Picture
When reading a recent post by Karenne Sylvester called "Which came first: time or tenses?" (at http://kalinago.blogspot.com/2010/11/which-came-first-time-or-tenses.html) I thought it would be fun to see what sentences looked like without changing the form of the verb, but simply using modifiers or qualifiers to suggest the tense.
The table seen on the left (with some inspiration from http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/engl/155/support/verb_tenses.htm) is my attempt to answer that question.
What I'd like to know from readers is: when you look at these sentences, can you understand what is being said? In other words, ignoring the verb form, does the sentence communicate the intended time reference?
Having written them myself perhaps I'm too close to tell, but it seems to me that simply using the basic form of the verb (infinitive without the "to") does work. In each case the reader or listener, after getting over the initial shock, ought to be able to determine when the events were taking place relative to time.
When it comes to fluency and comprehension, it begs the question of whether we are sometimes too hard on our English learners who produce utterances like these, when we actually DO know what they mean.
Picture
6 Comments
 
 
Picture
Today I read an interesting article on "The Web of Language" site entitled "The gender-neutral pronoun: grammatical necessity, consciousness raiser, and after 150 years still an epic fail" written by debaron@illinois.edu.
The article surveys the problems English has in finding an enduring third person singular pronoun that is gender-free, as well as some of the novel solutions offered throughout history.
I couldn't resist the chance to give a tounge-in-cheek comment, partly to spark further discussion. Here is my post which I hope will be uploaded by the moderator soon. Any comments will be enjoyed!
Greg wrote: I don't see why all the fuss about avoiding "he" or "she" when the gender of the person is known, though I agree using the form "he or she" is clumsy.
Well if the pedants of the world won't accept what many grammars already allow i.e. the use of the singular "they", then there is another gender neutral third person singular pronoun already available, with no complications of being considered plural as well as singular, and perfectly acceptable in the case of all other life forms on Earth. The pronoun I refer to is "it".
Both male and female animals, birds, fish, insects, etc can be referred to in this way, so why not humans as well? Would a construction such as "it has left it's book here" be so shocking? confusing? Are we so concerned about gender recognition that this would be unacceptable?
While I myself routinely use "they" in these situations, I feel "it" would be a useable alternative for consideration.

Add Comment