Skip to main content

backshifting - sequence of tenses (optional and obligatory back shifting )


Consider a sentence:



1) The president learned that the earthquake has caused havoc all across the country.



Here present perfect tense is used. First tell me is it correct to use 'has caused' ?


I read once in a grammar book that if the verb in the main clause is in the past tense the the verb in the subordinate clause will also be in the past tense.


So according to this rule it should be 'had caused' instead of 'has caused'.


But at the same time some of them say that if the emphasis is laid on the subordinate clause then present perfect tense can be used. While some say if the emphasis is laid on 'noticing' then past perfect tense to be used. So by this logic one can use present perfect tense as well.


I'm confused.


P.S. -- I'm aware that past perfect tense can be used in every situation but I have no idea when to use present perfect tense in the cases when the verb in the main clause is in the past tense. Help me out.



Answer



The use of present perfect has caused indicates that the event happened in the recent past and its effects are still current.


Imagine a meeting within the first hour of the earthquake:



We held a meeting in Washington.
The president learned that the earthquake has caused havoc all across the country.
The National Guard was mobilised.



All of those simple verbs describe a particular event which happened instantaneously (held, learned, mobilised). The present perfect indicates that havoc was caused and is still ongoing. Compare to the simple past again:



The president learned that the earthquake caused havoc all across the country.



That sentence indicates an instantaneous event (it caused havoc), but it's not explicit that it's still going on: the havoc may well have been countered by the time that sentence was said.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more