Tense agreement

Question

Lately I've noticed that I have trouble understanding the rules of tense agreement.
I.e, Oh my god, I totally forgot it was your birthday today. Why do I have to use "was" if it's still that person's birthday? Or "I can't believe I used to think you were smart". I've also seen cases where said rule is totally disregarded; i.e, I heard you're hiring. I have nobody to ask for help so I've come here with the hope that somebody could clear this dang tense agreement issue up.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

NecrophagistI've come here with the hope that somebody could clear this dang tense agreement issue up.

Many of these cases of matching (or not matching) tense are matters of habit for native speakers, so there is no way to clear up the problem with a set of easy-to-learn rules. Imitating native speaker usage is probably the best way to do it.

That said, my guess that in 98% of cases you match tense from one clause to the next, ignoring such questions as whether the contents of the subordinate clauses express something that is still true or not.

NecrophagistI totally forgot (that) it was your birthday today.

Past goes with past. The same will happen with other introductory expression of this kind, like I remembered (that), I thought (that), I knew (that). The that-clause will be in the past (whether that is explicitly said or not).

NecrophagistI can't believe I used to think (that) you were smart

Another case of the same pattern. 'used (to)' and 'were' are both in the past tense.

NecrophagistI heard you're hiring.

This could just as easily have been I heard (that) you were hiring.

The use of the present tense in the subordinate clause after an introductory expression in the past serves to highlight two particular factors in this particular sentence:

a - The speaker may have heard this quite recently.
b - The speaker may have a personal interest in the information. (He would like to be hired.)

[ Some speakers might go even farther: I hear you're hiring. This makes the speaker's interest in the situation even more obvious. ]

For this reason, my guess is that after I heard, the rule of matching tenses is probably more often violated than when other verbs are used.
________________________

Note that native speakers do not take the past tense literally as past time in subordinate clauses of the type we have been discussing. The fact that the clause is subordinate to an introductory expression in the past is taken into account mentally, and the time frame is mentally adjusted to whatever seems logical within the context of the conversation.

CJ

Tense agreement

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions