55)
He refers to the Count's "fair daughter" (line 52) - showing his courtesy by offering a compliment.

He also wishes to impress upon the envoy that he is an aristocrat, and wealthy (he refers to his last wife as "Duchess"(line 1), therefore he is a Duke). He displays the wealth of his possessions (the portrait, the sculpture), and demonstrates that he knows something of the culture of his second bride by mentioning a "rarity" by "Claus of Innsbruk" 9line 55-56) (the real Duke Ferrara's second wife was Barbara of Innsbruk).

During his speech, however, he unintentionally reveals things about himself and his past that he may not wish to be known. (Don't forget that the envoy will report back to the Count, and if the report is unfavourable, the Duke may not get what he says he wants, the Counts "fair daughter" (line 52)

1. He cares for nothing but his possessions.

He never mentions his wife by name, nor does he refer to the Count's daughter by name. His last Duchess is nothing but a beautiful portrait painted by a famous artist. The only names he mentions are the artists whose works he possesses.

He wants the envoy to understand that he is a wealthy man, and in addition to his possessions, mentions his house and gardens. He speaks of the terrace (line 29), the things he gave his wife, "my favour at her breast" (line 25); and makes only a brief reference to the dowry (lines 50-51). In fact his true motive in wanting to marry the Count's daughter is probably to get the dowry.

2. Whilst telling the envoy the failings of his first wife, the Duke reveals a lot about his character. Is it not strange that he should tell a complete stranger all about the failings of his first wife?

He intends the envoy to understand that his last Duchess was not a woman of his equal in rank and education, in comparison pehaps with "The Count, your Master's .... fair daughter" (lines 49-52).

(In fact, the real Duke Ferrara's first wife was Lucrezia, daughter of Cosimo de Medici. Unlike the Duke or the Count, the Medici's were not of noble birth, although they were a very rich and politically powerful family, and Cosimo was effectively the ruler of Florence).

He is proud of the beautiful picture of his first wife, and says

"I call
That piece a wonder, now;" (lines 2-3)

This could simply mean that the painting is so wonderful, because the duchess actually looks "as if she were alive" (line 2) We could read another meaning into this; in Browning's time, to call a woman "a piece" was a very vulgar expression (think of the worst possible thing you could call a woman). Is he referring to the painting, or is this an allusion to his wife which immediately shows his true feelings about her?

Perhaps he intends to invoke some sympathy from the envoy. He must marry again because his last wife died at a tragically young age (the real Lucrezia died at age 17). He destroys his intentions by going into such detail about his wife's short comings and what he regarded as poor behaviour. Evetually, he reveals that he found her despicable and disgusting.

"Just this
Or that in you disgusts me;"

He "chuses never to stoop" (42-43), even to reprimand his young wife and teach her the proper way to behave.

But surely there is more than just her lack of social graces and failure to be aware of the position he has given her?

He speaks of "The depth and passion of its earnest glance", (line 8) and later says
"...t'was not
Her husband'spresence only, called that spot
Of joy into the Duchess' cheek:" (14)

"her looks went everywhere" (24)

Does he think his wife was unfaithful to him, either in actuality or in thought? Is he expressing deep jealousy?

(The real Duke of Ferrara was actually impotent as the result of a riding accident, so he would be unable to consumate the marriage! This is another reason for supposing that, with his second marriage, all he really wanted was the dowry)

And what does he do to correct his wife's behaviour?

"I gave commands;
then all smiles stopped together." (46-47)

He ordered her to be killed! This is a really dramatic moment in the poem - suddenly, and perhaps unintentionally, he reveals that he murdered his first wife!

3. Danger

Throughout the poem, there is a sense of menace, and both Mr. P and I have referred to "The Godfather" in this respect. A man of wealth and power, invariably polite to everybody, but a very dangerous and potentially threatening man.

Outwardly courteous, the Duke is nevertheless threatening in his manner towards the envoy. the envoy sits, whilst the Duke stands, overpowering his with his physical presence.

His orders are always obeyed without question(lines 46-47).

People dare not speak to him unless invited to do so " And seemed as they would ask me, if they durst" (11)

His demands may not be refused
"I repeat,
the Count your Master's known munificence
Is ample warrant that no pretence
Of mine for dowry will be disallowed"

He has already said it once (before the poem begins), but he says it again: I know the Count will pay me whatever I want.

In concusion, the Duke wishes the envoy to understand that he is a rich, aristocratic and cultured person. What he reveals himself to be is a menacing man with a greed for money and possessions; a dangerous man, who is prepared to kill to get what he wants.

I think a lot of this is in previous posts, and you will find more stuff in the previous posts which you can think about, abd whcih may help you.

There is a post about the Duke's character which may be helpfu.

Re: As if it happened yesterday

just the truth — Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:58:13 GMT

Why can "happened" be used? Didn't it happen before "remember"? According to the rules, we should use "had happened". But "happened" does exist. Can you explain it more clearly, Mr Just the Truth?

JT: Sorry for the delay, Qingqing. {how do you say your name? I know a little Chinese girl named QinQin and her name is pronounced "chinchin".}

This has nothing to do with the use of the past perfect to discuss REAL events wherein we "go back when we are already talking about the past". These two clauses are unconnected in the sense that one expresses a counterfactual and the other expresses something completely real.

Remembering something is a real event. The counterfactual idiomatic expression is used simply to make a comparison to something that illustrates that it's EXTREMELY easy to remember. This is often used to state that something from long ago is fresh in 'my' memory.

By making this comparison, the speaker says a long ago event is as clear as if it happened yesterday.

Not all uses of the past perfect are as the rule suggests. Michael Swan, in "Practical English Usage" says of the past perfect; "A common use is to go back when we are already talking about the past". It isn't the only use.

Here we see that it has nothing to do with that rule because there can be no going back to an unreal/completely hypothetical situation.

But, nevertheless, we find that both of your example sentences are in common use, both are possible, both are grammatical.

What's the difference between the following two sentences?
I remember the whole thing as if it happened yesterday.
I remember the whole thing as if it had happened yesterday.

, like can add emphasis to simple past tense FORM statement like this.

We had hardly reached the confines of our bedroom, aaaactually we hadn't even reached the front door, before, ... well, truth be told we had not even reached the porch before we had torn each others clothes off, and had there fallen and finally our love, lust and marriage had all been consummated in one great explosion of exhilarating fire.