|
Post by volleylearner on Aug 15, 2019 22:35:49 GMT -5
There are web sites that explain various verb tenses, e.g., www.grammarly.com/blog/verb-tenses/. It is acceptable to use present tense for commentary or narratives as in your example where a player "serves into the net." Same for directions like "click on the Apple icon and select Shut Down..." or timeless facts ("Wolfgang is lazy"). You should try learning how to search on the internet. It is quite empowering. You should try reading my post as I said you can use both present tense or past tense so long as you're consistent. I never said you can NOT use present tense for the example I gave. Come on, man. I guess you faked me out by posting "The various past tenses kill me" and "Here's another one," where you talk about using present tense for something in the past ("she serves into the net"). I didn't say you disapproved of using present tense there, but I don't think "being consistent" is correct so I posted about the appropriate use cases for present tense.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Aug 15, 2019 23:06:18 GMT -5
The video exists and will never change. So upon every viewing of the video Lexi serves into the net. The match happened in the past and is a distinct event that is over. In the match Lexi served into the net. So, if you say, “In this video Lexi serves...” that would make sense to me. Not sure if this is helpful but that is how I think of it. I don't think it has to do with being a video. If you were describing the match to someone in a way that you wanted to be engaging and dramatic, you would probably use (at least some) present tense. It is a common storytelling technique.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 15, 2019 23:13:29 GMT -5
It is a common storytelling technique. Yes, because by using the present tense you draw the listener into the situation. It facilitates them feeling like "you are there" rather than just "this is a thing that happened some time ago".
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Aug 15, 2019 23:35:05 GMT -5
It is a common storytelling technique. Yes, because by using the present tense you draw the listener into the situation. It facilitates them feeling like "you are there" rather than just "this is a thing that happened some time ago". Yes, this is the common argument. However, I don't feel any story is more immersive because of the mere use of the present tense vs. other tenses. Same goes for POV. It is said that first person gets you closer to the character than, say, third person. I don't believe this to be the case. Also, there's also the second person: "You are walking down the stairs..." I just find it annoying and has the opposite effect -- it takes me out of the "dream."
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 15, 2019 23:50:51 GMT -5
Yes, because by using the present tense you draw the listener into the situation. It facilitates them feeling like "you are there" rather than just "this is a thing that happened some time ago". Yes, this is the common argument. However, I don't feel any story is more immersive because of the mere use of the present tense vs. other tenses. Same goes for POV. It is said that first person gets you closer to the character than, say, third person. I don't believe this to be the case. Also, there's also the second person: "You are walking down the stairs..." I just find it annoying and has the opposite effect -- it takes me out of the "dream." All such techniques involve skill. When not used skillfully, they don't work. Also, if you can "feel like" the technique is working or not working, then it's not working. When it works, you don't even notice it.
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Aug 16, 2019 0:25:52 GMT -5
The video exists and will never change. So upon every viewing of the video Lexi serves into the net. The match happened in the past and is a distinct event that is over. In the match Lexi served into the net. So, if you say, “In this video Lexi serves...” that would make sense to me. Not sure if this is helpful but that is how I think of it. I don't think it has to do with being a video. If you were describing the match to someone in a way that you wanted to be engaging and dramatic, you would probably use (at least some) present tense. It is a common storytelling technique. The video is an artifact that exists in perpetuity.
|
|
|
Post by Fight On! on Aug 16, 2019 0:28:31 GMT -5
It is a common storytelling technique. Yes, because by using the present tense you draw the listener into the situation. It facilitates them feeling like "you are there" rather than just "this is a thing that happened some time ago". Then the “story” serves in the same function as the video, in your scenario.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 9:26:27 GMT -5
These uses of that and which, for instance, seem totally arbitrary -- unrelated to the definitions I read:
2. We found the key that had been lost under the couch.
3. She took the letter which she had written earlier to the post office.
4. The rosebush that is very beautiful is next to a weedy lot.
5. The tanker which was carrying a load of oil sailed into the harbor.
|
|
|
Post by volleylearner on Aug 16, 2019 13:01:57 GMT -5
These uses of that and which, for instance, seem totally arbitrary -- unrelated to the definitions I read: 2. We found the key that had been lost under the couch. 3. She took the letter which she had written earlier to the post office. 4. The rosebush that is very beautiful is next to a weedy lot. 5. The tanker which was carrying a load of oil sailed into the harbor. I was taught "which" would be wrong in all of those examples. The rule I learned is if you can replace "which" with "that" and it works then you should use "that." The Grammar Girl link I gave in an earlier post distinguishes the usage by whether the which/that clause is required, where one uses "that," or optional, where one uses "which." In (3) and (5) one could argue the "which" clauses are not required so "which" is ok, whereas in (2) and (4) the "that" clauses are arguably necessary. However, I was taught in optional cases one should use commas, e.g., "She took the letter, which she had written earlier, to the post office."
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Aug 16, 2019 13:19:31 GMT -5
I generally know all the grammar and spelling rules, but ultimately, I employ the "ear" test; that is, does it sound okay.
Here's one where I applied the ear test. This sentence includes a mix of present and past tense. I posted it in the "Video Games" thread a few minutes ago:
"I realized a few days ago how large the map is."
I could've written it any of the following ways:
"I realized a few days ago how large the map was." "I realized a few days ago how large the map will be." "I realized a few days ago how large the map could be." "The map is large, something I realized a few days ago."
Addendum: Ironically, in this very post, I had a sentence containing a mix of present and past tense:
"Here's one where I applied the ear test."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 14:00:50 GMT -5
These uses of that and which, for instance, seem totally arbitrary -- unrelated to the definitions I read: 2. We found the key that had been lost under the couch. 3. She took the letter which she had written earlier to the post office. 4. The rosebush that is very beautiful is next to a weedy lot. 5. The tanker which was carrying a load of oil sailed into the harbor. I was taught "which" would be wrong in all of those examples. The rule I learned is if you can replace "which" with "that" and it works then you should use "that." The Grammar Girl link I gave in an earlier post distinguishes the usage by whether the which/that clause is required, where one uses "that," or optional, where one uses "which." In (3) and (5) one could argue the "which" clauses are not required so "which" is ok, whereas in (2) and (4) the "that" clauses are arguably necessary. However, I was taught in optional cases one should use commas, e.g., "She took the letter, which she had written earlier, to the post office." I just don't see the difference between "the key that/which" or "the letter that/which." Furthermore, another example -- this is dailygrammar.com -- has "the artist that." I always thought you used "who" when the it's a person. What is wrong with We found the key which had been lost under the couch -- or , which had been lost, under the couch? I will look at your link, because the explanation I read talks about defining and non-defining clauses. This, I understand, sort of. www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/which-vs-that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 14:10:11 GMT -5
OK. Your link says the same thing. I do not see how 3 and 5 differ from 2 and 4. They are both restrictive/defining clauses, which is what you said. Screw it.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Aug 16, 2019 14:38:32 GMT -5
OK. Your link says the same thing. I do not see how 3 and 5 differ from 2 and 4. They are both restrictive/defining clauses, which is what you said. Screw it. As you noted, there is no logical distinction to be made in some of those examples. Therefore, the only difference is whether or not you want to be a conformist to someone else's rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 14:45:49 GMT -5
Any grammar rule that/which is this difficult to remember and follow, can safely be ignored. Lose the comma. And this one is obviously "that."
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 16, 2019 15:11:41 GMT -5
I generally know all the grammar and spelling rules, but ultimately, I employ the "ear" test; that is, does it sound okay. Linguists would say this is the true test.
|
|