Present tense / past tense

Just be consistent.

Can a case be made that when discussing really ancient texts - say, those by Plato or Confucius - the past tense is preferred? Or does it really not make any different as long as the same tense is used consistently? Thank you.

SuperESLCan a case be made that when discussing really ancient texts - say, those by Plato or Confucius - the past tense is preferred? Or does it really not make any different as long as the same tense is used consistently? Thank you.

You just have to use the wits *** gave you. Sometimes the past tense is called for, but usually it's the historical present, an

Well, I tend to think that there is a distinction between verbs like 'wrote," "penned," and "authored," on the one hand, and verbs such as "argued" and "asserted," on the other hand. The past tense is somewhat more clearly called for in the former case because one can argue that these are actual actions that took place in the past. 'Argue,' 'assert,' and the like are more ambiguous: they can be co

SuperESLI tend to think that there is a distinction between verbs like 'wrote," "penned," and "authored," on the one hand, and verbs such as "argued" and "asserted."

That is not so. We speak of past writing and thinking identically in this regard. Plato is a living part of the discussion in the world of ideas. The choice between past and present tense depends

I agree that when speaking of the writings of figures like Plato the historical present should be used. But then perhaps with the writings of people like, say, Stalin or Mao Zedong or Benjamin Disraeli, one only needs to be consistent in tense use? Thank you.

SuperESLI agree that when speaking of the writings of figures like Plato the historical present should be used. But then perhaps with the writings of people like, say, Stalin or Mao Zedong or Benjamin Disraeli, one only needs to be consistent in tense use? Thank you.

It doesn't matter who it is or how long ago they wrote. All that matters is what you mean. If

Frankly, the distinction between "analyzing their ideas" and "reporting on their oeuvre" seems an exceedingly fine one. Perhaps it's a matter of length? If one merely mentions a line from Plato or Stalin in passing then one can use the past tense. But if the discussion - or even just 'reporting' - is prolonged, the historical present is preferred (though, still, it is not wrong to use the past ten

You are not being tedious. I am sorry for being so vague. I have had to decide which tense to use many times, and it is quite often not an easy decision. You just have to figure it out for yourself, but I would go so far as to advise you to use the present when you can. I have found that it is all too easy to chicken out on that. In commentary, the present is pretty much required.

By "rep

Enoon, thank you for your patience.

I think the examples that you just gave bring me back to what I was suggesting in one of my previous entries above. "Wrote" is clearly the right choice in "Voltaire wrote Candide many years before his Dictionnaire" because the act of writing in fact took place in the past. There is nothing ambiguous about that. Voltaire actually did sit in