Then I bethought me of the ring of Eibon, which I had inherited
from my fathers, who were also wizards. The ring had come down, it
was said, from ancient Hyperborea; and it was made of a redder
gold than any that the earth yields in latter cycles, and was set
with a great purple gem, somber and smouldering, whose like is no
longer to be found. And in the gem an antique demon was held
captive, a spirit from pre-human worlds and ages, which would
answer the interrogation of sorcerers.
Shall we conclude that the writer no longer possessed the said the
ring when he put his tale on paper? Should you want to read the
paragraph in context, here is the full story:
Then I bethought me of the ring of Eibon, which I had
inherited from my fathers, who were also wizards. The ring
had come down, it was said, from ancient Hyperborea; and it
was made of a redder gold than any that the earth yields in
latter cycles, and was set with a great purple gem, somber and smouldering, whose like is no longer to be found. And in the
gem an antique demon was held captive, a spirit from
pre-human worlds and ages, which would answer the
interrogation of sorcerers.
Shall we conclude that the writer no longer possessed the said
the ring when he put his tale on paper?
No, I don't think so. The next paragraph clearly says he brought
it out and used it.
There's no further reference after he uses it, so we've no
knowledge of it being disposed of or kept.
BTW, Anton used such a time shift in his question. I was also told many times not to do such a thing in one sentence or even in one paragraph.
BTW, Anton used such a time shift in his question. I was also
told many times not to do such a thing in one sentence or
even in one paragraph.
As usual, "rules are made to be broken". :-) The challenge is in
making the break work! "Presents" or "presented" becomes a
matter of how it sounds and feels - neither is exclusively right
or wrong.
The writer is writing about events which have happened (past). We
have no idea what (if anything) has transpired since. In any
case, to suddenly shift from past to present would be quite
jarring to the reader. And also, the ring is (or seems to be from
this fragment) a very minor part of the story so who really cares
about it's current location? :-)
"Presents" or "presented" becomes a matter of how
it sounds and feels - neither is exclusively right
or wrong.
I disagree. The present simple is *the* tense when
writing about literature, perhaps because good
literature is timeless :-?
Hey! The phrase "I forgot he was vegetarian!" (with!?! was' and no
article before!?! vegetarian') is a quote from the book! Do insist
on correcting the language of Ramsey Campbell???
Hey! The phrase "I forgot he was vegetarian!" (with 'was'
and no article before 'vegetarian') is a quote from the
book! Do [you] insist on correcting the language of Ramsey
Campbell???
Well, taking in mind that it was a horror story, it could mean:
1. He stopped be a vegetarian after that meal.
3. He was a vegetarian and died from that meal.
As for the absence of "a" before "vegetarian" I don't know.
IMHO Englishmen can live without articles if they want. We see it
when we read news titles, for instance. ;)
As for the absence of "a" before "vegetarian" I don't know.
It is only logical if one reads 'vegetarian' as an adjective, which
it is in that sentence.
As for the absence of "a" before "vegetarian" I don't know.
sometimes axes != axes ;)
The writer is writing about events which have happened (past).
We have no idea what (if anything) has transpired since. In
any case, to suddenly shift from past to present would be quite
jarring to the reader. And also, the ring is (or seems to be
from this fragment) a very minor part of the story so who really
cares about it's current location? :-)
I see.
It reminds me of a dialog line from a British horror story,
where a woman excalims "I forgot he was vegeterinan!", when
she realies she has prepared no vegetaranian meal for her new
acquaintance, who, by all means, is vegetarian still.
Okay. I could add a story about some things a friend
gave us after his mother's death, but apparently you don't need
it.... :-)
It reminds me of a dialog line from a British horror story,
Note to Alexander: dialog(ue) reflects the way the
characters in a story would speak & can't necessarily be taken as
a guide to proper usage.
where a woman excalims "I forgot he was vegeterinan!", when
she realies she has prepared no vegetaranian meal for her new
acquaintance, who, by all means, is vegetarian still.
If this woman thinks it's imperative that "forgot"
agree with "was" she may be adhering to a "rule" which native
speakers break routinely, because it doesn't make sense when e.g.
somebody who claimed to be vegan or vegetarian awhile ago may
have changed their mind. Dallas & I often see the latter. :-Q
The phrase "I forgot he was vegetarian!" (with!?! was' and
no article before!?! vegetarian') is a quote from the book!
Well, taking in mind that it was a horror story, it could
mean:
1. He stopped be a vegetarian after that meal.
3. He was a vegetarian and died from that meal.
As for the absence of "a" before "vegetarian" I don't know.
remember, a vegetarian is vegetarian... it is one of those
words that is both a noun and an adjective...
If a joke begins with e.g. "Three guys go into a bar"
I expect it to continue in the same vein.
Do not they "walk" into a bar?
I compiled an epic list of English-related bar jokes by
members of alt.usage.english.usage
I could add a story about some things a friend gave us
after his mother's death, but apparently you don't need
it.... :-)
I should fear to hear it -- what if the inheritance
turns out to have another magickal item?
It reminds me of a dialog line from a British horror story,
Note to Alexander: dialog(ue) reflects the way the characters
in a story would speak & can't necessarily be taken as a guide
to proper usage.
Yes, and that woman is a British schoolteacher.
If this woman thinks it's imperative that "forgot" agree with
"was" she may be adhering to a "rule" which native speakers
break routinely
Whithersoever I look, I see adherence, quite sticky adherence,
nigh sufficient to catch flies:
and so on. Where do they break the rule?
I should fear to hear it -- what if the inheritance
turns out to have another magickal item?
Nah. Just a few ordinary household items made of xxx,
yyy, and zzz .. none with magic(k)al powers, but all of which we
are still using. :-)
If this woman thinks it's imperative that "forgot" agree with
"was" she may be adhering to a "rule" which native speakers
break routinely
Whithersoever I look, I see adherence, quite sticky
adherence, nigh sufficient to catch flies:
[...]
and so on. Where do they break the rule?
I can't say they do & I see a reasonably broad
selection of authors there. I've caught myself speaking the same
way over the last few evenings... when Dallas didn't catch me
first. In such circumstances we both find it more aesthetically
pleasing if the verb tenses agree than if they don't.
Cookie put her hands under her apron, looked at her feet a
moment, and then looked up at him, her own eyes wet. Her words
came almost like screams: "Hattie say she seen ya! But she's a
lier, ain't she, Boos-Man?
Her mistress sat down, put one elbow on the table, and brought
her napkin up to cover her face. "I'm disappointed in you,
Cookie. Go to the kitchen."
Cookie went through the swinging door without looking at her
mistress.
In a moment, his wife looked up at him and said, "I'm sorry. I'd
not thought she was capable of a thing like that."
But a lot of native speakers find it puzzling when one can't be
sure e.g. what became of item xxx or who's still vegetarian in
the absence of further data,
and while I must have been taught that way I'm not sure there's a
rule about it.
We've often had people say to us, in casual
conversation, "I didn't know you're a teacher." I doubt they are
the only people who do this.... :-)
| Sysop: | altere |
|---|---|
| Location: | Houston, TX |
| Users: | 60 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 00:48:09 |
| Calls: | 516 |
| Files: | 7,012 |
| Messages: | 287,599 |