# Grammar: Tense Switching



## Ashry

Hi,

I have a big problem when I write: it's tense switching. I know you can switch tenses in the same sentence or paragraph when it's needed, I just don't know when it's appropriate to do so and how to do it.

I'm writing a story. I usually always write it in the simple past, but this time I wanted to try writing in simple present. The whole text is in the present - I'm making sure not to switch, and stay in the same tense - however at some point I want to explain something, so I wrote the other sentence in the past and then came back to my original present tense. I know you can do that, but I don't know how to do it; do I use simple past or can I use past perfect even though the text is in the present? That probably sounds weird to have an entire text in the present and then all of a sudden a past-perfect sentence in the middle of it, but to me it doesn't sound weird because I can't tell when tense switching is correct and when it's not. To me it always sounds correct. 

And that's the problem: when I switch tenses it doesn't sound weird at all to me, but to other people it does. They tell me it's incorrect, however they can never explain to me why it's incorrect and how to correct it, which I find frustrating. Because I'd like to know when I can change and when I can't.

Here is the paragraph I'm struggling with:

_   "The light turns green and I start rolling again. But suddenly out of the corner of my eye I see something coming straight for me at rapid speed. I quickly swing my head to face the incoming object, my eyes wide in horror. The car slams into me sending me to the ground. I instinctively put my hands forward protectively. *Luckily the car had slowed down before hitting me so the impact wasn’t very hard*. I'm fine, with just a few bruises, but nothing serious."_

The bold sentence is the one I'm struggling with. I want to put it in the past to explain the situation. Can I say "had slowed down" (past perfect)? Or do I need to say "has slowed down" (present perfect)? Or just "slowed down" (past simple)?


----------



## Retired-teacher

Your highlighted sentence looks just right to me. You could use 'slowed down' instead but I don't think it's as good. The other one 'has slowed down' would be wrong.

By the way, if in the story you are in a car, can you be thrown to the ground? If you are walking, then I don't think 'I started rolling again' is appropriate.


----------



## Ashry

Retired-teacher said:


> Your highlighted sentence looks just right to me. You could use 'slowed down' instead but I don't think it's as good. The other one 'has slowed down' would be wrong.
> 
> By the way, if in the story you are in a car, can you be thrown to the ground? If you are walking, then I don't think 'I started rolling again' is appropriate.



So it's correct? I wasn't sure, okay thanks.

The character is on a motorcycle.


----------



## Retired-teacher

I never thought of that. It means that 'rolling' and 'hit the ground' are both all right.


----------



## Ashry

Retired-teacher said:


> I never thought of that. It means that 'rolling' and 'hit the ground' are both all right.



Okay. And the tenses are all right too? 

Do you know when you are allowed to change and when you aren't?


----------



## london calling

I prefer this:

_*Luckily the car has slowed down before hitting me so the impact isn't very hard*_

It's not a question of being 'allowed', Ashry. It's a question of style and personal preference, for which there are no rules (poetic licence.....).


----------



## Loob

I agree with london calling. 
You're writing in the present tense, using the "historic present"/"narrative present".  To be consistent, you want to use present perfect + present: _*the car has slowed down before hitting me so the impact isn't very hard*._


----------



## Ashry

london calling said:


> I prefer this:
> 
> _*Luckily the car has slowed down before hitting me so the impact isn't very hard*_
> 
> It's not a question of being 'allowed', Ashry. It's a question of style and personal preference, for which there are no rules (poetic licence.....).



Yeah, I know. But you can't allow everything either. If someone makes a mistake, it's not style. So I wanted to know if it's correct or not.


----------



## Ashry

Loob said:


> I agree with london calling.
> You're writing in the present tense, using the "historic present"/"narrative present".  To be consistent, you want to use present perfect + present: _*the car has slowed down before hitting me so the impact isn't very hard*._



Okay, so that means that my version is false? Or can you still use the past perfect? 

And why do you need to use the present perfect to be consistent?


----------



## Loob

If you were writing in the past tense, as in:
_The light turned green and I started rolling again. But suddenly out of the corner of my eye I saw something coming straight for me at rapid speed.  _
Then you would use matching tenses in this sentence:
_*Luckily the car had slowed down before hitting me so the impact wasn’t very hard*.
_
But you're not writing in the past tense, you're writing in the present tense.  So the matching tenses are:
_*Luckily the car has slowed down before hitting me so the impact isn’t very hard*._


----------



## Ashry

Loob said:


> If you were writing in the past tense, as in:
> _The light turned green and I started rolling again. But suddenly out of the corner of my eye I saw something coming straight for me at rapid speed.  _
> Then you would use matching tenses in this sentence:
> _*Luckily the car had slowed down before hitting me so the impact wasn’t very hard*.
> _
> But you're not writing in the past tense, you're writing in the present tense.  So the matching tenses are:
> _*Luckily the car has slowed down before hitting me so the impact isn’t very hard*._



Okay, I get it.
So any other tense would be a mistake? I just want to make sure.


----------



## Loob

Yes, I'd say that any other combination of tenses would be a mistake in that sentence and in that context.  Of course, you could put other sentences into your story which would use different tenses eg: _I'm fine, with just a few bruises, but nothing serious.* I won't have to see a doctor.*_


----------



## Ashry

I found several articles that talk about switching tenses, and this one says that you can switch, and that it doesn't have to be in the "same" tense: so you don't have to switch from present to present-perfect, you can also switch past and present as well. That's what I'm doing, but I just wanted to understand if you can do this only in certain moments and not others?

Tense Shifting - Grammar - Writing Resources - Writing Center - IUP


----------



## Ashry

Loob said:


> Yes, I'd say that any other combination of tenses would be a mistake in that sentence and in that context.  Of course, you could put other sentences into your story which would use different tenses eg: _I'm fine, with just a few bruises, but nothing serious.* I won't have to see a doctor.*_



Wait, so why can you use past there, but not where I put it?


----------



## Loob

That's not past tense, it's future, Ashry.


----------



## Ashry

Loob said:


> That's not past tense, it's future, Ashry.



Yeah, I was just about to say that, I miss-read it, sorry. ^^"

I didn't mention future because we learned that there is no future tense in English, not like in French where there is one. In English there isn't a specific "tense" for future, you have to add words like "will" and such.


----------



## Ashry

But what I wanted to say was that you're still changing tenses, you're not staying in the present. Why is that?


----------



## Loob

And what I was saying is that you can use tenses which are appropriate to what you want to say.  If you're writing in the present tense, you can use the future tense to talk about future time.

----------

I've just seen your edit to post 16.  If you want to argue that there's no future tense in English, that's fine with me.  It doesn't affect my answer to your original question.


----------



## Ashry

Loob said:


> And what I was saying is that you can use tenses which are appropriate to what you want to say.



Okay. But isn't using the past appropriate here?



Loob said:


> If you're writing in the present tense, you can use the future tense to talk about future time.



So does that mean if you're writing in the present tense you can also use the past tense when talking about the past?



Loob said:


> I've just seen your edit to post 16.  If you want to argue that there's no future tense in English, that's fine with me.  It doesn't affect my answer to your original question.



Well, I'm not arguing about that, it's just what we learned at school, that's all.


----------



## Loob

Ashry said:


> Okay. But isn't using the past appropriate here?


Actually, your text used the past perfect and the past tense.
My answer is  that this wasn't appropriate.  London calling felt the same way.


----------



## Ashry

Loob said:


> Actually, your text used the past perfect and the past tense.
> My answer is  that this wasn't appropriate.  London calling felt the same way.



Okay, but _why_ isn't it appropriate since we can change tenses? That's just what I want to know.


----------



## Loob

Ashry, I don't think I can add anything to what I've said before.

It's clear that you want to use past perfect in a present tense narrative. That's your choice.


----------



## Ashry

Loob said:


> Ashry, I don't think I can add anything to what I've said before.
> 
> It's clear that you want to use past perfect in a present tense narrative. That's your choice.



No, that's not it. I'm being stubborn because I want to understand, not because I want to use the past tense. I just want to know why, that's all_._


----------



## Loob

We use the past perfect to talk about something that happened before something else in the past - before something else described in the past tense.  There is nothing in your text which is described in the past tense.  Therefore it is wrong to use the past perfect.


----------



## Ashry

Okay.


----------



## Loob

You're welcome.


----------



## Ashry

Loob said:


> You're welcome.



But in that case, why did the first person, a teacher, say that "has slowed down" was wrong?


----------



## Loob

Well, I've explained my view (which is, I think, in line with the article you linked to in post 13).

I expect R-t will explain his.


----------



## Ashry

I looked up more about this, and I found two more articles that explain this differently.

Grammar Exercise 11: Verb Tense Consistency

Common uses of tenses in academic writing

The first website says the same thing as you: past -> past perfect / present -> present perfect.

However, the second site explains the usage of tenses. And that is what I based my tenses on: on what they are *used* for.

The present perfect is “used to emphasize an event whose consequences are still relevant.”

And the past perfect is “used to emphasize an event whose consequences were still relevant at an implied or stated past time.” (but not anymore!)

The consequence of the event is NOT still relevant in this case; if the crash were ‘still’ relevant then the protagonist would be in grave danger and would need to go to a hospital. However, since the protagonist is not in danger and isn’t gravely hurt, the event is NOT relevant anymore; it then becomes an event in the past that is finished and that has no consequence on the present. That is what we use the past-perfect for. And that is why I used it. But I understand that it can seem weird to jump from the present to the past perfect, which is why I will probably put it in the present-perfect.

So I believe both views are right.


----------



## Retired-teacher

I can only say that the sentence with 'has slowed down in it' just sounds wrong. When I first read the piece, nothing about it struck me as incorrect.

I was not an English teacher, so perhaps I'm not the best person to comment. However, as a well educated native speaker of English I can usually detect what doesn't sound right and that isn't the case this time. I see no reason why that sentence should not be written in the past tense because the event happened in the past. Yes, the recent past; but still the past.


----------



## Ashry

Retired-teacher said:


> I see no reason why that sentence should not be written in the past tense because the event happened in the past. Yes, the recent past; but still the past.



So are you saying it should be written in the present or the past?


----------



## Retired-teacher

I'm saying that when I read the original piece that you had written, it seemed perfectly all right to me and I said that at the very beginning.


----------



## Ashry

Okay.


----------



## london calling

Retired-teacher said:


> I'm saying that when I read the original piece that you had written, it seemed perfectly all right to me and I said that at the very beginning.


Loob and I both disagree, for the record.

Edit: disagree with Retired-teacher, I mean.


----------



## velisarius

_ *Luckily the car had slowed down before hitting me, so the impact wasn’t very hard*. _

This sentence would not look at all out of place in an ordinary past tense narrative, so I guess Loob and lc are right when they say that it doesn't work in a present tense narrative.


----------



## Ashry

I'm getting mixed messages.

Retired-teacher says it's okay. London calling and Loob agree with Retired-teacher even though Loob said previously that it's wrong and that present should be used...?




velisarius said:


> _ *Luckily the car had slowed down before hitting me, so the impact wasn’t very hard*. _
> 
> This sentence would not look at all out of place in an ordinary past tense narrative, so I guess Loob and lc are right when they say that it doesn't work in a present tense narrative.



I understand that it works in the past, but what I want to know is if I can use it in the present? Why not? Since it's a past event, it should be in the past, right?


----------



## velisarius

If you write a present tense narrative, it's as though you are giving a running commentary on what is happening, in real time. Imagine you are saying this to yourself as it happens: (I've just been hit by a car.) _Luckily the car slowed down before it hit me, so the impact wasn't very hard. _What london calling says, below.

It isn't impossible to use the past perfect tense there, but then you lose the immediacy of the present that you seem to be striving for. (Putting the action further back in the past distances you from it.)


----------



## london calling

Ashry said:


> I'm getting mixed messages.
> 
> Retired-teacher says it's okay. London calling and Loob agree with Retired-teacher even though Loob said previously that it's wrong and that present should be used...?


LC and Loob do not agree with Retired-teacher. This is what we believe to be correct, as it is more consistent with the use of the historic present in the rest of the story:

_Luckily the car *has slowed down* before hitting me so the impact *isn't* very hard_


----------



## Ashry

velisarius said:


> If you write a present tense narrative, it's as though you are giving a running commentary on what is happening, in real time. Imagine you are saying this to yourself as it happens: (I've just been hit by a car.) _Luckily the car slowed down before it hit me, so the impact wasn't very hard.
> _
> It isn't impossible to use the past perfect tense there, but then you lose the immediacy of the present that you seem to be striving for. (Putting the action further back in the past distances you from it.)



Ah, I see! I understand now. Thanks!

So using the past simple, like you did, puts it in the past but keeps the immediacy of the story.


----------



## london calling

Ashry said:


> So using the past simple, like you did, puts it in the past but keeps the immediacy of the story.


Exactly.


----------



## Retired-teacher

I have returned to this thread because I have finally worked out exactly why I don't like "the car *has* slowed down". In my opinion, that phrase implies that the *car is still moving*. However, having knocked a motorcyclist off his machine, I assume that the car then stopped. I think the phrase "the car *had* slowed down" gives the right implication that it had subsequently stopped.


----------

