4 ms·

I can’t get over a writing quirk of this author. Is there a word for this inconsistent use of tense? “When Chaplin asked what happened, Ken would say his fathe

by Jolter 6y ago

I can’t get over a writing quirk of this author. Is there a word for this inconsistent use of tense? “When Chaplin asked what happened, Ken would say his father had been assassinated. He’d travel with the Prime Minister’s son to the palace and see the blood-stained floors.” Unless I’m mistaken, this is considered poor style in English, isn’t it? Was - would be “Chaplin didn’t understand Japanese, but knew they were in danger. He’d immediately put his acting skills into play.”

eloisius 6y ago
I have to go back and fix this kind of inconsistency in my own writing occasionally. I'd agree that it's poor style. Even without the inconsistency, I never like it when things that are clearly from the past are written in whatever tense you call it where you make everything "would." Subject would present tense verb only seems appropriate when you're describing something both past and _in general_. "He would leave his shoes by the door when he came home from work."
jml7c5 6y ago
I think it's just confused word use. The author seems to treat 'would' as a "past tense operator". In programming terms, the author appears to be under the impression that past_tense("action") -> "would action". The correct function is past_tense("action") -> "actioned". (Or whatever weird conjugation "action" has.) The tense this article's passages (mostly) use is "future-in-the-past" tense, where the verb 'will' becomes 'would'. It is used when one transports the reader to a specific moment in time, looking omnisciently into the future. For example, these sentences (in present/present/future, respectively): "It is 1845. John Johnson wakes up. His wife will bake a cake in celebration." become (in past/past/future-in-the-past, respectively): "It was 1845. John Johnson woke up. His wife would bake a cake in celebration." If we transport the sentences you quoted from past->present and future-in-the-past->future, they become: "Chaplin asks what happened. Ken will say his father has been assassinated. He will travel with [...]". The second sentence becomes: "Chaplin doesn't understand Japanese, but he knows he is in danger. He will immediately put his acting skills into play." These are grammatically correct, but I believe there are a few cases where the author gets it wrong. In general, there are so many tense changes (and changes in the 'specific moment' as described earlier) that it is probably unreasonable to consider the whole document grammatically correct even if one could break the document into isolated pieces of correctness.

by Jolter 6y ago

eloisius 6y ago

I have to go back and fix this kind of inconsistency in my own writing occasionally. I'd agree that it's poor style. Even without the inconsistency, I never like it when things that are clearly from the past are written in whatever tense you call it where you make everything "would." Subject would present tense verb only seems appropriate when you're describing something both past and _in general_. "He would leave his shoes by the door when he came home from work."

jml7c5 6y ago

I think it's just confused word use. The author seems to treat 'would' as a "past tense operator". In programming terms, the author appears to be under the impression that past_tense("action") -> "would action". The correct function is past_tense("action") -> "actioned". (Or whatever weird conjugation "action" has.) The tense this article's passages (mostly) use is "future-in-the-past" tense, where the verb 'will' becomes 'would'. It is used when one transports the reader to a specific moment in time, looking omnisciently into the future. For example, these sentences (in present/present/future, respectively): "It is 1845. John Johnson wakes up. His wife will bake a cake in celebration." become (in past/past/future-in-the-past, respectively): "It was 1845. John Johnson woke up. His wife would bake a cake in celebration." If we transport the sentences you quoted from past->present and future-in-the-past->future, they become: "Chaplin asks what happened. Ken will say his father has been assassinated. He will travel with [...]". The second sentence becomes: "Chaplin doesn't understand Japanese, but he knows he is in danger. He will immediately put his acting skills into play." These are grammatically correct, but I believe there are a few cases where the author gets it wrong. In general, there are so many tense changes (and changes in the 'specific moment' as described earlier) that it is probably unreasonable to consider the whole document grammatically correct even if one could break the document into isolated pieces of correctness.