"as far as sth is/was concerned"

Question

(1) "The policy of liquidating the affluent peasants was hardly new as far as the Soviet Communist Party was concerned."

(2) "As far as the policy of liquidating the affluent peasants is concerned, Stalin was hardly alone amongst contemporary Communist leaders in ruthlessly implementing it."

Should I say "is concerned" rather than "was concerned" in these cases? It seems that one can argue for both. "Was" seems intuitively natural as the sentences are in the past tense. On the other hand, "is" can also seem appropriate given that the predicate "is concerned" takes on an abstract nature here and is not an action that actually took place in the past (i.e. it merely means "regarding this topic about the policy of liquidating the affluent peasants.....").

Thank you for your attention.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

#2 sounds the smoothest to me.Why mess with what works?

In addition, each sentence seems to have a different emphasis,, as indicted by the main clauses (which I have bolded).

(1) "The policy of liquidating the affluent peasants was hardly new as far as the Soviet Communist Party was concerned."

(2) "As far as the policy of liquidating the affluent peasants is concerned, Stalin was hardly alone amongst contemporary Communist leaders in ruthlessly implementing it."

Clive

SuperESL · Answer

Hi Clive,

Well, I always think that to grasp a grammatical point you need to push the envelope a bit to see how far it would carry you. This means I sometimes make up sentences - even awkward ones - in order to test a grammatical point that is embedded in them. The thing with sticking with intuition and what sounds smoothest to my own ears (certainly I would trust yours over mine any day) is that this may lead me to write in a certain way just because it happens to be the most cliched manner of writing, rather than because I have understood the underlying grammatical rules. There are hard and fast rules governing many aspects of the English language, and there are also grey areas where individual judgment is called for. For non-native speakers of English, however, the boundary between the two sides is not always obvious. My way of groping for this borderline is through throwing up different examples concocted around specific points of uncertainty so that I may deduce from your reaction to them the 'thought process' to go through when pressed to make a grammatical decision in a given context.

This is so verbose, I know. Sorry. I do realize that you are servicing not only me but lots of other people on the forum. I always strive to set up my questions in such a way as to ensure the least demands on your / other contributors' time. But sometimes they do run on. Which I guess is why most contributors on this forum seem to give my questions a wide berth. You and one or two hard-core grammarians are my only respondents these days.

Apologies for the digression. Going back to my question, regarding which I have made up a new example:

"The policy of liquidating the affluent peasants can be traced back to Lenin's time. It was therefore hardly a new policy as far as the Soviet Communist Party under Stalin was concerned."

Should I say 'is concerned' or 'was concerned' here? Would both work?

I can see why "is concerned" works in example (2) in my original post because the subject to which it corresponds - "the policy of liquidating the affluence peasants" - is an abstract notion with no temporal/time value to it (if you see what I mean); hence the present tense. In the example above, however, "the Soviet Communist Party under Stalin" is clearly something that belongs to the past. The question is: should I treat "the Soviet Communist Party under Stalin" as an abstract notion in the context of my discussion (which would dictate the use of 'is'), or should I treat it as a really existing historical entity (which would dictate the use of 'was')? This is, at least, the 'thought process' I am undergoing when grappling with the issue. Is my approach completely wrong-headed?

Thank you very much.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

The policy of liquidating the affluent peasants can be traced back to Lenin's time. It was therefore hardly a new policy as far as the Soviet Communist Party under Stalin was concerned."

'Is' just sounds so odd to me that I'd call it wrong.

I have some reservations about your second sentence here. It seems to state the obvious.How would your text be if you just deleted it?

Clive

SuperESL · Answer

Hello Clive,

This is just a sentence I made up in order to find out under what circumstances I should say "is concerned" and under what circumstances it should be "was concerned." It's the grammatical point I am trying to test that counts.

So you're happy with "is concerned" in:

"As far as the policy of liquidating the affluent peasants is concerned, Stalin was hardly alone amongst contemporary Communist leaders in ruthlessly implementing it."

But not in:

"The policy of liquidating the affluent peasants can be traced back to Lenin's time. It was therefore hardly a new policy as far as the Soviet Communist Party under Stalin is concerned."

O never mind. Don't let me turn into a nuisance to you. Otherwise I will lose my last teacher on this forum.

Thank you anyway!

Clive · Answer

Hi,

I don't feel the two sentences are directly comparable.

Note that in both cases, I favour using past tense in the part where you talk so specifically about the Stalin era

What nationality are you, if I may ask? Are you writing a book about this topic?

Clive

SuperESL · Answer

Hi Clive,

I have taken note of your preference for the past tense where the sentences directly address the Stalin era. And let me say that I have found our dialogue on this particular issue fruitful, even though there is still that last bit that is not cleared up. Knowing where even a highly literate native speaker would find himself uncertain grammar-wise is in itself important for my purpose, because this tells me where the grey or controversial areas are and therefore the sort of things perhaps to avoid altogether when writing.

You and I share one common nationality - Canadian. My native tongue is a Chinese dialect. I have worked on my English - especially my written English - long and hard for some years now but it seems that I am still getting bogged down in a myriad of grammatical glitches, some of which may be rather elementary. And the thing is that the circle that I move in is rather scholarly and people there do frown upon lapses in the use of language. Which I guess is a good thing as it pushes me to seek constantly to improve.

I am writing a doctoral dissertation on a topic of diplomatic history that is in some way connected to Stalin, Communism, and all the rest of it. Hopefully it will turn into a book someday.

Thanks again!

Clive · Answer

Hi,

For a non-native speaker, your English is remarkable!

Clive

"as far as sth is/was concerned"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions