0
Guest Posted 21 years ago
Grammar

Verb tense

0 What is the implication of the difference in verb tense between these two grammatical constructions? 02br
02br
00Besides, President Jackson pointed out that the Constitution itself states “no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state.” 02br
02br
02br
00Besides, President Jackson pointed out that the Constitution itself stated “no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state.” 0-
  

Top answer

" 02br 02br 00The construction of [2] is normal as an indirect affirmative speech. 02br 00The construction of [1] emphasizes that what the Constitution states itself is true even now. 02br 02br 00paco 0-

— Paco2004

  • " 02br 02br 00The construction of [2] is normal as an indirect affirmative speech.
  • 02br 00The construction of [1] emphasizes that what the Constitution states itself is true even now.
  • 02br 02br 00paco 0-
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.

14 Answers
0
0 [1] Jackson pointed out that the Constitution itself 01b00states02b00 "no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state." 02br
00[2] Jackson pointed out that the Constitution itself 01b00stated02b00 "no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state." 02br
02
0
0
0 Thank you. 02br
00A follow-up question: If the context of that sentence is an historical analysis of the way in which President Jackson handled the debate between the citizens of Georgia and the Cherokee nation on the issue of self-governance, is one construction more correct than the other? 02br
02br
00(I am the original guest questioner...now a registered m
0
0
0 Hello Davkett 02br
02br
00Welcome to EnglishForward! 02br
02br
00Your question is quite difficult for me to answer, as I'm a mere English learner from Japan and don't know much about the history of the United States. I think the answer will depend on the author's view on Jackson's policy toward the Cherokee people. If the author supports Jackson's policy
0
0
0 On the contrary. I think your view at least begins to clarify the matter. I would enjoy this more as a grey area. 02br
02br
00The sentence was from an essay written by my 16-year old daughter for a 10th grade History class. She got a half-grade deduction for not using the past tense "stated". I felt there was an argument for the present tense. I thought the main verb,
0
0
0 Hello Davkett 02br
02br
00This is my humble knowledge. As far as I know the dispute over Georgians vs Cherokees took place in 1830 and the Supreme Court then made a decision favoring an independent Cherokee nation, to which Andrew Jackson contested on the basis of Constitution statement. But the Constitution statement was nullified when West Virginia got the independence fr
0
0
0 Thank you for the additional historical facts. They underscore the point you made in your original response. 02br
00(The remaining question in my mind, as parent, is whether the grammatical error deserves a reduction of the grade B to B-.) 0-
0
0
0 01blockquote
00 The remaining question in my mind, as parent, is whether the grammatical error deserves a reduction of the grade B to B- 12blockquote
12br
02br
00As to this, I can say nothing. 02br
00If I were the teacher of your daughter's, I would like to change the grade to A+, but .... 02br
02br
00paco
0
0
0Certainly not deserving of any kind of grade reduction, as both forms are perfectly acceptable. Paco has given a nice exegesis-- 02br
01blockquote
00The construction of [2] is normal as an indirect affirmative speech. 12br
10The construction of [1] emphasizes that what the Constitution states itself is true even now.12blockquote
12br
0
0
0 The Constitution may be regarded as an eternal document existing in the eternal present. "states" is the only one which sounds right to me. The Constitution is still in effect. When the U.S. government is overthrown or ceases to exist in some other way, the people of the future may look back and speak of the U.S. Constitution as we now speak of events in Prussia, in the past, e.g., "Their C
0
0
0 Thank you, all. How about this? 02br
02br
00Suppose my daughter's written account did NOT involve a document still in existence. 02br
02br
00Let's say, hypothetically, that there was a historical debate between President Jackson and a Cherokee spokesperson. 02br
02br
00My daughter, as historian, writes, "President Jackson pointed
0

Related Questions