0
Avangi Posted 17 years ago
Grammar

Tense shifting

Hi,

I used to think I knew / know what a logical fallacy was / is.

I used to think I understood tense shifting, but now I'm sure I don't.

I don't think the meaning of "logical fallacy" is subject to change, but to use present tense here sounds rediculous. What should it be?

Do the rules of tense shifting apply only to reported speech?

Thanks, - A.
  

Top answer

think and know and similar verbs are very resistant to any attempts to violate the tense sequence "rule" that past must follow past. Burying the verb in a secondary clause ( what a l. f.

— CalifJim

  • think and know and similar verbs are very resistant to any attempts to violate the tense sequence "rule" that past must follow past.
  • Burying the verb in a secondary clause ( what a l.
  • f.
  • was/is ) attenuates the effect somewhat.
  • I used to think I knew (not know ) what a logical fallacy was (or is ).
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.

11 Answers
0
think and know and similar verbs are very resistant to any attempts to violate the tense sequence "rule" that past must follow past. Burying the verb in a secondary clause (what a l. f. was/is) attenuates the effect somewhat.

I used to think I knew (not know) what a logical fallacy was (or is).

A little research would be n
0
0
CalifJimI used to think I knew (not know) what a logical fallacy was (or is).

I realize that both are used, and probably considered correct, but I prefer is, because whatever it was, it still is (whatever it is now, it was then).
0
0
Yes, but the tricky thing about this one is that the writer is intimating that he's not really sure anymore what a logical fallacy is. So his idea of what it is may be in the process of changing -- presumably from a misunderstanding to a better understanding of the meaning of that term.

So should one see it from the point of view of what a logical fallacy was to the writer before
0
0
Hey Avangi,

In this sentence, I think the focus is on the person 'knowing' what logical fallacy is. So I think it should be 'I used to think (that) I knew what logical fallacy was' as he doesn't think he knows what logical fallacy is, anymore. I think the 'tense shifting in a reported speech' theory is true. As always I am not sure bout what I am saying.... But its nice to contribute i
0
0
Thanks, guys. My brain agrees with Philip. The meaning of "logical fallacy" should be untransmutable, or something like that. But it sounds wrong, or awkward to my ear.

Seems to me we should be able to separate the thought from the meaning. It's my thought that was wrong, not the meaning of the term that was wrong.

"Sorry, I thought you were John." "Oh, yeah? Well, you thou
0
0
Hi, Ashwitha,
Thanks for the contribution. [Y]

How did you get to be Anonymous?Emotion: thinking
0
0
AvangiOf course, we wouldn't say, "Sorry, I thought you are John." Although whether or not he is John is not subject to change.

The question is, would we say, "Sorry, I thought I knew who you are."


My amateur explanation:

In your first sentence, the fact that you took that person for another man precludes you from using the
0
0
Thanks, Mr. Pernickety. You're probably right. Emotion: nodding
0
0
AvangiThe question is, would we say, "Sorry, I thought I knew who you are."
We? Have you got a mouse in your pocket?
0

Related Questions