Search results for 'tag:Marriage tag:Simple past' matching tags 'Marriage' and 'Simple past'

Re: had arrested

Avangi — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:10:09 GMT

iconoffashion
Now, the police officer who had arrested Mernel Koh, 15, is blaming himself for her death in his personal blog.

Question: Can you explain why this sentence uses had arrested instead of has arrested?

"Has arrested" is a bit special. Technically, an arrest occurs at one point in time, when you put a stop to someones liberty, or freedom of movement. Thereafter, the person is under arrest.

But in practice, we often think of the arrest as a long process, like a marriage (which also may be said to occur at one point in time).

"Where's my brother?" (reply) "He's still being arrested!" (transported to the station, fingerprinted, interrogated, strip-searched, etc.)

Additionally, "She has been arrested" / "the officer who has arrested her" implies she's still in custody.

"He has handcuffed her" implies she's still in handcuffs. The action took only a moment, but her condition persists. "He has injured her." Her condition persists. ("He has injured her before," is a little different.)

Your question might have been, "Why wasn't the simple past used in this case?" (the police officer who arrested Mernel Koh). The answer to that would have been, "No reason at all, except the author wished to emphasize the sequence of events - that the arrest preceded the death."

"He handcuffed her." (simple past - she may or may not still be in handcuffs)

- A.

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

Hoa Thai — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:07:52 GMT

Dear all,

For whatever its worth â Here is my opinion as I promised to deliver:

The issue we have been dealing with here boils down to one question â âIn one sentence, grammatically and semantically, could we use both simple past and present perfect for one item?â

Evidently, the example from BBCâs Teaching English site, âThink about a film you have seen recently, what was it called?â, affirmatively answers that question. The non-definitive âa filmâ associates well with the present perfect âhave seenâ; and it is all right to use âwasâ to pin down an instance in the past once our mind fixes on the selected item (i.e., simple past).

Since the above sentence is okay, then we can deduct that âthe verb see or whatever it isâ and the âfilmâ do not contribute to the confusion of our mind. Thus, in the sentence âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â, the culprit must be the superlative âthe lastâ!

When we use the superlative âthe â¦â , it does not matter what adjective we attach to it - be it âlastâ, âbestâ, âworstâ, âthe most..â, etcâ¦ we ask our mind to lock on to a moment in time (i.e., simple past). If we follow immediately with a present perfect tense, our minds would usually cry foul! - Why usually but not always?

Apparently, millions of hits from a simple Google search prove that some minds do accept such ungrammatical construct without any reservation. As an example, âWhat was the best movie you have ever seen?â could be seen in many forumsâ questions, blogs, and at Yahooâs Answer site.

If we accept that the word âeverâ , which could mean âat any timeâ per American Heritage dictionary, could we then see the stressing intention of the minds when they detect a possible time conflict and insert that word between âhaveâ and âbeenâ while âamong all the moviesâ becomes ellipsis (as an after thought)? This is what I think they mean to say: âWhat was the best movie among all the movies you have ever seen?â

From the naturalness point of view, people donât pause to think much about grammar, if âthe bestâ is okay then âthe lastâ seems to pose no problem - although the later clearly shows its time-biased nature. However, that naturalness - albeit seemingly ungrammatical - must have been ever permitted unless we find an opportunity to re-validate its correctness. Once we realize that it might cause confusion, we find a different way to clarify / say it and hold on to the refinement. Thus, when the rejected construct is heard / seen again, we raise the flag.

Having thought about this for the last few days, I now tell myself that:

1. The rule that raises the validity (or rather invalidity) of the marriage between simple past and present perfect in one sentence for one item must be re-examined, augmented, and complemented for specific cases. Its generalization fails to include sensible sentences.

2. Sentences that use superlative âthe â¦â in this type of construct must not be over-elliptical. (Isnât that true with every sentence?)

Thank you all,
Hoa Thai

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

inclusion vs. separation (present perfect and simple past)

Hoa Thai — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:07:10 GMT

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

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: He was married before he had graduated from college.

Philip — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:52:54 GMT

Anonymous wrote:

Are these two sentences correct?

A: He got married before he had graduated from college.

B: He was married before he had graduated from college.

I have to disagree with GG on this one. I think that "had graduated from college" would be used to indicate that the graduation happened before the marriage....that's the general use of the past perfect. I think both A and B require the simple past in that verb. At any rate, in case I'm really wrong here, what I see as a problem can be avoided by using "before graduating from college".

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.