Then I bethought me of the ring of Eibon, which I had inherited
from my fathers, who were also wizards. The ring had come down, it
was said, from ancient Hyperborea; and it was made of a redder
gold than any that the earth yields in latter cycles, and was set
with a great purple gem, somber and smouldering, whose like is no
longer to be found. And in the gem an antique demon was held
captive, a spirit from pre-human worlds and ages, which would
answer the interrogation of sorcerers.
Shall we conclude that the writer no longer possessed the said the
ring when he put his tale on paper? Should you want to read the
paragraph in context, here is the full story:
Then I bethought me of the ring of Eibon, which I had
inherited from my fathers, who were also wizards. The ring
had come down, it was said, from ancient Hyperborea; and it
was made of a redder gold than any that the earth yields in
latter cycles, and was set with a great purple gem, somber and smouldering, whose like is no longer to be found. And in the
gem an antique demon was held captive, a spirit from
pre-human worlds and ages, which would answer the
interrogation of sorcerers.
Shall we conclude that the writer no longer possessed the said
the ring when he put his tale on paper?
No, I don't think so. The next paragraph clearly says he brought
it out and used it.
There's no further reference after he uses it, so we've no
knowledge of it being disposed of or kept.
Yes, no factual knowledge, but then do you explain the Past Simple
tense in: "demon was held captive ,which would answer the
interrogation of sorcerers." If the writer had still had the ring
in his posession at the time of writing, whould not he have written "...demon is held captive, which will answer..."?
Yes, no factual knowledge, but then do you explain the Past Simple
tense in: "demon was held captive, which would answer the
interrogation of sorcerers." If the writer had still had the ring
in his posession at the time of writing, whould not he have
written "... demon is held captive, which will answer..."?
The writer is writing about events which have happened (past). We
have no idea what (if anything) has transpired since. In any case,
to suddenly shift from past to present would be quite jarring to
the reader.
-----Beginning of the citation-----
In one of his better tales, of which the original version was
rejected by the miopical editors, Clark Ashton Smith presents a
secred record made by a sorcerer, describing the way he banished
a devil that had come to earth from a comet. The setting -- a
fictional province in medieval France:
----- The end of the citation -----
In one of his better tales, of which the original version was
rejected by the mYopic editors, Clark Ashton Smith PRESENTED a
sAcred record made by a sorcerer, describing the way he banished
a DEMON (or THE DEVIL), that had come to earth from a comet.
BTW, Anton used such a time shift in his question. I was also told many times not to do such a thing in one sentence or even in one paragraph.
BTW, Anton used such a time shift in his question. I was also
told many times not to do such a thing in one sentence or
even in one paragraph.
As usual, "rules are made to be broken". :-) The challenge is in
making the break work! "Presents" or "presented" becomes a
matter of how it sounds and feels - neither is exclusively right
or wrong.
The writer is writing about events which have happened (past). We
have no idea what (if anything) has transpired since. In any
case, to suddenly shift from past to present would be quite
jarring to the reader. And also, the ring is (or seems to be from
this fragment) a very minor part of the story so who really cares
about it's current location? :-)
The writer is writing about events which have happened
(past). We have no idea what (if anything) has transpired
since. In any case, to suddenly shift from past to present
would be quite jarring to the reader.
BTW, Anton used such a time shift in his question. I was
also told many times not to do such a thing in one sentence
or even in one paragraph.
In one of his better tales, of which the original version
was rejected by the mYopic editors,
he banished a DEMON (or THE DEVIL)
Depends on the circumstances. If a joke begins with
e.g. "Three guys go into a bar" I expect it to continue in the
same vein.
I remember a song from the 1950's in which a woman
tells her children what her mother told her when she was a little
girl... "What will be, will be". Should you want to look up the
lyrics, the name of this song is QUE SERA, SERA.
I compiled an epic list of English-related bar jokes by members
of alt.usage.english.usage : https://tinyurl.com/y8o3kgoy (links
to the Google Groups).
3. Later in the same article, Morris writes: "The art of mosaic
windows is especially an art of the Middle ages."
4. Paustovsky writes: "I did not want to shatter this naive belief
of the village shepherd boy. Maybe because this naivete concealed
the real truth about the genuine craft of a writer-a truth we do
not always remember and do not always strive to live by".
In any case, to suddenly shift from past to present would be quite
jarring to the reader. And also, the ring is (or seems to be from
this fragment) a very minor part of the story so who really cares
about it's current location?
I see. It reminds me of a dialog line from a British horror story,
where a woman excalims "I forgot he was vegeterinan!", when she
realies she has prepared no vegetaranian meal for her new
acquaintance, who, by all means, is vegetarian still.
I remember a song from the 1950's in which a woman tells her
children what her mother told her when she was a little
girl... "What will be, will be". Should you want to look up the
lyrics, the name of this song is QUE SERA, SERA.
"Presents" or "presented" becomes a matter of how
it sounds and feels - neither is exclusively right
or wrong.
I disagree. The present simple is *the* tense when
writing about literature, perhaps because good
literature is timeless :-?
No limit for informal speech. Let's try to remove the past tense
at all:
"I remember a song from the 1950's in which a woman tells her
children what her mother tells her when she is a little
girl..." ;-)
It is a Grammar violation that have become generally accepted.
A dead person cannot write -- he wrote.
Deceased authors may be spoken of in the present tense, because
they seem to live in their works; as, "Seneca reasons and
moralizes well."--Murray. "Women talk better than men, from the
superior shape of their tongues: an ancient writer speaks of
their loquacity three thousand years ago."--Gardiner's Music of
Nature, p. 27.
Another example, "It's me" instead of "It is I".
AFAIR, you used to be the defender of strict Grammar rule
observation
and the sworn enemy of informal speech. ;-)
I see. It reminds me of a dialog line from a British horror
story, where a woman excalims "I forgot he was
vegeterinan!", when she realies she has prepared no
vegetaranian meal for her new acquaintance, who, by all
means, is vegetarian still.
A story can be told in the present or in the past. But you should
choose. If you put "It reminds me of..." you imply past events
and you should continue:
...a dialog line from a British horror story, where a woman
exclaimed, "I forgot he IS a vegeterinan!" when she realised she
had prepared no vegetaranian meal for her new acquaintance...
Hey! The phrase "I forgot he was vegetarian!" (with!?! was' and no
article before!?! vegetarian') is a quote from the book! Do insist
on correcting the language of Ramsey Campbell???
Hey! The phrase "I forgot he was vegetarian!" (with 'was'
and no article before 'vegetarian') is a quote from the
book! Do [you] insist on correcting the language of Ramsey
Campbell???
Well, taking in mind that it was a horror story, it could mean:
1. He stopped be a vegetarian after that meal.
3. He was a vegetarian and died from that meal.
As for the absence of "a" before "vegetarian" I don't know.
IMHO Englishmen can live without articles if they want. We see it
when we read news titles, for instance. ;)
As for the absence of "a" before "vegetarian" I don't know.
It is only logical if one reads 'vegetarian' as an adjective, which
it is in that sentence.
As for the absence of "a" before "vegetarian" I don't know.
sometimes axes != axes ;)
The writer is writing about events which have happened (past).
We have no idea what (if anything) has transpired since. In
any case, to suddenly shift from past to present would be quite
jarring to the reader. And also, the ring is (or seems to be
from this fragment) a very minor part of the story so who really
cares about it's current location? :-)
I see.
It reminds me of a dialog line from a British horror story,
where a woman excalims "I forgot he was vegeterinan!", when
she realies she has prepared no vegetaranian meal for her new
acquaintance, who, by all means, is vegetarian still.
Okay. I could add a story about some things a friend
gave us after his mother's death, but apparently you don't need
it.... :-)
It reminds me of a dialog line from a British horror story,
Note to Alexander: dialog(ue) reflects the way the
characters in a story would speak & can't necessarily be taken as
a guide to proper usage.
where a woman excalims "I forgot he was vegeterinan!", when
she realies she has prepared no vegetaranian meal for her new
acquaintance, who, by all means, is vegetarian still.
If this woman thinks it's imperative that "forgot"
agree with "was" she may be adhering to a "rule" which native
speakers break routinely, because it doesn't make sense when e.g.
somebody who claimed to be vegan or vegetarian awhile ago may
have changed their mind. Dallas & I often see the latter. :-Q
The phrase "I forgot he was vegetarian!" (with!?! was' and
no article before!?! vegetarian') is a quote from the book!
Well, taking in mind that it was a horror story, it could
mean:
1. He stopped be a vegetarian after that meal.
3. He was a vegetarian and died from that meal.
As for the absence of "a" before "vegetarian" I don't know.
remember, a vegetarian is vegetarian... it is one of those
words that is both a noun and an adjective...
If a joke begins with e.g. "Three guys go into a bar"
I expect it to continue in the same vein.
Do not they "walk" into a bar?
I compiled an epic list of English-related bar jokes by
members of alt.usage.english.usage
I could add a story about some things a friend gave us
after his mother's death, but apparently you don't need
it.... :-)
I should fear to hear it -- what if the inheritance
turns out to have another magickal item?
It reminds me of a dialog line from a British horror story,
Note to Alexander: dialog(ue) reflects the way the characters
in a story would speak & can't necessarily be taken as a guide
to proper usage.
Yes, and that woman is a British schoolteacher.
If this woman thinks it's imperative that "forgot" agree with
"was" she may be adhering to a "rule" which native speakers
break routinely
Whithersoever I look, I see adherence, quite sticky adherence,
nigh sufficient to catch flies:
and so on. Where do they break the rule?
I should fear to hear it -- what if the inheritance
turns out to have another magickal item?
Nah. Just a few ordinary household items made of xxx,
yyy, and zzz .. none with magic(k)al powers, but all of which we
are still using. :-)
If this woman thinks it's imperative that "forgot" agree with
"was" she may be adhering to a "rule" which native speakers
break routinely
Whithersoever I look, I see adherence, quite sticky
adherence, nigh sufficient to catch flies:
[...]
and so on. Where do they break the rule?
I can't say they do & I see a reasonably broad
selection of authors there. I've caught myself speaking the same
way over the last few evenings... when Dallas didn't catch me
first. In such circumstances we both find it more aesthetically
pleasing if the verb tenses agree than if they don't.
Cookie put her hands under her apron, looked at her feet a
moment, and then looked up at him, her own eyes wet. Her words
came almost like screams: "Hattie say she seen ya! But she's a
lier, ain't she, Boos-Man?
Her mistress sat down, put one elbow on the table, and brought
her napkin up to cover her face. "I'm disappointed in you,
Cookie. Go to the kitchen."
Cookie went through the swinging door without looking at her
mistress.
In a moment, his wife looked up at him and said, "I'm sorry. I'd
not thought she was capable of a thing like that."
But a lot of native speakers find it puzzling when one can't be
sure e.g. what became of item xxx or who's still vegetarian in
the absence of further data,
and while I must have been taught that way I'm not sure there's a
rule about it.
We've often had people say to us, in casual
conversation, "I didn't know you're a teacher." I doubt they are
the only people who do this.... :-)
I should fear to hear it -- what if the inheritance
turns out to have another magickal item?
Nah. Just a few ordinary household items made of xxx,
yyy, and zzz... none with magic(k)al powers, but all
of which we are still using. :-)
Then I won't pursue this quotidian matter any futher.
But may I make so bold as to question the grammar in
the quoted sentence?
1. Is it correct to use "but.. which" without a prior
occurence of "which" in the sentence?
2. Is it correct to express the continued use of these
items in the present progressive tense?
This distinction causes me serious doubts in my own
writing, but in your case I should without
vaccilation say: "and we still use all of them."
In a moment, his wife looked up at him and said, "I'm
sorry. I'd not thought she was capable of a thing like
that."
Mark the last sentece, which, again, is uttered by an
apparently educted person.
How about this:
a. I forgot he was vegetarian. (he still is)
b. I forgot he had been vegetarian. (he has reverted)
Nah. Just a few ordinary household items made of xxx,
yyy, and zzz... none with magic(k)al powers, but all
of which we are still using. :-)
Then I won't pursue this quotidian matter any futher.
But may I make so bold as to question the grammar in
the quoted sentence?
Of course. You may be sure that whatever I say in the
E_T echo has been edited & proofread thoroughly; however, I do
miss things sometimes. :-)
1. Is it correct to use "but.. which" without a prior
occurence of "which" in the sentence?
If I hadn't thought so, I wouldn't have done it.
Perhaps it is an error... or perhaps it's one of those stunts one
shouldn't try at home. :-))
I could have written "... none of which has [blah
blah] but all of which we are still using." Although it would
have made a nicer parallelism I felt it might be unnecessarily
wordy.
IIRC I've seen a few constructions like "... most, but
by no means all, of which [i.e. covid-related deaths in this
country] are associated with long term care facilities". In such
cases the logic is more obvious.... :-)
2. Is it correct to express the continued use of these
items in the present progressive tense?
As a native speaker I depend heavily on my Russian
modem buddies & foreign language textbooks to identify the names
of verb tenses.
In general the present tense would work too, but in
this example I figure it would change the emphasis as well as the
rhythm I had in mind. :-)
In a moment, his wife looked up at him and said, "I'm
sorry. I'd not thought she was capable of a thing like
that."
Mark the last sentece, which, again, is uttered by an
apparently educted person.
It strikes me as unusual, but not incorrect. If the
person you're referring to lives in the Southern States I'd cut
her a bit of slack.... :-)
How about this:
a. I forgot he was vegetarian. (he still is)
That's what I'd probably say.
b. I forgot he had been vegetarian. (he has reverted)
If I knew he'd reverted but my brain slipped a cog, I
might say "I forgot he'd been vegetarian as an impecunious
student but modified his stance after he began doing hard
physical work in the construction industry.... :-)
Addison in a psalm of his addresses God:
I knew thou wert not slow to hear,
Nor impotent to save.
I don't think that substituting `art' for `wert' would
harm the sound and rythm so much as to justify `wert',
were it ungrammatical...
We've often had people say to us, in casual conversation,
"I didn't know you're a teacher." I doubt they are the
only people who do this.... :-)
Hardly so, but such is the nature of causual conversation
that one has little time, and even less desire, to ensure
grammatical accuracy.
Thank you for this most commendable commission to quality in the
echo.
Addison in a psalm of his addresses God:
I knew thou wert not slow to hear,
Nor impotent to save.
I don't think that substituting `art' for `wert' would
harm the sound and rythm so much as to justify `wert',
were it ungrammatical...
No. But I think you're referring to Joseph Addison,
who lived from 1672-1719 & who wrote at least two hymns based on
a rewording of Old Testament psalms.
Bishop R. Heber said "...which wert, and art, and evermore shalt
be" WRT God in 1827. I'm not sure how much to attribute to
liturgical anachronism ..
as Fowler puts it... or how much weight to assign to the idea
that when we speak of an immutable truth the verb tenses should
still be in agreement. :-)
We've often had people say to us, in casual conversation,
"I didn't know you're a teacher." I doubt they are the
only people who do this.... :-)
Hardly so, but such is the nature of causual conversation
that one has little time, and even less desire, to ensure
grammatical accuracy.
Agreed. When folks are speaking extemporaneously they
tend to make grammatical errors they probably wouldn't have made
if they'd had more time to think about the wording. In an
otherwise fruitless search of my own reference books, however, I
found this description of something else: "well established but controversial". I think the same might also be said of the
above.... ;-)
I could have written "... none of which has [blah blah]
but all of which we are still using." Although it would
have made a nicer parallelism I felt it might be
unnecessarily wordy.
Indeed. The amendment I had in mind (but withheld) was
the following: "none with magic(k)al powers, but all
of them still in use".
My other misdoublt about it (withheld, too) was that "but"
does not seem to introduce any kind of contradtion! On the
other hand, magical items, being rarer, are likely to be
used longer.
As a native speaker I depend heavily on my Russian modem
buddies & foreign language textbooks to identify the names
of verb tenses.
I think the terminology is largely the same in English
Grammars written in English, by the English, and for the
English.
In general the present tense would work too, but in this
example I figure it would change the emphasis as well as
the rhythm I had in mind. :-)
If I grasp this distinction corretly, then I should say
that a busy and professional photographer may say: "I am
using a Horizon camera,"
whereas a time-to-time amateur like me who shoots several
film rolls a season may say: "I use a Horizon camera"?
That the sound of your original version is better is "fixed
with the golden nails to the walls of inevitable necessity".
If I knew he'd reverted but my brain slipped a cog, I
might say "I forgot he'd been vegetarian as an impecunious
student but modified his stance after he began doing hard
physical work in the construction industry.... :-)
Your extrapolation has given new life to my example, but I
see no cogs slipping...
Bishop R. Heber said "... which wert, and art, and
evermore shalt be" WRT God in 1827. I'm not sure
how much to attribute to liturgical anachronism...
I see no fault with bishop Heber's usage,
for with these words he addresses God (rather than
saying it WRT Him), and therefore uses the second-
person verbs.
Why he wrote "which" instead of `who' is another
question.
It is probably permissible because `which' is more
general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,
but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
person too, but the prounoun is personal.
... or how much weight to assign to the idea that when
we speak of an immutable truth the verb tenses should
still be in agreement. :-)
Well, even these days the prevailing tendency is to have
them agree, as a quick search for "knew the Earth was
round" in Boogle Gooks shows .
If the alternative is uncontrovesional yet unestablished,
then I prefer the former :-)
I have failed to what the esteemed Goold Brown has to
say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of
his magnum opus.
It is probably permissible because `which' is more
general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,
Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.
I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,
BTW.... :-)
but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
person too, but the prounoun is personal.
Except when it's not. The Lord's Prayer is a
translation & there are many different versions. The KJV says
"which".... :-)
I have failed to what the esteemed Goold Brown has to
say upon the matter on account of the sheer volume of
his magnum opus.
Uh-huh. When I try looking up some issues, if I can
find anything at all, I get one of two answers: "there are so
many possible uses of [blah blah] I won't attempt an exhaustive
list" or "my favourite dictionary includes thirty pages of xxx in
detail, but I feel overwhelmed with too much information". I'm
reminded here of my adventures with French & Latin... where the
examples in the textbook make sense until question #4, when added
wrinkles are introduced. :-Q
It is probably permissible because `which' is more
general than "who", and, together with `that', used be
employed to personal and impersonal objects alike,
Hmm... I think you've made another important point there.
Note to self: "employed with" or "applied to".
I like the idea that "God the Father" could be a metaphor,
BTW.... :-)
I did not have that idea in mind while commenting on the
hymn.
Nor do Christians think of God that way.
but Cf. another address: "Our Father, Who art in
Heaven...", where the verb is in the second
person too, but the prounoun is personal.
Except when it's not. The Lord's Prayer is a
translation & there are many different versions.
The KJV says "which".... :-)
Well spotted! That explains Heber's "which"--it
is truer to Jacobian English.
It took me three attemts to understand Fowler's
exposition on Will and Shall in a chapter of
"King's English":
https://www.bartleby.com/116/213.html
But in the end I did it
and now can read Agatha Christie, Anthony Hope, and
Bram Stoker without stumbling at every second `should'.
| Sysop: | Zazz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Mesquite, Tx |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 07:54:15 |
| Calls: | 157 |
| Files: | 2,103 |
| Messages: | 146,019 |