PROESL
Key Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Member Type
- English Teacher
It's easy enough to accept all points of view about terminology, as what we call things just changes the scenery a bit on the path. Everyone has a different method and a different way of explaining language. However, I would go back to the original question of this discussion, which is this:
I thought I replied.
I thought I had replied.
Both of these sentences, especially as isolated sentences entirely out of context, are equally correct. One is not speaking more or less correctly in a form whatsoever by choosing to say or write either sentence.
The same thing goes for these additional examples:
I thought we discussed that last week.
I thought we had discussed that last week.
I thought you spoke to him last week.
I thought you had spoken to him last week.
I thought you made the copies this morning.
I thought you had made the copies this morning.
I thought she called to say she would be in later this afternoon.
I thought she had called to say she would be in later this afternoon.
If one's sense of correctness or propriety should lead one to say or believe that the past perfect in each pair of the above sentences is more correct or better for "writing", then I would have to ask again why one should believe that this is so. Using the past perfect instead of the simple past in the pairs of example sentences listed above does not do anything to clarify their meaning. In fact, the simple past is all that is necessary and quite likely the most popular and most logical choice. Equating the most popular choice, or that which would occur more commonly in spoken language, with something that is "less than the best" or something that is "not as correct or not as good" is misleading to English language learners. So, once again, the question is this: With what reasoning could one conclude that it's best to advise students that the past perfect is the better and more correct choice in the original pair of examples? I say there is not reason for it. The simple past works just as well, and more context would be needed to truly justify saying one is more correct or better than the other. It should not be a question of which one is more common in spoken language. It's a question of whether or not English language learners should be unnecessarily compelled to adhere to a method that native speakers do not adhere to. Context has to justify the use of the past perfect, and there is no such context in this case. The context should have to clearly indicate that the past perfect is logical, and necessary, because without it, a sequence of events would not be made clear. It's true that the past perfect can give the effect of language that sounds more articulate and refined, but that does not make the simple past wrong in such cases where the past perfect is not needed to logically and accurately complete the meaning of what someone says or writes.
__________________________________________________
In fact, insisting on the past perfect as "more correct" or even simply "better for writing" - whatever one means by "writing" - could confuse English language learners.
1. I thought I replied.
2. I thought I had replied.
1. She said she wanted to reschedule the appointment. ( she wants to reschedule)
2. She said she had wanted to reschedule the appointment. (but then changed her mind - but then decided to keep the appointment at the same time)
It's clear that an ELL could be easily inclined to think that the second sentence of the second pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct" if the same learner believes that the second sentence of the first pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct". Clearly, the meanings of both sentences in the second pair are not the same. This means that one must recognize when the use of the past perfect is, in fact, truly necessitated. One should not believe that past perfect is any better than the simple past when it is not required to clearly complete the meaning of what one says or writes. It certainly would be a mistake for a learner to believe that only the second sentence in the second pair is correct. And if one is looking at grammatical forms as models or patterns, then that's certainly what could happen.
I conclude by saying that these sentences are equally correct and using the past perfect is not absolutely necessary to make the thought or idea expressed "more correct" for writing or any other purpose.
I thought I replied. I thought I had replied.
Both are equally correct.
I thought I replied.
I thought I had replied.
Both of these sentences, especially as isolated sentences entirely out of context, are equally correct. One is not speaking more or less correctly in a form whatsoever by choosing to say or write either sentence.
The same thing goes for these additional examples:
I thought we discussed that last week.
I thought we had discussed that last week.
I thought you spoke to him last week.
I thought you had spoken to him last week.
I thought you made the copies this morning.
I thought you had made the copies this morning.
I thought she called to say she would be in later this afternoon.
I thought she had called to say she would be in later this afternoon.
If one's sense of correctness or propriety should lead one to say or believe that the past perfect in each pair of the above sentences is more correct or better for "writing", then I would have to ask again why one should believe that this is so. Using the past perfect instead of the simple past in the pairs of example sentences listed above does not do anything to clarify their meaning. In fact, the simple past is all that is necessary and quite likely the most popular and most logical choice. Equating the most popular choice, or that which would occur more commonly in spoken language, with something that is "less than the best" or something that is "not as correct or not as good" is misleading to English language learners. So, once again, the question is this: With what reasoning could one conclude that it's best to advise students that the past perfect is the better and more correct choice in the original pair of examples? I say there is not reason for it. The simple past works just as well, and more context would be needed to truly justify saying one is more correct or better than the other. It should not be a question of which one is more common in spoken language. It's a question of whether or not English language learners should be unnecessarily compelled to adhere to a method that native speakers do not adhere to. Context has to justify the use of the past perfect, and there is no such context in this case. The context should have to clearly indicate that the past perfect is logical, and necessary, because without it, a sequence of events would not be made clear. It's true that the past perfect can give the effect of language that sounds more articulate and refined, but that does not make the simple past wrong in such cases where the past perfect is not needed to logically and accurately complete the meaning of what someone says or writes.
__________________________________________________
In fact, insisting on the past perfect as "more correct" or even simply "better for writing" - whatever one means by "writing" - could confuse English language learners.
1. I thought I replied.
2. I thought I had replied.
1. She said she wanted to reschedule the appointment. ( she wants to reschedule)
2. She said she had wanted to reschedule the appointment. (but then changed her mind - but then decided to keep the appointment at the same time)
It's clear that an ELL could be easily inclined to think that the second sentence of the second pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct" if the same learner believes that the second sentence of the first pair is what one must say or write to be "more correct". Clearly, the meanings of both sentences in the second pair are not the same. This means that one must recognize when the use of the past perfect is, in fact, truly necessitated. One should not believe that past perfect is any better than the simple past when it is not required to clearly complete the meaning of what one says or writes. It certainly would be a mistake for a learner to believe that only the second sentence in the second pair is correct. And if one is looking at grammatical forms as models or patterns, then that's certainly what could happen.
I conclude by saying that these sentences are equally correct and using the past perfect is not absolutely necessary to make the thought or idea expressed "more correct" for writing or any other purpose.
I thought I replied. I thought I had replied.
Both are equally correct.
Last edited: