Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
forum readers: please forgive me for merely copying/pasting the email thread. i suggest you start at the bottom and read upward -- unfortunately, all of the formatting/indentations/etc. were stripped when I pasted the thread into this message for posting...
Jonathan -- Agreed 100%. If you can give me the hard evidence from strunk or chicago manual I can just politely quote that. thanks, phil
No, Phil, It does not make sense to me. Yesterday, you went to the gym. In 1999, you disclosed your total synthesis of the CP molecules. These verbs are simple past tense -- the acts have been completed, and they happened at a particular time. They are not ongoing, incomplete, etc.
I'll take a look at Strunk & White, as well as The Chicago Manual of Style. I'll let you know if I find reason to recant my editorial stance.
Jonathan
Jonathan -- Does this make any sense to you?
Its like saying "Yesterday you are going to the gym"
isn't there a grammatical rule he is violating here? -- Phil
Phil, Thanks so much for your input and kind comments!
Ahhh.. the present tense issue!! Here's is what my Ph.D advisor taught me long ago about this and I've tried to convert people in this regard for years! The concept of "permanent truths" should be in present tense. Thus "indigo is isolated in 90% yield and it is blue" not "was blue". Indigo is always blue and always will be! .. A permanent truth. Also "is isolated" because one assumes the method used will always work, thus lives on in the present tense, ie permanent truth. Also ," In 2008 Baran reports a new elegant natural product synthesis…", not reported. Your work always stands forever in the literature, thus in 2030 you still report this work, ie permanent truth. Same for "Compound 8 shows excellent activity against a variety of tumor cells" not "showed" which is written more often, but in this view incorrectly. One assumes this is a permanent truth (property of the compound always) .
I hope I can convert you now to the concept of permanent truths being in present tense!
Dear Mark,
Thanks for sending me this paper and congratulations! It is beautifully written and I think it should get in easily. Only correction I would make is to change the present tense that is used throughout the first paragraph (e.g. "Borchardt describes" should be "described"). Warmly, phil
The wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!
As you appear to be writing for a Chemistry journal, neither Strunk and White nor the Chicago Manual of Style is an appropriate guide. I'd go with the American Chemical Society Style Guide, which you can find summarized here:
http://library.williams.edu/citing/styles/acs.php
The following example is given: "Rakita (1) states that fluoridated water..."
On the other hand, if a particular journal has its own house style, you should follow that.
I fully agree that with any reference to publication, scientific or not, you should use the present tense, even if the author is dead. Likewise with any physical fact, repeatable, universal. In discussing past events historic and in general, however, I think it is a matter of style to decide if “… In that year Edison rented a property†or “… In that year Edison rents a property†using the narrative present tense. I don't think you can claim a hard rule that forces the present tense. There is a choice to say either:
“Obama was 7 when man first walked on the moon.â€
Or
“Obama is 7 when man first walks on the moon.â€
The style guide reference pertains to references to publications.
Jonathan, this verb tense is the "historic present" or "narrative present." It can be a valid one when narrating a series of events, but it is best suited for situations less formal than a academic paper.
The "Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics" (Richards and Schmidt, 2002, 3e, Pearson Education) defines "historic present" as "a present tense used in a context where a past tense would normally be used, to create a more vivid effect to show informality, or to show a sense of 'friendliness' between speaker and hearer."
Note that word "informality." That is almost always the key. When you hear well-educated people using the historical present in presentations or interviews, it is because they are (consciously or otherwise) trying to sound less stuffy or formal.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)