[etni] Re: PP/Progressive
- From: "David R. Herz" <drh16@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:29:44 +0200
So I got two responses (included below) to my not so well thought out PPP
comment. I respond:
Not so simple. The past perfect progressive does not require that the
activity could continue after some other event.
The man had been running three hours when his tendon tore.
He could have continued but for the event. The relation of the running to
the tear calls for the PPP.
The man was running when the heart attack occurred.
Past Progressive because one happened while the other was occuring.
In the case given, we do not know if Disney retired from film and later
died, or if his death cut short his career.
You're right that my second example was not great, and the context could
have thrown the answer in either of two directions, the past progressive
probably being preferred without any context. There should have been some
time element, or some relevant consequence, to require the PPP.
He was producing his grand epic when he died.
In the original example, I don't even know if perfect is required.
He produced movies for forty years before he died.
These are two unrelated facts strung together with a conjunction.
If we are talking about his influence or legacy or experience at the time of
his death, the perfect would likely be necessary.
I am going to go with a final and official answer of:
"The tense chosen may often be dependent on the context and what the writer
intended to say. Without having such a sentence in context, we should not
waste our time trying to tease out imagined clues. Rather, let's spend some
time writing and hopefully our attempts to get our meanings across will give
us greater insight into how we may powerfully use the language for our own
purposes."
"In <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics> linguistics, the perfect (
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glossing_abbreviations> abbreviated
perf or prf), occasionally called the retrospective (ret) to avoid confusion
with the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect> perfective
aspect, is a combination of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect> aspect and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tense> tense
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_tense#cite_note-Dahl-0> [1]:ch.5 that
calls a listener's attention to the consequences, at some time of
perspective (time of reference), generated by a prior situation, rather than
just to the situation itself. The time of perspective itself is given by the
tense of the helping verb, and usually the tense and the aspect are combined
into a single tense-aspect form: the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_perfect> present perfect, the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_perfect> past perfect (also known as the
pluperfect), or the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_perfect> future
perfect."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_tense (admittedly an imperfect
source)
-----
I think you might be better off to say that Walt was producing ... WHEN he
died OR walt had been producing ... BEFORE he died.
-----
How could he have had to continue producing cartoons if he died? So, till he
died, he had produced- and that's it!
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:45 AM, David R. Herz <drh16@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I want to know why we can't use the past perfect progressive in the
following sentence, as the answer key suggests the past perfect simple only,
or maybe wee can!?
Walt Disney _________________ (produce) cartoons for nearly 40 years before
he died in 1966.
The answer is in the use of the conjunction before. It suggests that
something was complete prior to something else. Compare:
He had been studying for three hours when the lights went out.
- or -
Walt had been producing his new movie when he died.
The continuous/progressive is interrupted by the other. In the sentence you
provided, it provides a history, but one does not follow, flow from or
interrupt the other.
Other related posts: