5 ms·
> your use of the past tense in a general statement It wasn't my use or my statement. > implies that it is no longer made by that process No. That's a possib
by torstenvl 4y ago
> your use of the past tense in a general statement
It wasn't my use or my statement.
> implies that it is no longer made by that process
No. That's a possible interpretation, but it is by no means implied.
> leads those of us who speak English to incorrect conclusions
I'm a native Standard American English speaker. I did not jump to that conclusion. In Standard American English, there is a specific construction for expressing that idea: "panko, which used to be cooked by putting electrodes into the dough"
That construction was not used here.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y agoIf you'll refresh your memory about the context of this comment thread, you will see several posters using past-tense to refer to historical situations and that is the context into which you interjected your thing about panko. I assumed that you knew that panko had once been made that way and was no longer. Others may have assumed that as well, given the established context and the way you wrote the sentence. So I hope this clears it up for everyone. Thanks.
- QuercusMax 4y agoI have no idea about how either triscuits or panko are made nowadays. Thus, I referred to them in the past tense talking about how they were made when they were originally created.
- torstenvl 4y ago> I assumed that you knew that panko had once been made that way and was no longer...the way you wrote the sentence. Again, I was not the one who made the comment. Please stop with the inappropriate behavior. > Thanks. Don't do this, please.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y agoYou're welcome.
- Izkata 4y ago> That construction was not used here. Except that is how "was" was used by the two people you were responding to.