Douglas Adams
|
|
|
Editor: Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Time subordinators:
The reason for clustering the Time subs into four groups is because the subordinators within each group all have a common time relationship to one another, a relationship which differs from that of the other groups. For instance, each of the subs in the first group share the common time relationship of two actions that happen at the same, or very nearly the same, time. In the example... When Tom ate at McBurger, he got sick. ...we have two actions happening at the same time: Tom ate at McBurger and he got sick. This same relationship holds true whether we use When, While, or As. Let's continue our discussion of the subs in this group by examining some special issues that arise. Logically, if we assume that when denotes two actions that happen at the same time, we should also be able to assume that we should use the same tense in both clauses. For example... When Tom ate/was eating at McBurger, he was feeling/felt sick. In the example above both clauses contain past tenses that can happen at the same time. Whether they are in the simple or continuous has very little effect on the meaning. [For a more detailed examination of the English tense/aspect system, please click here.] This pattern of using the same tense within both clauses generally holds true for when, while, or as with one notable and somewhat illogical exception...the future. Upon learning the meaning of when, students sometimes offer up sentences like the following: When Tom will finish school, he will get a good job. Any ESL teacher will quickly recognize this is incorrect, and just as quickly inform their student that the correct sentence is... When Tom finishes school, he will get a good job. This is obviously the right answer, but how can they explain why? Logically, if when is for two actions at the same time, then future should go with future. At this point, I usually introduce my students to what I like to call the stupid rule. [I use this name because it gets their attention and helps them to remember it better, but you can call it whatever you like.] Essentially, the stupid rule states that you cannot use the future tense after any time subordinator. It applies across the whole category, and to conditional subs as well. Thus, the closest tense we can come to for the future [will get] is the present [finishes]. Another issue that can arise with subordinators in this first group centers on the use of the perfect tenses. For example... Tom had studied engineering when he was in college. had studied is the past perfect, a tense/aspect which is normally used to denote something that happened before the simple past or past continuous. Thus, had studied and was in college should not be happening at the same time. The reason the sentence above is acceptable lies within the context. College covers a long period of time in which it is possible for one action (studying engineering) to have happened before other implied actions that also occurred while he was in college. In other words, the fact that our simple past verb is covering a fairly long period of time enables us to use the perfect tense/aspect. Next up... Group two time subordinators. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
http://www.tesltimes.org |
