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

Re: sequence

Anonymous — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:21:25 GMT

I think New2grammar said that, to him, a past perfect always precedes a present. It seems that is not always correct, isn't it??

CalifJim wrote:

To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence.

Maybe the first part about the dogs should have read The sites had first been identified ..., but the author simplified the tense to the simple past because it was clear from context that the dogs were first and the testing next.

In isolation it's a strange sequence of tenses.

I think iff the first clause didn't have the word 'first', then we could not make the assertion that the dog found the site first and later used the equipment to verify the result. Sorry I couldn't paste the original sentence.

Re: sequence

RayH — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:35:06 GMT

CalifJim
To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence.
Maybe the first part about the dogs should have read The sites had first been identified ..., but the author simplified the tense to the simple past because it was clear from context that the dogs were first and the testing next.
In isolation it's a strange sequence of tenses.
CJ

Here are the preceding and following paragraphs. It turns out that each paragraph is one sentence long. I'm not sure they shed much light on the situation.

In March, search crews found indications that human remains could be buried within a few yards of the ranch in Death Valley in east-central California.

The sites were first identified by cadaver dogs, and testing equipment had shown the possible presence of remains, police said.

Investigators used radar, magnetometers, lasers and other tools and techniques during the search, which included five "hot spots" where remains were thought to be.

Re: sequence

CalifJim — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:19:06 GMT

To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence.

In isolation it's a strange sequence of tenses.

Re: Please check this paragraph for me

Spides — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:48:58 GMT

This is a good paragraph and the tenses of your verbs are consistent. The only sentence that has a problem is, "We had worked together...and have always had good relationships...even after I have left... That first verb, had worked, is past perfect tense. The rest of the paragraph is simple past tense ~~so this one should be, too. That is, "We worked together..." The second and third verbs~~have always had and have left--are present perfect, and should also be just simple past tense. That is, "...always had..."and "...left..." So the sentence should read, "We worked together...and always had...even after I left the school."

Re: Techical Report Writing

Clive — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:58:18 GMT

Hi,

At first, she used simple past . . .

I see almost all 'present' here, including the start of the first paragraph.

Clive

Techical Report Writing

Kaos — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:09:34 GMT

Hi,

Awhile ago, I asked whether one should use simple past for describing observation of an experiment that has already been carried out. Many adviced using simple past. I recently read an article and I found the author (she is an American) mixed both. Here is an excerpt from her article:

Article
The first Fast Retransmit in Figure 4 results from three
dup acks for packet 25. The second Fast Retransmit results
from three dup acks for packet 42, the last packet transmitted
before the first Fast Retransmit was initiated.
Because the x-axis shows the time that packets appeared
on a link within the network, the sequence of events at the
sender has to be inferred from the graph. After the first Fast
Retransmit, when the sender's congestion control window
reaches four, the sender transmits packets 29-32. The sender
receives an ACK for packet 29, and transmits packets 33 and
34. Next the sender receives an ACK for packet 30, and
retransmits packets 35 and 36. Finally, the sender receives
two dup acks for packets 42 (as responses to packets 31 and
32). At this point the congestion window is 6, and the sender
transmits packets 43-48.

She was discussing about an observation which was plotted on a graph (not shown). At first, she used simple past (in the first paragraph), and then in the second paragraph, she started to elaborate in simple present. Is this correct and why? I am confused now.

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

Ant_222 — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:51:41 GMT

Hello, Hoa Thai.

Although Goodman outstripped me and deserved the brave one's laurels, I'd like to add some of the comments which I had started typing yesterday in the university, but hadn't time to finish...

Your reasonong is interesting but not fault-less.

«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.»

There's more to these tenses than this specifity/non-specifity dichotomy. I really prefer to do use actuality (connection of the action, or of a result there of, to the present) as the main (but not the only) difference.

This famous rule requireing Past Simple when a time is declared follows from it, because declaration of time indicates the speaker's focus on time rather than result.

«However, in terms of time, a ânon-specific time setâ does (Ant: I'd say "may include") include a âspecific time elementâ»

Don't get you.
1. In 1999 (is it specific?)
2. Since last month (specific?)
Which includes which?

«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.»

Is the word "far" so important?

1. We have been friends since 1995
2. I found it two minutes ago.

«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;»

But only the word "last" deals with time. Is that an important difference?

«However, the superlative âtheâ does indicate a uniqueness, so when it happens, the time involved is specific!»

Yes!

I had started commenting this paragraph but suddenly found that your following paragraph tells the same:

«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.»

Fully agree, but asking "which one is the best" is also OK, and then it's not an inclusion...

«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»

From the standpoint of formal logic, yes. I don't completely understand Goodman's opinion that "among" may allow for several alternatives. There can be only one last movie (unless one's watching several movies simultaneously...)

If not, would âWhat was the last movie you have ever seen?â (âeverâ is added) allow us to carry out the similar interpretation?»

Well, as Goodman already said, "ever" doesn't work here. But it would work with "the best", "the most scary", e.t.c. Again, I don't understand Goodman's comment: «"Last" is an adjective, but not a comparative adjective» â they all are superlative adjectives, aren't they?

âWhat was the last movie you have seen?â

Using your logic, it does seem correct, but somehow I can't accept it. The very structure of this sentence with Past Simple in the main clause somehow forces a conflict with the Present Present in the subordinate clause.

The "was" in the main clause imposes a past time frame onto everything subordinated to it.

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

«As you might have noticed, even a reputable site like BBCâs teaching English, which I cited earlier in our previous thread, posed the question in a different way: âThink of a film you have seen recently, what was it called?â»

It's a pretty good sentence. They probably want the reader to focus on his/her impressions of the movie and they use Past Simple to help him/her "travel" back in time! It's neither bad nor an exception. I'll even say it's a nice example of your term "inclusion".

I wound't like "... what is it called" at all in this case!

Re: for the last few days

Diamondrg — Sun, 06 May 2007 09:13:18 GMT

Thank you Jim.

It seems to me, under the light of the following examples, without context either present perfect (continuous) or simple past can be used, but in most cases these time expressions are used in a context which requires one tense rather than the other.

here

here (7th paragraph 2nd line)

here

What do you think? Well, I know that "during" and "over" can express both a whole period till the moment of speech [the present perfect (continuous)] or a certain point in that period (the simple past).

I haven't eaten during the past few days. (till now)

He passed away during / over the past week. (Say today is Friday and he died on Monday)

My question is whether we can use [in / for / within / throughout] in the same way with the same distinctions drawn above. Can these express a certain point in a period aside from expressing the whole period till now?

Re: Simple Past: being explicit about the time reference ?

MrPedantic — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:04:05 GMT

I read ICU's post. It posed an interesting question. Was it compulsory, to use an adverbial of time, with the past simple? I thought through a few examples. I read a few paragraphs from a book chosen at random from the nearest bookshelf. I googled up a few webpages, and examined various people's opinions on various subjects. Seemingly not. As far as I could see, the past simple functioned perfectly adequately, without a specific time reference.

But had I missed something?

I decided to reserve judgement. Perhaps another poster would know better...

MrP

Re: how would be better?

Clive — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:07:22 GMT

Hi,

1. Past Perfect Not a good idea for the paragraph we are looking at. generally, it's a common error to use Past Perfect when Simple Past is better.

2. (would+V2): I would ride... Yes, that's OK, if you want to write about 'past habits/routines'.

Best wishes, Clive