Is / Was

Question

Hi,"That one could eradicate Capitalism by inciting the masses to revolt is a notion to which Stalin would cleave to the end of the his life."Should I use the present tense or the past tense for the 'is' in the above example? Is either permissible as long as I keep my tense-choice consistent in the rest of the piece?The source of my uncertainty is this: the passage is about something that took place in the past (i.e. Stalin's thinking), on the one hand. But the 'is' here refers to a line of thought (i.e. "that one could eradicate Capitalism by inciting the masses to revolt") that in itself is time-neutral, on the other.Thank you.

Avangi · Accepted Answer

I would definitely use the present (is), since it's followed by "would cleave [to]".
But I don't think "was" is incorrect.

KJinCali79 · Answer

It is written in the present tense to emphasis that this was the line of thought he held at the time. Meaning, up until his death he held to that belief, and during that time it was the present.

"That one could eradicate Capitalism by inciting the masses to revolt is a notion to which Stalin would cleave to until the end of his life."

"That one could eradicate Capitalism by inciting the masses to revolt was a notion Stalin cleaved to until the end of his life."

SuperESL · Answer

Thank you very much for your inputs - and allow me to follow up on them:

I am afraid the subtleties behind the difference in tense-choices between the two examples in the last post are lost on me. In both cases we are referring to a period of time that began at one point in Stalin's life and that lasted until his death.What difference is there between saying "Stalin would cleave to sth until the end of his life" and "Stalin cleaved to sth until the end of his life"? And why is it more appropriate to use the present tense 'is' in association with the former and the past tense "was" with the latter?

I think there is some important grammatical principle that I somehow fail to grasp.

Please help. Thank you.

Clive · Answer

I prefer 'was a notion'. The whole focus of the sentence is on the past.

Clive

SuperESL · Answer

Thanks Clive.

Do you mean you prefer 'was a notion' regardless of whether it is followed by "Stalin would cleave to......" or "Stalin cleaved to......"?

I don't mean to provoke my kind respondents into debates with each other, but I really want to figure out how to approach this sort of tense-choice decisions (what questions should I be asking myself when faced with these situations?), what the pros and cons and relative validity of the different choices are, under what circumstances would one tense-choice be preferable to another etc.

Thank you.

Clive · Answer

The 'would' is like a forecast of the 'future in the past'.

Let me try to explain via a simple, concrete example.

In 1960 Tom decided he loved Mary. This was a notion that he would cleave to until the end of his life in 2005.

Clive

KJinCali79 · Answer

I would venture that this sentence is from a paragraph that is written in the present tense even though it is talking about the past. It is quite common to talk about past events in present tense in a story-telling narrative in order to make it dynamic or interesting. This applies to jokes also.

Contrast:
I asked my wife, "Where do you want to go for our anniversary?"
She said, "Somewhere I have never been!"
I told her, "How about the kitchen?"
With:
A man asked his wife where she wanted to go for their anniversary.
She said that she wanted to go somewhere she had never been.
He suggested the kitchen to her.

In both examples above, the past tense is when the action occurred "asked," "said", "told," but in the first the statements are made using present tense to create dynamic action. So, it is possible that the overall narrative this original post's sentence was taken from was written in such a fashion and that is perhaps why "is" was used, in order to maintain consistency of tenses--though I cannot be sure. The use of "would cleave to" is to point out that his death was future-in-the-past.

As for the differences between my two supplied examples:
"...is a notion to which Stain would cleave to..."
"...was a notion Stalin cleaved to..."
These statements on their own have little difference in overall meaning. However, if the paragraph is present-tense-narrative, the point in Stalin's life that they are discussing is active, and ongoing, not yet finished. The latter example does not leave the possibility for that since it is a simple restatement of past factual events.

Avangi · Answer

I'm respectfully holding out for the present.
To my ear, this historical information is being presented in narrative style.
In this style, it's quite common to use the present tense in describing the historical past.
In my opinion, the use of "would" locks it in.

If someone feels that the historical past is not appropriate in this narrative, then that should be the argument.
(Perhaps it is.)

Rgdz, - A.

Edit. sorry, KJ, I hadn't read your post when I wrote this. There seems to have been a lot of water under the bridge.
I should have taken time to fully catch up.
Anyway, I obviously agree with what you wrote. - A.

KJinCali79 · Answer

Avangisorry, KJ, I hadn't read your post when I wrote this.

No worries. And yes, I agree with your post. It's a narrative style so the present tense makes the most sense.

SuperESL · Answer

My thanks to all my respondents for endeavoring to help me out.

But I am afraid I am still somewhat unclear about aspects of what you have been trying to tell me.

It has been put forward that one can use the present tense in describing the past if it is presented in 'narrative style,' and that the use of 'would' hints at the use of this style (i.e. since it suggests that the writer is pausing at some point in a period of time that is being recounted - thus a narrative - and looking ahead at what was to come, with hindsight).

Now, say I am writing a diplomatic history of the Soviet Union from 1945-1953. It's a narrative history, progressing chronologically from one point in time to another. The whole period took place in the past. If my original example is plucked out of such a work, say I am writing the chapter on 1947 and signposting what was to come in the remaining years before Stalin's death in 1953, would this affect your judgment as to which tense I should use? More generally, what role would the present tense have in a work of this nature?

And I am still uncertain about Clive's example:

"In 1960 Tom decided he loved Mary. This was a notion that he would cleave to until the end of his life in 2005."

If we consider "This" as referring to the meaning encapsulated in the phrase "In 1960 Tom decided he loved Mary," a meaning that is presently presented to the reader (as opposed to the action of Tom deciding to love Mary, which took place in the past), then what would be wrong with using 'is'? I mean, all I am doing here is pointing to something that exists right now, right in front of you, this meaning (i.e. In 1960 Tom decided he loved Mary), and saying that it is something that someone in the past believed in.

Let me make my query clearer by using an example that involves something physical rather than something abstract like an idea: say I was a tour guide standing in front of a table that was once used by Napoleon, should I explain to my gaggle of clients that "This is a piece of furniture that was onced used by Napoleon himself" or "This was a piece of furniture that was onced used by Napoleon himself"?

Or should abstract notions and physical things be dealt with differently?

Thank you all so much for being so helpful. Thank you.

Is / Was

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions