Ungrammatical? "She belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner had even begun."

Peaceblinkfriend — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:29:27 GMT

She belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner had even begun.

This is an example sentence provided for the entry on the 'belt down' in a Chamber's guidebook on phrasal verbs. And from what I have learned about Past Perfect, it seems to me that it is ungrammatical that 'had even begun' is in Past Perfect tense. I reckon it should be 'She had belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner even began' instead. I know it is probably presumptuous to say this, but anyhow, I will be virtually over the moon if I got this right.

Thanks

PBF

Re: Is grammar essential for learning a language?

CalifJim — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:32:51 GMT

"Grammar and exercises are only requirements of the syllabus, not of learning a language. Did you learn the grammar of your mother-tongue when you were acquiring it? Most of you may still not know the grammar of your mother-tongue but you speak it effortlessly."

If grammar means identifying the names of parts of speech, the names of the tenses, and that sort of knowledge of terminology (Past Perfect Progressive), then this is certainly not a requirement of learning a language.
If grammar means the knowledge of which words and word-forms go together to make coherent communications within a language, even if instinctively applied, then I think we'd have to say that grammar is a requirement of some kind.

I agree that I did not learn the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the first sense of 'grammar'.
I do think, however, that I "learned"/acquired the grammar of my mother-tongue when I was acquiring it -- in the second sense of 'grammar'. In fact, except for vocabulary, which is a simple matter of stimulus-response, it seems to me that the acquistion of a language IS the acquisition of its grammar.

It is believed that between the ages of six and ten, the cells in the language acquistion portion of the brain die off or take on a different function, so that it is impossible to acquire language after approximately age 10, certainly after puberty. Remember that the acquistion of language is like birds "learning" to fly. They don't exactly study a flight manual before taking off on their first flight!

Nevertheless, though the language acquisition window closes around puberty, most likely for biological reasons, and we may no longer be able to acquire a new language, we can certainly still learn one. At this point, we are usually forced to use a lot of artificial techniques to help us. The logic of a language is no longer as easily grasped instinctively, but must be, we might almost say, 'computed', at least in the beginning stages. The rules for these 'computations' are called grammar. The 'computation' is not thinking within language but thinking about language, examining language somewhat more objectively than is typical within the language we first acquired. Sometimes the computational aspect is presented very formally to the learner. In such systems there is an underlying belief (in the mind of the instuctors) that the terminology is so useful in explaining the grammatical machinery that it cannot be dispensed with. In other methodologies a more flexible approach is used, sometimes out of fear of the very real possibility (I think) that knowledge of the terminology will be seen as more important than the ability to express oneself in the target language.

Regardless of how formal or informal, or how rigid or flexible the presentation, I don't see how anyone can learn a language without exercises, despite the obvious fact that we all acquired one without exercises. We can't expect our muscles to grow strong without exercise, and the failure of some to see the analogy with mental activity is quite puzzling. And the exercises that are needed are language exercises (practicing using the language), not grammar exercises (practicing using the terminology of grammar). I find it disheartening to see questions on this very forum in which it is obvious that students must negotiate the fine points of the terminology: Is this a participle acting as a noun acting as an adverbial complement of a phrasal verb used idiomatically or is this a progressive tense in the passive voice accompanied by an adverbial dependent clause of concession? Apparently, within the educational system of such students these matters pass as learning English. So in that sense, I'm against 'exercises'!

In any case, the struggle for the learner is always making the conversion from 'computing' utterances (assembling them by applying grammatical rules) to generating meaningful utterances spontaneously. The more role models the learners have, whether in terms of number of speakers they have contact with or in terms of the number of written and spoken resources they have available, the smoother the transition. At the extreme, if the learner is thrown into a sink-or-swim situation -- immersion -- it may be possible to shortcut the 'computational' period considerably. The final goal is the same in any case: meaningful language that is automatically produced and instinctively felt without any further consciousness of or need for the 'computational' (grammatical) aspects which were so prominent and necessary in the learning stages.

In summary, I believe the author of the quote above is taking grammar to mean excessive preoccupation with terminology and exercises to mean exercises designed to learn the terminology of grammar. Taken in this way, I must agree with the author. Of course, it is possible to interpret those words differently, which is why the statement has generated so many comments. I prefer to give the author the benefit of the doubt and say that he or she was merely describing an approach which concentrates more on the target language and less on the terminology.

CJ

Re: "have to" as a phrasal verb relating to necessity.

Marius Hancu — Wed, 24 May 2006 19:24:58 GMT

Ant_222 wrote:
Â«You have been on missions where you have had to jump out of a helicopter into icy water to perform the rescue.Â»

Is this sentence okÂ¿
Shouldn't the second Â«have hadÂ» be changed to Â«hadÂ»?

This is optional, but only when:
---
Tense simplification in subordinate phrases

Simple past forms are used quite often in the subordinate clauses instead of the present perfect and the past perfect tenses, if the meaning is clear.

It's been a good time while it('s) lasted.

Swan, Practical English Usage, p. 585
-----
Thus in the above ('s) is optional. Have had is best in your quotation, but perhaps too cumbersome for some.

Re: had been blown out.

rvw — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:35:53 GMT

In #1, the verb is in the passive voice, the past perfect tense. In the active voice, it would be The gas explosion had blown out all the shop's windows. Blown out is a phrasal verb; had been blown out is a verb with auxiliaries.

In #2, had is the (whole) verb and blown out is a past participle used as an adjective. They are part of a construction called an objective complement. Their windows is the direct object of had, and blown out adjectivally complements their windows.

The reason #2 is wrong is that one doesn't have their windows blown out as one would have their teeth drilled or their car serviced. The definition of have here is essentially to change:

-I had my teeth drilled. I changed my teeth so that they were drilled.
-I had my car serviced. I changed my car so that it was serviced.
-I'll have you better in no time. I'll change you so that you are better in no time.

-but not: I had my windows changed so that they were blown out. The passive voice (had been blown out) is what is wanted.

Search results for 'tag:Phrasal verbs tag:Past perfect' matching tags 'Phrasal verbs' and 'Past perfect'

Ungrammatical? "She belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner had even begun."

Re: Is grammar essential for learning a language?

Re: "have to" as a phrasal verb relating to necessity.

Re: had been blown out.