Hi,
Which is correct if I want to express a chance finding of some information online?
Please tell me if both sentences convey the same message and if not why not
Is “has” wrong in the second sentence?
I look forward to your feedback
davidmich
Both are grammatically correct and mean what you are trying to mean, though the first version is more natural divorced from context, I think.
I like either one. But I can imagine someone arguing it must be “had” in order to match tense with “knew” in the antecedent. I disagree, but there’s an inviting kind of “logic” to that argument, such that if you’re wanting to avoid criticisms you may as well use “had” to avoid the risk.
I don’t think there’s any syntactic argument that the tenses must match here, but there could be a stylistic one.
They both convey the same information.
But to many people, they would have different implications. English is heavily positional, and most people assume that the first phrase is the main one, with later phrases secondary.
So I found it online by accident implies that the finding it online is most important, and that the finding was accidental is of lesser importance.
Whereas I found it by accident online implies that the accidental finding of it is most important, and that it was found online is of lesser importance.
So many native English speakers would see some difference in meaning between those two versions.
#1 is the idea of double object verbs. Some verbs take two objects and the order doesn’t matter, eg. He kicked the ball to me, he kicked to me the ball. In other verbs, the direct object must be stated first, eg. He whispered the information to me, X He whispered to me the information. Found would be in the doesnt matter category.
#2 is about meaning. Had impiles something that is no longer true, has is something that continues to be true. In the context of the sentence as stated, has is correct because it only references that current moment.
In ‘1’, I found it by accident online looks clumsy. I accidentally found it on line would be better.
In ‘2’, to use ‘had’, would imply to me that the fortune teller no longer has the gift.
I’m inclined to agree with you bob++on #1 .
“She accidentally found it online” is a better construction.
But as for # 2, does the word “had” necessarily imply that the fortune teller no longer had the gift of foresight? I’m not so sure about that.
Thank you all.
davidmich
Both are grammatically correct, but slightly awkwardly constructed. Try instead using the adverb “accidentally”:
[ul]
[li]“I found it *online *accidentally” emphasize where you found it[/li][li]“I *accidentally *found it online” emphasize that you only found it by chance[/li][/ul]
There are various subtleties that are difficult to explain.
If the statement were made before the teller made her prediction, “had” or “has” would be correct, but “had” would be slightly less awkward in most cases.
If you were discussing how the customer might have reacted after a prediction were made, you would use the past participle of “to know” and and the simple past tense of “to have”:
"If the fortune teller had known things about her customer that no one else had known, then the customer would naturally believe that the fortune teller **had ** the gift of foresight.
No. One would have to explicitly state that the teller no longer had the gift, because the sentence is otherwise structured to suggest that she continues to have the gift.
There is only a single (direct) object in your sentences (i.e. the “ball” so kicked and the “information” so whispered). Rather than an indirect object, you constructed your sentence using the prepositional phrase “to me”. This is perfectly acceptable English, just not an example indirect “second” objects.
Examples of sentences using indirect object (“two object sentences”) would be:
[ul]
[li]He gave **her **(indirect object) the information (direct object) - he didn’t give the girl away; he gave the information[/li][li]I gave **Sheila **(indirect) the ball (direct) - I didn’t give Sheila away; I gave the ball[/li][/ul]
The direct object is the object modified by the verb; the indirect is generally the recipient. The subject modifies the direct object with a verb, the indirect object benefits.
Thanks runningdude. Very helpful!
davidmich
The reason this is confusing is that you are switching tenses in the middle. How about either:
All present: “If the fortune teller knows things about her customer that no one else knows, then the customer would naturally believe that the fortune teller has the gift of foresight.”
or
All past: “If the fortune teller knew things about her customer that no one else knew, then the customer would naturally have believed that the fortune teller had the gift of foresight.”
Good point EdwardLost. That makes more sense. Thanks.
davidmich