# Which one of the twelve English tenses is used most in this book?



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

As a non-native English speaker, I struggle identifying which tense a book is written in. Indeed, any interesting book will most likely be written in as many tenses as possible, except for however, those books expressing continuous thought, for example, Rene Descartes's Meditations and other Metaphysical Writings in which I am reading Descarte's thoughts from his perspective, as though I am him. He wrote his thoughts in French and so a lot of English translations will vary in their complexity depending on the author's writing style. In this book, however, which one of the 12 English tenses does Descarte use most to convey his ideas to the reader? Is this an example of a particular writing style unlike the 'Plain English' with which meaning is conveyed by active verbs, rather than passive ones.

The book:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...tions and other metaphysical writings&f=false


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think you've come to the wrong place! 

Descartes didn't write in English, though, so I don't see why you would make a special effort to read him in English translation. Read the original if you can, or translated into your native language. 

Or are you taking a summer course on modern philosophy with some prof who thinks this is a clever assignment?

Edit: Either way, the proper question is, which English tense does this particular translation of Descartes use the most?


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

science said:


> I think you've come to the wrong place!
> 
> Descartes didn't write in English, though, so I don't see why you would make a special effort to read him in English translation. Read the original if you can, or translated into your native language.
> 
> Or are you taking a summer course on modern philosophy with some prof who thinks this is a clever assignment?


No not at all. I am genuinely interested in improving my understanding of the English language. I ask this question because the writing style honed by forum goers is proof of their education and so they may provide insight into my question. I find Descarte's writing style very elegant and so I am trying to imitate it! Or maybe I should say, I find Descarte's thoughts elegant and the way by which the author has decided to communicate them equally as elegant!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Just don't try to imitate the style of Kant!

Kidding, kidding. Descartes is that rare breed of philosopher who actually expresses himself rather clearly and succinctly. I don't know if I've ever thought of his writing as being aesthetically pleasing in the same way reading Nietzsche or Kierkegaard can be, or even Plato at times.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Just don't try to imitate the style of Kant!
> 
> Kidding, kidding. Descartes is that rare breed of philosopher who actually expresses himself rather clearly and succinctly. I don't know if I've ever thought of his writing as being aesthetically pleasing in the same way reading Nietzsche or Kierkegaard can be, or even Plato at times.


I haven't read any writings from those men and I don't think I ought to, yet. Descarte's thoughts are crystalline as is Bach's counterpoint (Now this thread has reason to stay in this sub-forum!) and so is the way by which the author has expressed them in the book in question.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Descartes is that rare breed of philosopher who actually expresses himself rather clearly and succinctly.


I think that Descartes, in addition to being clear, is a truly eloquent writer--except in his Musicae Compendium, perhaps, which it is probably best to ignore for the purposes of this discussion.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

In my opinion, Kant is about as clear and succinct as his ideas allow. He's certainly not obscure for obscurity's sake... that would be Hegel...


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> Quote Originally Posted by Mahlerian View Post
> Descartes is that rare breed of philosopher who actually expresses himself rather clearly and succinctly.
> 
> Blancrocher: I think that Descartes, in addition to being clear, is a truly eloquent writer--except in his Musicae Compendium, perhaps, which it is probably best to ignore for the purposes of t


--
- which is very nearly the same thing as saying that he was a 'non-German' philosopher; von Humboldt aside. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

science said:


> In my opinion, Kant is about as clear and succinct as his ideas allow. He's certainly not obscure for obscurity's sake... that would be Hegel...


---
By what standard? His _Critique of Pure Reason_ or his _Critique of Practical Reason_?

You can see where Hegel gets his elliptical impulses trying to digest passages of that bilge.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> I think that Descartes, in addition to being clear, is a truly eloquent writer--except in his Musicae Compendium, perhaps, which it is probably best to ignore for the purposes of this discussion.


Kant actually mentions his obscurity in _Groundworks for Metaphysics of Morals_, where he admits that it scares off readers, but that it is hard to be accessible when you are talking about the abstract foundation of morals. His Lectures on Ethics, later in life, are incredibly accessible, and show his informality and wit. I also think the Prolegemona to any Future Metaphysics, a mini-Critique of Pure Reason, is very clearly written.

Nietzsche, in his Untimely Meditations, considers Kant the peak of German prose. It is hard to see so, even in German, but Kant was surely not a bad writer. Hegel is also I think someone who was been attacked too much for his writing style. Sorry for the off-topic thought.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Just don't try to imitate the style of Kant!
> 
> Kidding, kidding. Descartes is that rare breed of philosopher who actually expresses himself rather clearly and succinctly. I don't know if I've ever thought of his writing as being aesthetically pleasing in the same way reading Nietzsche or Kierkegaard can be, or even Plato at times.





Blancrocher said:


> I think that Descartes, in addition to being clear, is a truly eloquent writer--except in his Musicae Compendium, perhaps, which it is probably best to ignore for the purposes of this discussion.





Marschallin Blair said:


> --
> - which is very nearly the same thing as saying that he was a 'non-German' philosopher; von Humboldt aside. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.





SottoVoce said:


> Kant actually mentions his obscurity in _Groundworks for Metaphysics of Morals_, where he admits that it scares off readers, but that it is hard to be accessible when you are talking about the abstract foundation of morals. His Lectures on Ethics, later in life, are incredibly accessible, and show his informality and wit. I also think the Prolegemona to any Future Metaphysics, a mini-Critique of Pure Reason, is very clearly written.
> 
> Nietzsche, in his Untimely Meditations, considers Kant the peak of German prose. It is hard to see so, even in German, but Kant was surely not a bad writer. Hegel is also I think someone who was been attacked too much for his writing style. Sorry for the off-topic thought.


Are you able to quote a particular obscure passage from those works, or indeed other works by them, for my reading?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

English has twelve tenses? No wonder I could never master it...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Are you sure you don't mean which _grammatical *person*_ the author is using? (I.e. First, Second, and Third Person points of view....)

This affects the pronouns used and can also affect verbs, sometimes nouns, and possessive relationships (all of this depending upon which language, of course.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Gondur said:


> Are you able to quote a particular obscure passage from those works, or indeed other works by them, for my reading?


Flipping to a more or less random page from Critique of Pure Reason...



Kant said:


> Time is not something that is self-subsistent or that attaches to things as an objective determination, and that hence would remain if one abstracted from all subjective conditions of our intuition of it. For if time were self-subsistent, then it would be something that without there being an actual object would yet be actual. But if, on the second alternative, time were a determination or order attaching to things themselves, then it could not precede the objects as their condition, and could not be cognized a priori and intuited through synthetic propositions. But this a priori cognition and intuition can take place quite readily if time is nothing but the subjective condition under which alone any intuition can take place in us. For in that case this form of inner intuition can be represented prior to the objects, and hence represented a priori.


I don't think Kant was intentionally obfuscating his points or anything like that. He simply had a hard time simplifying what he was saying in any way. As he wanted to put metaphysics on an equal footing with any other science, he needed to be rigorous in laying out his proofs, and everything is defined as precisely and thoroughly as possible.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Gondur said:


> As a non-native English speaker, I struggle identifying which tense a book is written in. Indeed, any interesting book will most likely be written in as many tenses as possible, except for however, those books expressing continuous thought, for example, Rene Descartes's Meditations and other Metaphysical Writings in which I am reading Descarte's thoughts from his perspective, as though I am him. He wrote his thoughts in French and so a lot of English translations will vary in their complexity depending on the author's writing style. In this book, however, which one of the 12 English tenses does Descarte use most to convey his ideas to the reader? Is this an example of a particular writing style unlike the 'Plain English' with which meaning is conveyed by active verbs, rather than passive ones.
> 
> The book:
> 
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...tions and other metaphysical writings&f=false


Your question is not clear to me, but I do understand the problems one encounters when learning English. I have worked as an ESL instructor, with students from countries such as Ukraine, Germany, France, Japan .... I am providing a link from an ESL page on the twelve tenses: http://utminers.utep.edu/micontreras/12 verb tenses.htm

Hopefully that will help, though I suspect you already have such a chart of the tenses.

In English we generally utilize past tense when we write or talk about things that happened. Sometimes we use present tense, as things are happening right now. I am now writing in present tense. But you will note from the chart that English has "perfect" and "progressive" tenses in the present, past, and future modes. These often get mixed with the simple tense form. It can get rather complicated, and this forum is certainly no place to discuss the complexities of English usage.

I am also not sure exactly what book you are looking at. The link you supplied leads to mainly a textbook introduction _about _ Descartes and his writings. It is not an English translation of a book that Descartes himself actually wrote. At least, the link does not provide access to the portion of the book written by Descartes.

I will tell you that the book introduction at the link is written in past tense. It uses the simple past (mostly), with some use of the perfect past and progressive past verb forms.

There is an actual quote from Descartes' book. This is in smaller, indented print and opens with the words "I can also say truthfully" and is marked by footnote number 18. The Descartes quote is written in present tense, again using the simple, perfect, and progressive forms.

But your question also refers to active and passive verbs, which is a somewhat different topic than tense use. Most active sentences (regardless of tense -- and an active sentence can be written in any tense) can be made into passive sentences.*

ACTIVE EXAMPLE: Descartes wrote _Meditations_.
PASSIVE FORM: _Meditations_ was written by Descartes.

The above example is in past tense. Below see a present tense example.

ACTIVE EXAMPLE: Descartes writes books.
PASSIVE FORM: Books are written by Descartes.

And I'll show you a future tense example:

ACTIVE EXAMPLE: You will read Descartes' _Meditations_.
PASSIVE FORM: Descartes' _Meditations_ will be read by you.

Active forms always have a subject, a verb, and a direct object. You can see that the passive form always has a "by" phrase made out of the active form's subject. Also, the passive form has a "double verb" or an additional word in the verb, some form of the verb "be". The subject of a passive sentence is made from the direct object of an active sentence. Most writing books tell folks not to use passive too often. In fact, Word Processor programs will often check your paper for passive verb use and suggest ways to rewrite the sentences into active.

*Note: The following tenses cannot be changed into passive voice.

Present perfect progressive tense
Past perfect progressive tense
Future progressive tense
Future perfect progressive tense
Sentence having Intransitive verbs

That last item above opens up a whole new can of worms (to use an English idiom which means "trouble" or "problems").

I will conclude by saying the topic you ask about is not something we can address on this Forum. I appreciate your interest in learning the English language and I do not want to discourage you, but I believe that any further attempt to try to answer your question will lead only to lengthy and confusing posts. Hopefully the little that I wrote here will serve as some kind of guide as you continue with your English education.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

SottoVoce said:


> Kant actually mentions his obscurity in _Groundworks for Metaphysics of Morals_, where he admits that it scares off readers, but that it is hard to be accessible when you are talking about the abstract foundation of morals. His Lectures on Ethics, later in life, are incredibly accessible, and show his informality and wit. I also think the Prolegemona to any Future Metaphysics, a mini-Critique of Pure Reason, is very clearly written.
> 
> Nietzsche, in his Untimely Meditations, considers Kant the peak of German prose. It is hard to see so, even in German, but Kant was surely not a bad writer. Hegel is also I think someone who was been attacked too much for his writing style. Sorry for the off-topic thought.


--
Kant can be clear. . . when he wants to be. Aside from his Categorical Imperative and his views on international relations, I think he's merely muddying the puddle to make it look deep with his epistemology; that is to say, with his 'categories' and his '_Ding an sich_.'

If Einstein can explain relativity to a bar maid, there's no excuse for Kant to be anything less than lucid in his epistemic musings.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Gondur said:


> Are you able to quote a particular obscure passage from those works, or indeed other works by them, for my reading?


How about this?:

"The 'I think' expresses the act of determining my own exist-
ence. My existence is thus already given by the act of con-
sciousness; but the mode in which I must determine my exist-
ence, that is, the mode in which I must place the manifold
belonging to my existence, is not thereby given. For this pur-
pose intuition of self is required, and this intuition possesses a
form given a priori, namely, time, which is sensuous, and be-
longs to our receptivity of the determinable. Now, as I do not
possess another intuition of self which gives the determining
in me (of the spontaneity of which I am conscious), prior to
the act of determination, in the same manner as time gives
the determinable, it is clear that I am unable to determine my
own existence as that of a spontaneous being, but I am only
able to represent to myself the spontaneity of my thought,
that is, of my determination, and my existence remains ever
determinable in a purely sensuous manner, that is to say, like
the existence of a phenomenon. But it is because of this spon-
taneity that I call myself an intelligence."

- Immanuel Kant, _Critique of Pure Reason_, p. 126

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/kant/Critique-Pure-Reason.pdf


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> How about this?:
> 
> - Immanuel Kant, _Critique of Pure Reason_, p. 126
> 
> http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/kant/Critique-Pure-Reason.pdf


Bah! Heidegger is still far more inscrutable...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> --
> Kant can be clear. . . when he wants to be. Aside from his Categorical Imperative and his views on international relations, I think he's merely muddying the puddle to make it look deep with his epistemology; that is to say, with his 'categories' and his '_Ding an sich_.'
> 
> If Einstein can explain relativity to a bar maid, there's no excuse for Kant to be anything less than lucid in his epistemic musings.


Here's a joke relativists often say (and I think is relevant in this discussion):

"-So, a non-physicist friend asked me about relativity; I enthusiastically started to talk about 4-dimensional differentiable manifolds and spacetime, metrics of lorentzian signature, geodesics, etc., you know, the basic stuff; my friend told me 'I did not understand a single word of that'; I think a little more, I decide to simplify things a little, I add some gentleman measuring distances and cars traveling at the speed of light, but I keep some geodesics and metrics of lorentzian signature; my friend says 'now I'm starting to understand, the only thing I still don't get are those geodesics, and metrics thing'; then I launch myself to a complete non-technical explanation, with gentleman measuring times with one hand, while they shoot bullets at the speed of light with the other, no mention of geodesics, etc.; my friend, very excited, then says 'great, I now understand the theory of relativity!'; 'yes', I say in a resigned tone, 'but it's not the theory of relativity anymore...' "


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Here's a joke relativists often say (and I think is relevant in this discussion):
> 
> "-So, a non-physicist friend asked me about relativity; I enthusiastically started to talk about 4-dimensional differentiable manifolds and spacetime, metrics of lorentzian signature, geodesics, etc., you know, the basic stuff; my friend told me 'I did not understand a single word of that'; I think a little more, I decide to simplify things a little, I add some gentleman measuring distances and cars traveling at the speed of light, but I keep some geodesics and metrics of lorentzian signature; my friend says 'now I'm starting to understand, the only thing I still don't get are those geodesics, and metrics thing'; then I launch myself to a complete non-technical explanation, with gentleman measuring times with one hand, while they shoot bullets at the speed of light with the other, no mention of geodesics, etc.; my friend, very excited, then says 'great, I now understand the theory of relativity!'; 'yes', I say in a resigned tone, 'but it's not the theory of relativity anymore...' "


But this can be done, quite clearly:
George Gamow, _Mr Tompkins in Wonderland_, 1940.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Bah! Heidegger is still far more inscrutable...


You got me on that one, cowboy.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

aleazk said:


> Here's a joke relativists often say (and I think is relevant in this discussion):
> 
> "-So, a non-physicist friend asked me about relativity; I enthusiastically started to talk about 4-dimensional differentiable manifolds and spacetime, metrics of lorentzian signature, geodesics, etc., you know, the basic stuff; my friend told me 'I did not understand a single word of that'; I think a little more, I decide to simplify things a little, I add some gentleman measuring distances and cars traveling at the speed of light, but I keep some geodesics and metrics of lorentzian signature; my friend says 'now I'm starting to understand, the only thing I still don't get are those geodesics, and metrics thing'; then I launch myself to a complete non-technical explanation, with gentleman measuring times with one hand, while they shoot bullets at the speed of light with the other, no mention of geodesics, etc.; my friend, very excited, then says 'great, I now understand the theory of relativity!'; 'yes', I say in a resigned tone, 'but it's not the theory of relativity anymore...' "


--
If Kant's _Critiques _and Heidegger's _Sein und Zeit_ were tethered to anything remotely mathematical, they'd at least have a fighting chance at being understood.

But, as its all speculative metaphysical musing and poetry, it just evaporates into ether once you try to grab it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> George Gamow, _Mr Tompkins in Wonderland_, 1940.


A little physics ha-ha thing. In 1948 a paper was published explaining how the various elements, in their proper proportions, would be created by the big bang. From the names of its three authors (carefully chosen), it's known as the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper. A pause for appropriate yuks is allowed.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> --
> If Kant's _Critiques _and Heidegger's _Sein und Zeit_ were tethered to anything remotely mathematical, they'd at least have a fighting chance at being understood.
> 
> But, as its all speculative metaphysical musing and poetry, it just evaporates into ether once you try to grab it.


haha, something to do with the _Dasein_... don't ask me what the Dasein is, though! lol


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2014)

12 tenses? When I was learning languages at school, there were only 6 and unless my memory fails me, these applied in French, Latin, German and Spanish. (We didn't learn about tenses in English.)

Present
Future
Imperfect
Perfect
Future Perfect
Pluperfect

Who made up the other 6 and why does English need twice as many as everyone else in Europe?

(Or, why was I cheated out of the other 6 when I was a lad??)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Who made up the other 6 and why does English need twice as many as everyone else in Europe?


Here are the other six, with some explanation:

Conditional imperative (legislation is pending)
Weak-spined subjective (aka shilly-shallying)
Querying uncertaintive (with trembling tones)
Negatory denying (What the president meant to say...)
Blue-sky amazing (I dreamt it, so it must be true)
Passive acquiescing (with a certain glumness)


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2014)

^ Thanks Ken. I certainly recognise some of these operating more in the US than here (Negatory denying - but that's only coz we don't have a President) and vice versa (passive acquiescing - probably something to do with the rain, I think)


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

re: 12 tenses. The reason why English has more tenses than many other languages is because it differentiates between simple and continuous tenses. English has simple present "I play" and continuous present "I am playing," whereas other languages do not make this distinction (e.g. the German "ich spiele" covers both). Same with simple future "I will play" versus continuous future "I will be playing." And then if you shuffle around the modal verbs even further you end up with monstrosities like future perfect continuous "I will have been playing." 

As for the Descartes text (am I right in saying it was originally written in Latin?)... unfortunately the Google books preview lets me see everything except the text itself so I can't really help.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

aleazk said:


> haha, something to do with the _Dasein_... don't ask me what the Dasein is, though! lol


_Dasein_(n.): the unknowable expressed in terms of the not-worth-knowing.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Winterreisender said:


> re: 12 tenses. The reason why English has more tenses than many other languages is because it differentiates between simple and continuous tenses. English has simple present "I play" and continuous present "I am playing," whereas other languages do not make this distinction (e.g. the German "ich spiele" covers both). Same with simple future "I will play" versus continuous future "I will be playing." And then if you shuffle around the modal verbs even further you end up with monstrosities like future perfect continuous "I will have been playing."
> 
> As for the Descartes text (am I right in saying it was originally written in Latin?)... unfortunately the Google books preview lets me see everything except the text itself so I can't really help.


A lot of languages make that distinction, but it is technically "aspect" rather than "tense."

Donate to wikipedia.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> How about this?:
> 
> - Immanuel Kant, _Critique of Pure Reason_, p. 126
> 
> http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/kant/Critique-Pure-Reason.pdf


er .... what is obscure about this?

When I was an undergraduate, we were told to read Clarence Glacken's _Traces on the Rhodian shore_ and I remember being bewildered by it (even the title confused me) but 20-odd years later I saw it in a library, remembered the title and pulled it off the shelf. Four hours later, I was still reading (and enjoying) it. I don't think I was any cleverer in my 40s than I was when 18, but what *had* changed was my ability to read .... simply because I had read a lot more (and a lot more widely) in the intervening time.

Reading and listening to music are very similar --- prolonged exposure to 'serious' works helps you to develop a tolerance for, and appreciation of, dense pieces of work that have something deep to say. I often read posts where it is recommended that if we wish to 'understand' a particular piece of music, then we have to develop famiiarity with that style of music. Reading academic literature is a similar process - the more one reads, the better one becomes at understanding that style of writing

Here endeth the homily


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> 12 tenses? When I was learning languages at school, there were only 6 and unless my memory fails me, these applied in French, Latin, German and Spanish. (We didn't learn about tenses in English.)
> 
> Present
> Future
> ...


perhaps language has developed since then????

sorry, couldn't resist. Will sit quietly in the corner reflecting on my indiscretion


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> As for the Descartes text (am I right in saying it was originally written in Latin?)...


He wrote versions in both Latin and French.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2014)

:lol: Thanks Hermit! I know i joked in another thread about being as old as Methuselah, but you didn't to take me so literally.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sorry, my former post might've been too cryptic. "Perfect," "continuous," (or "progressive"), and "simple" are aspects rather than tenses. So English has 3 tenses - past, present, future - modified by various aspects - perfect, perfect continuous, continuous, and simple. 

That gives us 12 tense-aspect combinations: 

Past simple: I eat. 
Past continuous: I was eating. 
Past perfect: I had eaten. 
Past perfect continuous: I had been eating. 
Present simple: I eat. 
Present continuous: I am eating. 
Present perfect: I have eaten. 
Present perfect continuous: I have been eating. 
Future simple: I will eat. 
Future continuous: I will be eating. 
Future perfect: I will have eaten. 
Future perfect continuous: I will have been eating. 

Some of these can also be modified by modes - indicative (used just now), conditional ("I might have eaten"), imperative (eat!), and maybe there are more but I'm too lazy to check.... 

I do understand combining tense and aspect into a single thing for simpler teaching (that'll be fine as long as you don't take Greek or a language like that), but I'm not sure why anyone was ever taught that there are exactly 6 verb tenses.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

science said:


> Sorry, my former post might've been too cryptic. "Perfect," "continuous," (or "progressive"), and "simple" are aspects rather than tenses. So English has 3 tenses - past, present, future - modified by various aspects - perfect, perfect continuous, continuous, and simple.
> 
> That gives us 12 tense-aspect combinations:
> 
> ...


Well I suppose a point of confusion might be that in other languages, past perfect ("I had eaten") is called pluperfect and past continuous ("I was eating") is called imperfect, and both of these are considered independent tenses rather than just aspects.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

The six tenses can either be in an active or a passive voice. The perfect infinitive of 'to eat' is 'to have eaten' in the active voice, whilst it is 'to have been eaten' in the passive voice. This may be the explanation for the twelve tenses.


----------

