Re: Past actions with present verbs ?!?

Paul Burke wrote:
John of Aix wrote:

Yes, it's perfectly all right to use the "historic present" (or
"historical present") tense in this way. It's commonly used to give
more emphasis or sense of dynamism than a simple past tense
provides.

Yes but it is far less common than the past tense and can only
really be used if 'narrating a timeline' so that the speaker and
listener are situated in the present as each event happens.

Of course, it's used all the time when talking about literature or
philosophy, as "In 'Troy Town', Q pokes gentle fun at small town
Victorian snobbery", or "Spinoza shows that morality derives as surely
from the immanent God of Nature as from the external Judaeo-Christian
God of Final Judgement".

I think that is slightly dfifferent. In your example something that
continues to exist is being spoken about: morality and what it derives
from. There can be no past really in such a case or at least not until
there is a fundamental change and morality no longer derives (or is
thought to derive) 'from the immanent god etc"

For example in the phrase "In 1997, Luke, CREATES a new company named
.... blah blah blah" the creation of the company is something definitely
set in the past, Luke is not creating the company at the moment, which
is not the case with the derivation of morality which, according to the
philospher, continues to derive from an immanent god etc.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Past actions with present verbs ?!?
    ... "historical present") tense in this way. ... or "Spinoza shows that morality derives as ... derives 'from the immanent god etc" ...
    (uk.culture.language.english)
  • Re: "of my students and I"
    ... the mind doesn't often invent rules of grammar, ... but derives them, and it derives most of them at a level well below ... form is derived by analogy with the past tense of "drive". ...
    (alt.usage.english)