Language desk
< June 16	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 17

Verb tense

I would like some input on the following grammar issue: correct use of past tense verbs versus present tense verbs. Let me use four specific examples to clarify.

Example 1: Halle Berry is the first Black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar. Halle Berry was the first Black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar. Which would be correct? Or are both correct? Even though that event happened in the past (in 2002), Halle Berry still today (in the present) holds that title/distinction.

Example 2: Katharine Hepburn is the actress with the most Oscar wins. Katharine Hepburn was the actress with the most Oscar wins. This is the same as example 1 above, except that Katharine Hepburn is dead and Halle Berry is alive. In other words, Katharine Hepburn is no longer living in the present, she only was living in the past. Nonetheless, even though the event happened in the past, Katharine Hepburn still today (in the present) holds that title/distinction (even though she herself does not exist in the present).

Example 3: Katharine Hepburn holds the record for most Oscar wins. Katharine Hepburn held the record for the most Oscar wins. This is the same as example 2 above, except that the verb used is "to hold" versus "to be".

Example 4: The film Wings is the first silent film to win the Best Picture Oscar. The film Wings was the first silent film to win the Best Picture Oscar. This is the same as example 1 above, except that the subject is an inanimate object (neither living nor dead). Nonetheless, even though the event happened in the past (in 1928), the film still today (in the present) holds that title/distinction.

Any input is appreciated. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 03:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I vote for was, is, holds and was. The reason being there's only one "first," and once it happens, it's over. On the other hand, if you were to say Hepburn "held" the record or "was" the actress with the most Oscar wins, you'd be insinuating someone has beaten her record or they no longer award Oscars. -- Mwalcoff 03:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, Halle Berry is the first black woman to have won the Best Actress Oscar. --Anonymous, June 17, 06:48 (UTC).

I disagree with Mwalcoff. Both "is" and "was" are acceptable for Berry and Wings, just as the Earth is round (sorta) today and was round yesterday. However, "held" and "was" are incorrect per Mwalcoff, in terms of meaning, but not in a grammatical sense, for Hepburn. Clarityfiend 06:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halle Berry will always be the first Black woman to win Best Actress, and thus should retain "is" in perpetuity. Katharine Hepburn is the actress with the most Best Actress wins, and should retain the "is" until her record is surpassed, at which time it should be changed to "was". Same with holds/held. Wings will always be the first Best Picture winner, and therefore should always retain the "is". Corvus cornix 02:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corvus cornix - What about after Halle Berry dies? Are you saying to keep the "is" (in perpetuity)? Or, at that point, change it to "was"? (JosephASpadaro 16:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know if there's a right or wrong here, but I think "Halle Berry is the first black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar" sounds funny, since that was a one-time thing that happened in the past. Think of it this way: Let's add a prepositional phrase to the sentence. "In 2002, Halle Berry becomes/became the first black woman to win Best Actress." Clearly, this is a past event, and we use the past tense. -- Mwalcoff 06:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we can add this prepositional phrase also: As we stand here today in 2007, Halle Berry is the first Black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar. The "oddity" of the sentence -- and the reason for my original question -- is that it is a past event that essentially is also a present event (i.e., some event from the past that continues forward until today, even as we speak). (JosephASpadaro 16:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I totally agree with Mwalcoff here. I'll focus on just the Berry one, since the Wings one is basically the same, and the other two aren't in dispute (afaict). Halle Berry's victory is essentially an event: she won the award in the past. The fact of being the first Black woman to do so is an extra qualifier, so its tense should be consistent with that of the event itself. It would be in the present tense only if the award were discussed in the perfect tense, that is, while it is still current. For example, the news on that night might have run: "Halle Berry has won [perfect tense] Best Actress. She is/becomes the first Black woman to do so." As for Joseph's new sentence, "As we stand here today...": this is inventive, but not logical - the whole problem is you would not actually say it. "As we stand here today" has no meaningful connection to "Halle Berry is the first..." The introduction "A.w.s.h.t." would only be used for a dramatic news story (or similar) that suggests we are at some turning point, where things could change, while the award clearly cannot. For all this, I don't think there's much separating the two versions. The Mad Echidna 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but I think one important issue is being overlooked. Berry won the award in the past (2002) ... but she still holds the title/distinction today, in the present, in 2007. In other words, the focus is not so much on the past event of winning the award, but rather on the current/present situation of currently/presently holding/maintaining the title/distinction. If you focus on the event of winning the award, that is a past event. If you focus on the "event" of maintaining the title/distinction even today as we speak, that is a current "event". Hence, in my Sentence 3 (in the original question) about using the verb "hold" as opposed to the verb "be". Also, hence, my introductory clause of "As we stand here today in 2007" from my most recent post in this thread. If there were some banquet/dinner and Berry was being introduced as the speaker, the introducer could very well state: "As we stand here today in 2007, Halle Berry is ..." No? (JosephASpadaro 00:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As I've discussed with you elsewhere, Joseph, I think that context is important. If I made the bald statement "Halle Berry was the first black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar", with no other context, would it be interpreted as (a) she was the first, but other black women have since achieved the same thing, or (b) she was the first, and is still the only black woman to do so? Without that other context, I think that both interpretations are equally valid, but only one of them would reflect the truth. When you put the sentence into an appropriate context, the meaning should become clear. As I've also pointed out privately, whether the subject is dead or alive is important. Today, you could say either "Halle Berry was the first black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar", or "Halle Berry is the first black woman to win the Best Actress Oscar", and the context will help the reader to know the meaning. But today you could not say "John F. Kennedy is the first (or only; or first and only) Roman Catholic U.S. President", because he no longer is anything. It could only be was in that case. All this means that there are 3 possible factors at play: (A) The person is/was the first and still the only person to have achieved the thing, (B) The person is/was the first, but at least one other person has since achieved the same thing, and (C) The person is alive/dead at the time the sentence about them is being written. -- JackofOz 01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joseph for asking for my further opinion on this. Because you've asked specifically, I'll give it in full, but those who don't want to read it can jump to the end, which contains a cut and pasted answer from a website I rather cleverly found on a google search.

Tense is hard in English. I've been proofreading a friend's PhD dissertation, and I am amazed at how many ways there are to get confused. She did her research in the past, but she's analysing it in the present. So what do you say: "This circumstance applied to older refugees," or is it "applies"? In such cases, throughout the thesis, I have used context extensively. But my experience leaves me feeling one thing: wherever a strict standard can realistically be used, it is better to stick to that, and to call it a grammatical rule. The problem is that if you rely on emphasis and context, there are so many interpretations you can use, and so many justifications for any different tense.

A classic case for confusion is the Halle Berry example. You could say "Halle Berry is the first.." and interpret the emphasis as being on her holding the title. Or you could say "Halle Berry was the first," and say that the point is that she won the award in the past, and the fact that she still holds the title of first Black woman to do so (and will forever) follows automatically (it is, in fact, too obvious to state). Either is acceptable, as far as interpretation is concerned. If you try to choose the tense according to what you want to emphasise, you get into a muddle (or so I find). This is what I'm going through with my friend's thesis: there are so many ways to interpret emphasis that it becomes very complicated, and conducive only to confusion. This confusion corrupts one's writing style. For example, let's say you go "Halle Berry is the first Black woman to win Best Actress. Denzel Washington won Best Actor on the same night, so that was the first time Black actors have won both Oscars." There is no real choice in the second sentence - you have to say "have won". But the shift in tense, whilst allowable (I think) is slightly awkward. When I get muddled like this (quite often) I start trying to reword the sentences, to skirt around the issue. This impedes my expression drastically. You have to do this often enough with English, but it's always best to minimise the necessity. For this reason, I like to keep grammar as basic as possible, and only use the appeal to context and emphasis when necessary. In the case of my friend's thesis, it is unavoidable: I have to consider whether she is making an argument in the present tense, or a reference to the past events of the research. In the case of Halle Berry, this doesn't apply, so I would stick with using the logic of the event (that it happened in the past) not the (highly debatable) logic of the context. I know this is a normative commentary (I am saying what I think ought to be the case) rather than a straight explanation of any facts, but otherwise I am stuck, for my knowledge ends here. My main official reason for thinking it should be "was" is simply intuition, developed by studying French, trying to learn formal English grammar as a dilettante, and doing occasional proofreading. It isn't a lot, and I admit I can sometimes make mistakes from being too self-conscious with my grammar.

On the other hand, Jack's answer is interesting: differentiated according to alive/dead, and whether someone else has repeated the feat. This is (as I found out just now by googling) endorsed by somebody called "Grammar". It doesn't say whose grammar she is, but I assume she was taught old school, and would certainly know. Incidentally, the search string is <grammar english "past tense" "was the first" "is the first">, the address is <http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/grammarlogs3/grammarlogs430.htm>, and the whole segment is reprinted at the end. I think for all my waffle, unless some expert is willing to back me up, we should go with Jack's as having the credible backing of one of the luminaries of the Humanities desk, and a website with some mystical claim to expertise. I'll stick with my answer, and leave it for others, but certainly for Wikipedia purposes, we should go with the more endorsed view.

Q: When referring to the first person to do/acheive something, if the person is still alive, do you use the historical present tense (because they will always be the first) or do you use the past tense (because they did it once and it's o ver)? For example:

Hilary Clinton is/was the first First Lady to serve in the Senate.

Does it change when she's no longer a Senator or when the next First Lady gets elected to the Senate?

GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE

Putting a great historical perspective on the matter, would we say that "John Quincy Adams was the first son of a President to become President of the United States"? But while he was President or while he was alive, even, we would have said, "John Q. is the first. . . . " I think the tense of your sentence changes when Ms. Clinton is no longer in the Senate or no longer around, or as you sugggest, when the next First Lady becomes a senator.

Thanks again for your interest Joseph, and I hope this clears it up. The Mad Echidna 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Francois c'est pas flashe non deux"

The 1980 song Rapture (song) has lyrics which are variously heard as:

Flash is fast, Flash is cool,

Francois c'est pas flashe non deux

The exact words are hard to discern. Another transcription of the version of the line in french are "Francois, c'est pas flashe non due". The song can be heard on thhis youtube video-- it occurs 2 mins 5 seconds into the video.

Any idea what these lines mean? Flash is presumably a reference to Grandmaster Flash, but I haven't been able to find definitive answer. --Alecmconroy 11:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Flashe non deux" is certainly not right: I have also seen it transcribed as "Flashe no do", but from listening carefully to the clip, I am almost certain that she is saying "Francois sait pas, Flash ain't no dude", that is, "Francois doesn't know, Flash ain't no dude".SaundersW 12:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts terminology

I study Kickboxing (a japanese martial art); before and after forms, and at other times, we bow, with the left fist in the right open palm, and say something which sounds a bit like key-lao. Can anyone decifer what that means? MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 15:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English dialects used in drama

I am building a theatrical resume for a friend, who has been trained (unprofessionally) in what most American laypeople would call a "British accent". She used Cockney English in Frayn's "Noises Off", but says she has also been trained in the more formal, aristocratic English dialect; she does not know what this is called.

Is there a term for the dialect of English spoken by non-working class (upper class?) inhabitants of London?

Thank you.

Renbelcher 22:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is an over-simplication of the complicated nature of English accents, Received Pronunciation is still somewhat considered the standard accent of educated speech in Southern England. — Gareth Hughes 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a considerable difference, though, between the "mainstream" RP favoured by the (upper) middle class, and the speech of the true upper class, called "High British" in the article on RP. Quoting from our article on the upper class:

With specific regard to pronunciation, much is made of the lower-class (albeit slightly regional) tendency towards dropped consonants – for instance, ‘li’lle’ for ‘little’ or ‘'ow are you?’ for ‘how are you?’. The upper class are also distinguishable, though from the absence of vowels in their speech – thus, ‘handkerchief’ becomes ‘hnkrchf’, ‘venison’ becomes ‘vnsn’ and ‘Shropshire’ becomes ‘Shrpshr’.

For differences in word usage, see U and non-U English. In a context in which it is clear you're referring to Britain, you could perhaps use "U English", but I see this usually used as just "U" in the context of U versus non-U. I wouldn't know a commonly used term for this specific sociolect, but "upper-class British English" will do the job of identifying it. Most Americans do not really know how it sounds; they would be amazed by the amount of mumbling, unlike the common (mis)conception of upper-class British English as being delivered in crisp and precise speech; so when they say or hear "upper-class (or aristocratic) British English", they are most likely thinking of middle-class mainstream RP. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I entered this phrase on her resume: Dialect training in "Cockney & Received Pronunciation [Queen's] English". I hope the reference to Queen's will eliminate any confusion on the part of the reader. Renbelcher 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Brits might understand more readily if you say BBC English. —Tamfang 03:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]