0
Tcarney57 Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
Which form of past tense?
Hi,
I'm a history professor trying to teach a bit of writing in my classes. I'm looking for the usual name or label applied to the past tense form in the following examples:
"In the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States agreed there was to be no further confiscations of Loyalist property." -or-
"In the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States agreed there would be no further confiscations of Loyalist property." -or-
"In the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States agreed no further confiscations of Loyalist property would take place."
I am certainly missing the differences in tense/mood in these three examples, but I need to have some kind of terminology to use when I demonstrate these possibilities to my students, some of whom want to use something like this:
". . . . there was no future confiscations."
In part, this is my fault because I told them to alway use past tense when writing about history. I certainly did not, though, mean simple past tense when that's not appropriate. But I don't have the knowledge of terminology to tell them otherwise. Any ideas?
Todd Carney
Southern Oregon University
I'm a history professor trying to teach a bit of writing in my classes. I'm looking for the usual name or label applied to the past tense form in the following examples:
"In the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States agreed there was to be no further confiscations of Loyalist property." -or-
"In the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States agreed there would be no further confiscations of Loyalist property." -or-
"In the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States agreed no further confiscations of Loyalist property would take place."
I am certainly missing the differences in tense/mood in these three examples, but I need to have some kind of terminology to use when I demonstrate these possibilities to my students, some of whom want to use something like this:
". . . . there was no future confiscations."
In part, this is my fault because I told them to alway use past tense when writing about history. I certainly did not, though, mean simple past tense when that's not appropriate. But I don't have the knowledge of terminology to tell them otherwise. Any ideas?
Todd Carney
Southern Oregon University
Top answer
" It's a much better sentence, for all the obvious reasons. But I am still interested in how to respond to a student who when the "was to be" construction is unavoidable. That is, what is that tense/mood called?
- " It's a much better sentence, for all the obvious reasons.
- But I am still interested in how to respond to a student who when the "was to be" construction is unavoidable.
- That is, what is that tense/mood called?
- Thanks.
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
Looking back at my own post, it occurred to me that the best way of phrasing that sentence would be in the simple past tense:
"In the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States agreed to end confiscations of Loyalist property."
It's a much better sentence, for all the obvious reasons. But I am still interested in how to respond to a student who when the "was to be" construction
"In the Treaty of Paris (1783), the United States agreed to end confiscations of Loyalist property."
It's a much better sentence, for all the obvious reasons. But I am still interested in how to respond to a student who when the "was to be" construction
0
Related Questions