0
Johnson13 Posted 13 years ago
Grammar

James Joyce had a long name

A sentence: James Joyce has/had a long name.

When we refer to a person, the usual way is to use the past tense; for the above the sentence, HAD of course is correct, and I think HAS is also possible, because now if we call the name, it is still true. Do you think my argument can stand?
  

Top answer

I think that both sentences are possible,there is no error, though when we know that somebody died there is no point in writing about him as a living person, so I assume that it would be a bit essential mistake.

— Fever

  • I think that both sentences are possible,there is no error, though when we know that somebody died there is no point in writing about him as a living person, so I assume that it would be a bit essential mistake.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

5 Answers
0
I think that both sentences are possible,there is no error, though when we know that somebody died there is no point in writing about him as a living person, so I assume that it would be a bit essential mistake.
0
0
Whichever tense you use, the sentence means nothing. What did you mean by saying that he has/had a long name?
0
0
Thanks for the answer. I understand James Joyce are only two short words, not long in terms of the letters used, but I was just focusing on the usage...

How about changing JJ to Aleksandrovich BrodskyIosif?
0
0
The intended meaning is JAMES JOYCE consists of many letters.

Is it not idiomatic English?
0
0
fivejedjonWhichever tense you use, the sentence means nothing. What did you mean by saying that he has/had a long name?
Does LONG NAME have a special idiomatic meaning that is incompatible with my sentence?
0

Related Questions