# Grammar Q Regarding Tense **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 7, 2004, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974 "2004-10-07T03:36:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/1 "2004-10-07T03:36:37Z")
Ok, so, if I’m writing about something I saw in the past but that still exists today, do I use the past or present tense to describe the something? The sentence in question is: “When I first read the play, I was distracted – annoyed, even – by the bits of dialogue that are to be sung instead of spoken.” Should it be “bits of dialogue that _were_ to be sung?” I go on to start the next sentence with “The songs weren’t really ‘songs,’ like you’d find in musical theatre,” and the same question comes up. The songs _are_, but I’m talking about what I _thought_ of them (in the past). Which tense to describe the songs? Should it be “the songs _aren’t_ really ‘songs’?” I’ve been a professional writer and editor for more than six years, and this question comes up every now and then but I’m never sure what the right answer is. ☹ Help! (please!) ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/2 "2004-10-07T03:51:43Z")
Go with what sounds better to you. I’d use the present tense myself. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/3 "2004-10-07T03:55:02Z")
Firstly, this strikes me as a question of _usage_, rather than one of _grammar_. After all, either the present tense or the past tense could be grammatically correct. I’m not even sure there’s a hard and fast rule about usage such as this. For me, the key question might be the extent to which you were talking about your _past_ impressions of the play, or your current impressions of the play, and even the extent to which the events described are remote in time from the present. Is the main point of your paragraph your state of mind regarding the play at the time you first read it? Or are you more interested in offering a present-day analysis of the play for people who might want to read it now? If the latter, i’d definitely go for the present tense. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/4 "2004-10-07T04:14:27Z")
Actually, I’d use past tense in the first sentence, and present by preference in the second, for this reason: In the first sentence, you’re presenting your thought as of a past time. While present tense is normally used of ongoing states of being: 2+2 not only was four, but now is four, and will continue to be four, world without end – the reference in that sentence is to your past thought about the songs, not the fact that they were and are to be sung rather than spoken. In the second sentence, however, you’re drawing a distinction in the same ongoing state of being between them and the songs of musical theater, not overtly continuing the relation of your past thought process when you first read the play. However, I personally might choose past exclusively, or present exclusively, for parallelism of tense usage, being slightly pedantic myself about such things. But that is something I would never attempt to enforce as a principle of style on others – what is proper is what best conveys the meaning in clear, pithy, precise, elegant speech forms. And there are occasions (like this sentence) when the “rules” (e.g., the one about not beginning a sentence with a coordinating conjunction) are most properly “broken.” And what I first presented is what strikes me as best for smooth reading that doesn’t cause the reader to pause and say “Huh?” with a puzzled mien. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/5 "2004-10-07T05:32:10Z")
In the first sentence, you were forseeing the future, in the second, you were reflecting the past. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/6 "2004-10-07T05:41:46Z")
I would use the present tense for both. _Harbrace_ uses this example: > [@](#): > > Some early philosophers knew that the earth is round. **Polycarp** , _Harbrace_, (Eleventh Edition) actually recommends using coordinating conjunctions as a way of varying the beginnings of sentences. Isn’t that listed as one of the signs of the end of time? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![tygerbryght](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tygerbryght](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tygerbryght)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/7 "2004-10-07T06:35:44Z")
> [@Misnomer](#): > > Ok, so, if I’m writing about something I saw in the past but that still exists today, do I use the past or present tense to describe the something? > > The sentence in question is: “When I first read the play, I was distracted – annoyed, even – by the bits of dialogue that are to be sung instead of spoken.” Should it be “bits of dialogue that _were_ to be sung?” This may sound like ducking the question, but I’d say “intended”, rather than “were”, i.e., “When I first read the play, I was distracted – annoyed, even – by the bits of dialogue intended to be sung instead of spoken.” > [@](#): > > I go on to start the next sentence with “The songs weren’t really ‘songs,’ like you’d find in musical theatre,” and the same question comes up. The songs _are_, but I’m talking about what I _thought_ of them (in the past). Which tense to describe the songs? Should it be “the songs _aren’t_ really ‘songs’?” Aren’t. As you say above, the manuscript (or whatever) continues to exist. Therefore, its contents also continue to exist. Just my opinion. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/8 "2004-10-07T12:03:06Z")
Another professional editor checking in. I like **tygerbryght** ’s suggestion that you change the verb to “intended” in the first sentence. That way, you can legitimately past-tense it (since the intention is a completed action), and avoid the whole ugly issue. In general, I agree with the (ahem – sorry, **polycarp** ) majority to say that “is” is “is,” so to speak – things that were so in the past and continue to be so now get the present tense. ---
**Author:** ![olpeculiar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@olpeculiar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/olpeculiar)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/9 "2004-10-07T13:47:37Z")
That’s true, Twickster. But Misnomer is referring to the author’s original intention. Back then - in the past - the author of the play intended to have the bits of dialog sung. Past tense. In the second sentence, Misnomer is contemplating the songs as they exist today, compared to today’s musical theatre. As his focus shifts, so does the tense. I’m with Polycarp on this one… ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/10 "2004-10-07T15:28:51Z")
Thanks for all of the replies! 🙂 It seems like there are compelling arguments either way…I’m going to go with “bits of dialogue that are to be sung” and “the songs aren’t really ‘songs’.” I think I prefer the guideline suggested by several of you, that things in existence always “are.” And I agree with **Polycarp** about consistency: the answer to many questions like mine seems to come down to “it doesn’t matter, just pick one and stick with it.” 😉 **tygerbryght** and **twickster** , I see what you mean about using “intended,” but I wouldn’t like the sentence if I did the straight swap you propose. I would want to say “bits of dialogue that are intended to be sung,” which contains the same are/were question. It’s just a personal style thing: more often than not, I prefer to include “that” even when it wouldn’t be wrong to leave it out. Oh, and btw: **olpeculiar** , I’m a “her.” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![olpeculiar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/34f0e0/32.png) [@olpeculiar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/olpeculiar)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/11 "2004-10-07T16:22:02Z")
:wally Damn! She didn’t like my argument, or my calling her a man! There’s just no pleasing some people. 😉 Ah, seriously, though - sorry about that. What can I say? DC-area lingusitic dilemmas have often rendered me gender-confused. It’s the cross I bear. ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/12 "2004-10-07T17:01:18Z")
> [@olpeculiar](#): > > Ah, seriously, though - sorry about that. What can I say? DC-area lingusitic dilemmas have often rendered me gender-confused. It’s the cross I bear. Ain’t nothin’ but a thang. (Though that gender confusion thing sounds kinda personal… :eek: ) On other message boards (I know, I know: heresy!) I used to not bother correcting people if my sex was irrelevant to the topic, but I found that it would sometimes lead to confusion when being a woman _was_ pertinent (“but in the other thread, you didn’t correct xxx when you were called a ‘he’!”). One paranoid type even went so far as to accuse me of being deliberately obtuse so that no one would know my _true_ sex. :rolleyes: So now I take a moment to correct folks, even though it doesn’t bother me one bit if someone assumes I’m a man (or black, or gay, or a Christian, etc.). Just to keep the record straight. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/13 "2004-10-07T20:36:14Z")
I think it might be even better to simply say: “When I first read the play, I was distracted – annoyed, even – by the bits of dialogue that are sung instead of spoken.” I don’t feel that “to be sung” adds much. ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/14 "2004-10-08T03:53:01Z")
Hmm, the only thing I don’t like about your suggestion is that if I’m reading a play, the dialogue is neither spoken nor sung: it is just words on a page. I have not seen a production of the play in question, I am commenting only on the script, and to me it would feel awkward to talk about the dialogue as if I somehow heard it (except for in my head, of course). So that’s why I used “to be sung.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tygerbryght](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a9a28c/32.png) [@tygerbryght](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tygerbryght)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/15 "2004-10-11T00:05:41Z")
All this is the stuff we grammar pedants love to play with, and the reason why most people get frustrated with the language - especially when it’s not their first. But while one can most always find at least one pedant who agrees with one’s choices (thanks, **twickster** ) - see the groupings above - there always seems to be at least one person who has a preferred alternative formulation. \ Has anyone else noticed a tendency to break sentences into paragraphs differently online? Writing for print, my paragraphs are longer, and I’m much more careful about parsing. However, those practices seem to me to be more of an impediment to understanding Web documents, particularly in fora such as this, and universally in fora where the ratio of individuals who _can_ write properly is lower. Do they get bored or something when they see a long paragraph? \ In the end, of course, it is the OP who must be satisfied with her own prose. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/16 "2004-10-11T00:32:54Z")
> [@tygerbryght](#): > > \ > Has anyone else noticed a tendency to break sentences into paragraphs differently online? Writing for print, my paragraphs are longer, and I’m much more careful about parsing. However, those practices seem to me to be more of an impediment to understanding Web documents, particularly in fora such as this, and universally in fora where the ratio of individuals who _can_ write properly is lower. Do they get bored or something when they see a long paragraph? Hell, yeah. Online, I’m always in a hurry. Either (a) there’s too much to do, or (2) I’m on a quick breather at work and don’t feel that I’m being fair to the company if I spend too much time composing my words. Hence, I’m not worried about people that can’t bear my paragraphs; rather I worry about myself in writing long-winded paragraphs. The previous paragraph could be appended to the preceding paragraph, but in many cases it’s a matter of perspective. There was enough of an idea shift for me to justify a new paragraph. I guess you’re partially correct in that I think it’s enough of an idea shift to justify a new paragraph just so that the idea wouldn’t get missed by someone who didn’t want to read my entire first paragraph. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/17 "2004-10-11T21:42:02Z")
> [@Misnomer](#): > > the only thing I don’t like about your suggestion is that if I’m reading a play, the dialogue is neither spoken nor sung: it is just words on a page. I have not seen a production of the play in question, I am commenting only on the script, and to me it would feel awkward to talk about the dialogue as if I somehow heard it But it’s fair to presume that a play is intended to be performed, so to imply that dialog you’ve actually only read “is spoken” or “is sung” will be correctly understood by all your readers. ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammar-q-regarding-tense/267974/18 "2004-10-12T01:25:36Z")
Another reason for more paragraph breaks – for me, anyway – is that the lines are so long compared to the font size that it’s easy for your eye to get lost on it’s way back to the left side – there’s less chance of that if there’s only a few lines per paragraph.