"Many years ago I showed a silverware pattern I admired to a friend" (noted on another board) has another clear meaning

Let's say my hobby is collecting silverware. I participate in an annual show in which I display my collection, especially some sets having interesting patterns. Looking back, I recall one such show in which I had entered a pattern which I myself had not considered unique

The reason I did so that was that earlier during a visit to my home by a dear friend also interested in my hobby, I had shown it to him, telling him that in spite of its plain pattern I nevertheless admired it for some of its other qualities; whereupon he remarked, "But you're wrong about that, it has one of the most interesting patterns I have ever seen"

Over the next few days as I ruminated upon his comment, I began to agree, and so I determined to enter it in the very next show

I will readily agree with the prescriptivist who will immediately object, "To have that exact meaning you would have had to say, "...I had admired..."

Many pre-'s are like that, they find a fault and they drag you through the mud. Still, I woud wager that if the pertinent sentence had been spoken by one silverware collector to another, the wrong meaning might well have been inferred

The phenom I describe is very common and is responsible for misunderstandings arising in and among Internet boards such as this one, causing much friction and unnecessary squabbling; eg, another tempest in a teapot. Such disputes are sometimes so virulent as to cause the most savage conflict


Nonetheless upon first reading, the unintended meaning was the one which first impressed itself upon me. I have encounterd hundreds if not tens of thousands of such cases, which meaning could becalled ambiguous in spite of the pre-'s immediate reaction

Am I alone

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

quote:

I will readily agree with the prescriptivist who will immediately object, "To have that exact meaning you would have had to say, "...I had admired..."

Why?

The construction you use is perectly acceptable; there's no reason why you should have been obliged to use the past perfect tense.

Rich: It is so seldom I get a reasonable rsponse, than I cannot express my appreciation

My pleasure. I like to think that my reponses are usually reasonable, even when they are at the same time controversial!

Rich: However, I think you might agree that "I had admired" places the admiring before the show and at the same time clarifies the idea that it was the friend to whom the admiration had been expressed

It would be clear enough in either tense.

...nor have they the patience to read carefully enough. Often a perfectly innocent phrase is misread as reproval or criticism, resulting in virulent comebacks and much mutual antipathy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

Rich: After ruminating some more I believe you're right that the sentence as misread is "correct" tensewise either way, although I have an intuitive feeling that somehow the addition of "had" makes the sentence better

So I consulted Laverne, who as I might have mentioned is 'way quicker than I, and she agreed that the addition of "had" clarifies that (second) meaning by better placing the act of admiration well before the show

In this instance the difference is stylistic and a matter of preference, so far as I can see.

Certainly there's no question of there being some egregious grammatical error in either rendition.

I question

Tempests in teapots indeed!

A couple of years ago on a TV quiz show the Quizmaster asked the teenage girl .... "Shakespeare wrote a play named The Tempest. What IS a Tempest ?"

Her answer: "A Tempest is ..... like ..... a Buddhist Monk?"