0
Guzhao67 Posted 18 years ago
Grammar

Simple Present Tense and Past Tense

hi: I have a question about English tense. could you explain the use of tense in the following paragraph? (bold italic added)
"In the 16th c. there are some traces of a perception that the word might have an extended application to other languages. But it was not before the 17 th c. that it became so completely a generic term that there was any need to speak explicitly of 'Latin grammar'."
My question is: why does the first sentence use "are" while the others use Simple Past Tense when they both refer to past event? thank you!
  

Top answer

guzhao67 there are some traces = one can (still, now) find traces. The traces exist as part of our research. Whenever you investigate the past, you find evidence that guides you (now) to knowledge about what the past was like (then).

  • guzhao67 there are some traces = one can (still, now) find traces.
  • The traces exist as part of our research.
  • Whenever you investigate the past, you find evidence that guides you (now) to knowledge about what the past was like (then).
  • , still exists as part of your present-day study.
  • These fragments of jewelry from the second century tell us (now) that people of that time were capable (then) of working with metals.
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.

1 Answers
0
guzhao67there are some traces
= one can (still, now) find traces. The traces exist as part of our research.
Whenever you investigate the past, you find evidence that guides you (now) to knowledge about what the past was like (then). The evidence, in the form of clues, signals, signs, marks, traces, writings, etc., still exists as part of y

Related Questions