293:"Starting around 1910 Ives would begin composing his most accomplished works including the "Holidays Symphony" and arguably his best-known piece "Three Places in New England". Ives' mature works of this era would eventually compare with the two other great musical innovators at the time (Schoenberg and Stravinsky) making the case that Ives was the 3rd great innovator of early 20th century composition. Arnold Schoenberg himself would compose a brief poem near the end of his life honoring Ives."
346:
relate to the
Charles Ives article... the editor used the phrase "starting around 1910" instead of the clearer/simpler "in 1910," per subliminal suggestion from the TV they've been watching. They go on, "would begin composing" and "would eventually compare" instead of "began composing" and "were eventually compared" for the same reason. Personally, I don't like to see it. It needlessly muddies the water and makes things more difficult to understand. Okay, stepping down from soapbox.
193:(~present perfect) is used in the same grammatical context (to express an event prior to the moment of speaking), but here the emphasis lies on the event being completed or completed and with present consequences. it is often used with time adverbials expressing a time when something happened (yesterday, ...). Note that the present perfect can't be used with time adverbials like yesterday, but the V.V.T. can.
84:
74:
53:
22:
367:"normal" verbs can't be used like this in speech, e.g. "Ich hab(e) heute morgen Getränke geholt", and not "*Ich holte heute morgen Getränke", even when focussing on the action. I'm a bit wary of changing this because the article makes a lot of regional distinctions, but I think I would have noticed by now if some people in Germany spoke like this :-) (See also
341:
head-on confrontation with one of the great mathematical minds of the twentieth century, David
Hilbert, to break the mental logjam that leads to his greatest scientific work, the Theory of General Relativity..." Have you noticed it? That's not a direct quote, but it's representative of the kind of language I've been hearing on
366:
The article currently uses "kam" as an example of the use of the preterite with focus on the action (as opposed to the resulting present state). This is a specific feature of "kommen" and a few other verbs with short (mono-syllabic?) irregular preterite forms (e.g "stand" is also in common use), but
340:
article is the closest thing I've found. It seems to me that the past tense is being avoided in television documentaries, in an effort to make them more engaging. Narrators will say things like, "Einstein will spend the next several years pondering gravity's role in relativity, but it will take a
345:
documentaries for a while now. They avoid the past tense and play up conflict, I believe in an effort to engage a wider audience. It's as if they're trying to be exciting, to "take the audience there," instead of just talking about something that happened in the past (boring!). So how does this
277:
I don't know what to call this form, but what about "Used to" in
English (I used to do that) This is a past tense that emphasises that it is not true in the present, and usually not true in the future also. This is a legitimate since there is no possible literal meaning to this phrase.
189:(~simple past) is used to express an event prior to the moment of speaking, but without emphasis on whether the event is completely over or not. It is often used with time adverbials expressing frequency or duration (all day long; when I was younger I went fishing once a week.). The
336:: I'm not sure how to communicate here on Knowledge (XXG), so I'm just editing this talk section in hope you'll notice it. I came to the "past tense" article to see if there's any mention of a phenomenon I've been noticing lately, and your section here on the
262:
suggesting this may be incomplete, and even is this article is based on an "English only has two/three tenses" POV it should have pointers to other approaches. It is seriously lacking when considering past tenses in other languages.
310:
was described as changing passive voice to active, but it has nothing to do with voice. It's just changing "she would play" etc to "she played". What's the "would play" version of the past tense called? --
219:
The article should mention the phenomenon of irregular verbs and should make a distinction between dynamic and static verbs when describing the different functions. Otherwise, nice overview. --
296:
I think the tense used in the Ive's article makes the article more wordy than neccesary but I am curious to know what it is as it doesn't seem to be mentioned here. Anybody know? --
236:
I'm not familiar with any meaning of "secluded" that would make sense in the above sentence. Is "secluded" a technical term, or is its use in the above sentence a mistake? --
390:
This paragraph makes no sense: "The Past Future
Perfect Continuous tenses is used express based on these events : would, have, still going in the future , and the past"
290:
but certain passages of the article use a tense that I'm not sure what to call. Maybe a past progessive tense-but instead of 'was' it uses 'would' Here is a quote :
140:
418:
130:
423:
106:
413:
97:
58:
200:
33:
170:
are two tenses not only unknown to me, the names of the tenses are not even Dutch words. Nor are the examples you give.
39:
204:
196:
395:
105:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
237:
162:
I'm a speaker of Dutch and I was surprised to read about two tenses I had never heard about before.
21:
351:
316:
89:
391:
376:
233:
From the article: "Simple past is used for describing acts that have already been secluded"
342:
255:
347:
297:
407:
312:
337:
287:
264:
220:
246:
Sorry, the word I wanted was "concluded". Changes have already been made. Thanks!
372:
102:
83:
259:
79:
368:
73:
52:
399:
380:
355:
320:
300:
267:
240:
223:
208:
15:
306:
I came here to ask precisely the same sort of question.
307:
254:
Even if this is
English only, there are paragraphs at
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
8:
362:Misleading description of German preterite?
260:Pluperfect#Examples from various languages
47:
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linguistics
49:
19:
7:
419:High-importance Linguistics articles
95:This article is within the scope of
286:I have been editing the article on
38:It is of interest to the following
282:He would do this, he would do that
14:
187:Onvoltooid Verleden Tijd (O.V.T.)
424:WikiProject Linguistics articles
118:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
82:
72:
51:
20:
191:Voltooid Verleden Tijd (V.V.T.)
135:This article has been rated as
1:
268:18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
414:C-Class Linguistics articles
215:Irregular and dynamic/static
209:18:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
180:Ik ben daar gisteren geweest
381:14:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
301:21:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
440:
141:project's importance scale
321:21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
241:22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
224:14:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
168:Voltaire coordinated tied
134:
67:
46:
356:13:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
164:Convoluted verlaine tied
400:00:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
326:vft4rfgwy6rdwq dt7erd4
256:Imperfect tense#English
98:WikiProject Linguistics
28:This article is rated
329:it,s not informative
172:Registered was i dear
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
176:Gisteren was ik daar
121:Linguistics articles
90:Linguistics portal
34:content assessment
199:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
431:
369:Preterite#German
211:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
439:
438:
434:
433:
432:
430:
429:
428:
404:
403:
388:
364:
343:History Channel
284:
275:
252:
231:
217:
194:
160:
137:High-importance
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
62:High‑importance
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
437:
435:
427:
426:
421:
416:
406:
405:
387:
384:
363:
360:
332:
324:
323:
283:
280:
274:
271:
251:
248:
245:
230:
227:
216:
213:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
436:
425:
422:
420:
417:
415:
412:
411:
409:
402:
401:
397:
393:
385:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
361:
359:
357:
353:
349:
344:
339:
335:
330:
327:
322:
318:
314:
309:
305:
304:
303:
302:
299:
294:
291:
289:
281:
279:
272:
270:
269:
266:
261:
257:
249:
247:
243:
242:
239:
234:
228:
226:
225:
222:
214:
212:
210:
206:
202:
201:81.241.37.197
198:
192:
188:
185:In Dutch the
183:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
389:
365:
338:Charles Ives
333:
331:
328:
325:
295:
292:
288:Charles Ives
285:
276:
253:
250:English only
244:
238:72.78.101.61
235:
232:
218:
195:— Preceding
190:
186:
184:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
161:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
392:Harry Audus
229:"Secluded"?
178:and better
112:Linguistics
103:linguistics
59:Linguistics
408:Categories
358:cellodont
174:should be
348:Cellodont
334:Godfinger
308:This edit
298:Godfinger
313:JackofOz
197:unsigned
386:English
273:Used to
265:Henrygb
221:Sinatra
139:on the
30:C-class
373:Joriki
36:scale.
158:Dutch
396:talk
377:talk
352:talk
317:talk
258:and
205:talk
166:and
131:High
410::
398:)
379:)
371:)
354:)
319:)
263:--
207:)
182:.
394:(
375:(
350:(
315:(
203:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
