Right Words New Zealand Limited
 
Main Menu
Home
Services
Costing
Why us
News
About
Contact us
Articles on writing
Answers to questions
Search
Site Map
Recent
Same work, different climate 
Quotation marks 
The indefinite article before acronyms 
The role of verbs in sentences 
A grammatical take on the future 

Popular
The correct use of 'I' and 'me' 
When to use hyphens 
Using 'a' or 'an' before an acronym 
26 of my nearest and dearest friends 
Reading by design 
Syndicate
 

Our business is finding the
right words for your business
 
 
Designed by PixelThemes.com
Home
A grammatical take on time PDF Print E-mail
Articles on writing - Grammar and punctuation
Monday, 10 September 2007

How do we express time in English? How do we indicate that an action happened in the past, or is happening now or is expected to happen in the future?

Grammatically speaking, we express time using a combination of tense and aspect, supported at times by phrases such as 'yesterday' and 'tomorrow night'. In this note on grammar, we will look briefly at the concepts of tense and aspect, and outline the tenses of the English verb. The purpose is to gain a basic understanding of how English is put together, so that we can analyse our own writing and improve it.

The Oxford Reference Grammar explains that tense "refers to the location of a situation in time"(11.4). This location is expressed in English in the form of the verb:

Simple present: I, you, we and they laugh; He or she laughs
Simple past: I, you, he, she, we and they laughed

You can see that the simple present uses two forms of the verb: laugh (the 'base' form of the verb) and laughs. The suffix -s (-es where the verb already ends in a sibilant) is used for the third person singular in all verbs except the modals ('can', 'must', 'shall', 'will', 'should' and 'may').

The simple past uses one form of the verb: laughed, where -ed (or -d if the verb already ends in e) is added to the base. However, there are common exceptions to this, such as (I, you, he, she, we and they) wrote, ran, and slept.

Aspect, on the other hand, "refers primarily to the way that the time of the situation is regarded rather than its location in time in absolute terms"(11.4). It is expressed by the use of an auxiliary verb with the main verb. In English, there are two aspects: one where the action is considered as continuing (progressive aspect), and one where the action is considered complete (perfect aspect).

Progressive aspect: I am laughing
Perfect aspect: I have laughed

Some grammarians regard the perfect aspect as a tense because it refers to an action in the past, either of the speaker or in real time; for example:

I have taken out the rubbish, just as you asked me to.

Grammatically, this sentence is in the present (tense) perfect (aspect), but the action of taking out the rubbish can be placed in the past and we would therefore naturally think of it as being in the past tense. However, other grammarians see the perfect as an aspect "because it is retrospective in at least some of its uses"(11.4). For example:

I have always thought him unforgiving.

This sentence also is in the present perfect. But, here, the speaker is making a retrospective observation. The intention is to underscore that those impressions, from the point of view of the speaker, were held prior to now and are still held now.

The purpose here is not to get into the details of these issues, but to point out that the two concepts of tense and aspect are not clear cut.

From a strictly grammatical point of view, in which tense is defined as being shown by a verb inflection, the present and the past are the only two tenses in English. The future is not regarded as a tense, because it is expressed using an auxiliary verb (usually, 'will'). In fact, auxiliary verbs enable many categories of time to be expressed, such as the future perfect and past progressive. The use of these auxiliaries will be covered in future notes on grammar.

Reference: Sidney Greenbaum: The Oxford Reference Grammar, edited by Edmond Weiner, Oxford University Press, 2000.

 
There's a lot of it about PDF Print E-mail
Articles on writing - Tricks of the trade
Monday, 11 June 2007

... around, that is. Have you noticed? The word 'around' seems to be in takeover mode. Where before people would say, "at about 4 o'clock", they now say "around 4 o'clock". This North American usage, like so many other North Americanisms, is creeping into British English. Well, we can live with that. Language changes, and if 'around' has come to mean 'at about' in references to time, we're not going to get upset about it.

However, it doesn't stop there. We're seeing "discussion around" in place of "discussion about" or "discussion on"; "issues around" in place of "issues arising from"; and "new legislation around" rather than "new legislation on" or "new legislation covering". We've even seen "the focus was around"!

Well, we're not sure we can live with that. "Discussion around" may be acceptable; it allows for discussion relevant to, but not strictly on, the topic and if that's what's meant, that's fine. But legislation is usually specific: new law on biosecurity, for example, is not likely to cover anything other than biosecurity. And we think "the focus was around" is a contradiction in terms. If you spread a focus out, surely it's not a focus any more?

We wonder: is this extended use of 'around' just a natural semantic shift, with no overall loss of meaning (you infer the nuance from the context)? Or are we getting lazy and losing precision in our language – and, as George Orwell would argue, in our thought as well? What do you think?

 
Adverb lament PDF Print E-mail
Answers - Answers to questions
Thursday, 19 April 2007

Dear Right Words:

Well, you're not even in the same country as I, and maybe in your country right words are used more easily, or more frequently.

I love words like "easily" and "frequently." I believe they answer the question "how." I believe they are adverbs. In my country, adverbs are being ruined. It is as if newspapers and television news entities have a new guidebook that says every word that ends in "ly" will have it dropped. As in, for instance, "She danced so graceful."

Then, even words that don't end in "ly" are misused. The man on TV just said, "I was treated great by the NYPD." I guess because "great" is an adjective, not an adverb, and because the implied question "How did the NYPD treat you?" calls for an adverb, not an adjective, I squirm. I want to hear "well," or "very well."

There is the awful conversion of "lie" to "lay," when speaking of reclining in the present tense. "I like to lay down in the afternoon." No! I like to lie (present) down in the afternoon. That is why I lay (past!) down yesterday afternoon. It continues to be mixed up: "I was just laying there." No! I was just lying there.

Doesn't this have to do with transitive (has an object) and intransitive (shows action or a state of being) verbs?:

I lay the book on the table. I laid the book on the table. I have laid the book on the table. (transitive)

(It's all Dylan's fault:: "Lay Lady Lay, lay across my big brass bed.")

But today the book lies (is lying) on the table. Yesterday the book lay on the table. The book has lain on the table since Tuesday. (intransitive)

The last time I learned the parts of speech was in about 1946 when we had a year of Latin in school. Can you suggest a good, basic grammar text? Something about fifty years old would be heavenly!

We feel the same sort of exasperation at times, although I don't think the adverb has gone quite as far along the road to perdition in New Zealand as it seems to have in the States. As for 'lay' replacing 'lie', yes, it happens here, too, but it's still the exception rather than the norm and is generally recognised as incorrect. (Maybe Tanya Tucker(?) is to blame, too: "Would you lay with me in a field of stone?")

Of course you are right, it is a transitive/intransitive, and a tense, distinction.

It's funny you should mention Latin as a context for learning parts of speech. My basic English education was good but I think I gained most of my understanding of grammar from learning Latin and, later, other languages. Occasionally, people ask us what qualifications we have to do the job we do - "Have you got an English degree?" I don't think an English degree these days would teach me anything about grammar or much about how to write.

Which brings me to your question about a grammar text - gosh, I don't think I can, although there must be some around. Not a basic one, anyway (but I don't think you need basic?) One text that I've found very useful is Sidney Greenbaum's Oxford Reference Grammar (Oxford University Press, 2000). It covers British and American usage and although it's descriptive rather than prescriptive, it contains useful comment. It's not basic in that it's quite 'in depth', but it's very lucid.

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>

Results 7 - 9 of 14
designed by pixelthemes.com