|
Post by Jairo on Oct 28, 2010 8:55:04 GMT -4
Grammar nazis, could you help me? It's about tense sequences.
When both main and subordinate clauses' events have already happened, but the subordinate clause happened after, in what thense should it be?
Example: Suppose John says he wants to talk with Mary when she arrives; she hasn't arrived yet. How should I report this?
"He wanted to talk when she arrived." Simple past? "He wanted to talk when she arrives." Simple present? "He wanted to talk when she arrive." Present subjunctive?!
I don't want to mean that both happened at the same time. Does English have a way to solve this ambiguity by flexing the verb?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 28, 2010 10:41:52 GMT -4
You could use the 'future in the past' construction - "would arrive". You can read more about this verb tense on this page (which incidentally also uses "would arrive" as an example). This results in: "He wanted to talk when she would arrive." It still sounds a bit awkward to me, but it seems to be the best fitting tense. Perhaps you could use "after" instead of "when", so that you get something like this. "He wanted to talk to her after she would have arrived."
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 28, 2010 11:16:54 GMT -4
By ear, here are my thoughts.
"He wanted to talk when she arrived." Would be used if the expression of interest in talking were made in the past and you were discussing that point in time. So her arrival was in the in the future relative to the point in time you are writing about. I think this can be used even if she has already arrived and that case should be made clear in other ways. Such as "He wanted to talk when she arrived, but lost his nerve when she showed up with Joe in his new red Porsche.
"He wanted to talk when she arrives." That is not correct. If he still wants to talk to her at the present time and she hasn't arrived you would say "He wants to talk when she arrives."
"He wanted to talk when she arrive." Present subjunctive?! That falls badly on my ear.
"He wanted to talk when she would arrive." Also awkward, as you say.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 28, 2010 11:24:21 GMT -4
If John himself is speaking "I want to talk to Mary when she arrives." If we are speaking of John "He would like to talk to Mary when she arrives." If we are a narrator in a story speaking of John: He wanted to talk to Mary when she arrived.
|
|
|
Post by Jairo on Oct 28, 2010 12:51:03 GMT -4
Thank you all. This is an unusual place to ask about English language, but I've never been disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 28, 2010 15:31:47 GMT -4
If you want my two cents . . . .
If both were past events, "He wanted to talk when she arrived" or "he wanted to talk after she arrived" are both perfectly acceptable events. If he didn't do it, you could try "he had wanted to talk after she arrived." It's if she didn't get there that you'd want "he wanted to talk when she would have arrived."
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Oct 28, 2010 15:57:21 GMT -4
If you want my two cents . . . . If both were past events, "He wanted to talk when she arrived" or "he wanted to talk after she arrived" are both perfectly acceptable events. If he didn't do it, you could try "he had wanted to talk after she arrived." It's if she didn't get there that you'd want "he wanted to talk when she would have arrived." Gillianren, your two cents probably are worth more than anybody else's around here.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 28, 2010 18:01:42 GMT -4
I would have though that if he still does want the talk in the present and she hasn't got there yet then it should be:
"He wants to talk to her when she arrives."
If he no longer does or you are unsure of his position in the present then it would be:
"He wanted to talk to her when she arrives."
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 28, 2010 20:16:16 GMT -4
Depends on when she was supposed to arrive. Henry VIII wanted to talk to Anne of Cleves when she arrived, but neither of them care anymore.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 28, 2010 20:36:29 GMT -4
Depends on when she was supposed to arrive. Henry VIII wanted to talk to Anne of Cleves when she arrived, but neither of them care anymore. True, it all depends when exactly the incident took place.
|
|
|
Post by Jairo on Oct 29, 2010 12:24:26 GMT -4
Hi again! I got another question in this same matter. According to what I've read, my desired meaning seems to be expressed by the simple past. But I'm unsure if that's actually a hidden past subjunctive. How does the following example fall on your ears? "He wanted to talk to her when she were here." I got a lot of "when it/he/she were" on google. Is that meaningfull in some sense (even if not the desired sense), archaic, or just plain wrong?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 29, 2010 12:46:16 GMT -4
With "when," it's just plain wrong. If you used "if," it would be awkward but not wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Jairo on Oct 29, 2010 15:13:21 GMT -4
Is it awkward to say "if I were you" in everyday speech?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 29, 2010 15:52:01 GMT -4
I don't think so, no. Frankly, to me, "if I was you" is the awkward phrasing.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 29, 2010 18:27:13 GMT -4
"If I were you" is the correct phrasing: it has some Latin-derived name I can't remember for the life of me...
|
|