# chose to call election



## cointi

Hello everyone,


Below opening paragraphs of a BBC article on yesterday's elections in the UK.

Why did the writer go for *chose? *Wouldn't* had chosen* or *have chosen* be more suitable here?


_Britain's Conservatives have lost their majority in a snap general election that has resulted in a hung parliament.

With just a handful of seats left to declare, Thursday's poll shows gains for the opposition Labour Party.

This is seen as a humiliation for PM Minister Theresa May, who *chose* to call the election to try to strengthen her hand in talks with the EU on Brexit._


----------



## ewie

Hullo Giesiek.  Single event in the past: _she washed her hair on Friday; she chose to call an election in April; she divorced her husband last year; she accidentally shot her right foot off._


----------



## cointi

Thank you, ewie. 

My problem with the original sentence is that it does not state when it happened (as all of your sentences do). When it happened does not seem that relevant, anyway. Not to mention that we clearly go back in time. The third paragraph happened before the second paragraph, so to say. Shouldn't we then use the past perfect to show it? Shouldn't we use the past simple only to show a series of chronologically occurring events?


----------



## sdgraham

Giesiek said:


> Shouldn't we use the past simple only to show a series of chronologically occurring events?


No
For example:
"I just took my dog for a walk."


----------



## cointi

sdgraham said:


> No
> For example:
> "I just took my dog for a walk."



I believe in British English the present perfect would be preferred here. Let me rephrase the question: isn't it good practice to use the past perfect to show that the event happened earlier? Would it be used if the second and third paragraph were merged?
_

With just a handful of seats left to declare, Thursday's poll shows gains for the opposition Labour Party.This is seen as a humiliation for PM Minister Theresa May, who *chose (had chosen?)* to call the election to try to strengthen her hand in talks with the EU on Brexit._


----------



## dojibear

Giesiek said:


> isn't it good practice to use the past perfect to show that the event happened earlier?



Earlier than what? Earlier than now? Simple past shows that. It is not "good practice" to use past perfect about a single event in the past.

You use past perfect for this purpose: to draw attention to the fact that one event happened earlier than another event. Most sentences are not about that: they are not drawing attention to the time difference between two events. So for most sentences, past perfect is wrong.

In this example, PM May "chose to call an election". The emphasis is on the fact that she made the decision to have the election (so clearly she thought the election would help her), but the election hurt her instead. The emphasis is not about the fact that "choosing to call an election" happens before the election: that is so obvious that no-one would make that comment.


----------



## cointi

dojibear said:


> Earlier than what? Earlier than now? Simple past shows that. It is not "good practice" to use past perfect about a single event in the past.
> 
> You use past perfect for this purpose: to draw attention to the fact that one event happened earlier than another event. Most sentences are not about that: they are not drawing attention to the time difference between two events. So for most sentences, past perfect is wrong.
> 
> In this example, PM May "chose to call an election". The emphasis is on the fact that she made the decision to have the election (so clearly she thought the election would help her), but the election hurt her instead. The emphasis is not about the fact that "choosing to call an election" happens before the election: that is so obvious that no-one would make that comment.



I can see how the past perfect is not necessary here. Would using it be incorrect?

Given that the article was written soon after the election and the fact that he chose to call the election clearly affects the present, shouldn't the present perfect be used?


----------



## ewie

No, it's not her calling of the election that's affecting the present: it's the result of that election.  The calling is 'history', hence the use of the simple past (sometimes called the 'past historic'):

_Mrs May *called* a snap election in April.  The results of that election, announced today, *have demonstrated* that her decision to do so *was* a serious error of judgment.
_
Using the past perfect would sound unutterably weird—and yes, incorrect—for the reasons Dojibear explained above.


----------



## cointi

ewie said:


> No, it's not her calling of the election that's affecting the present: it's the result of that election.  The calling is 'history', hence the use of the simple past (sometimes called the 'past historic'):
> 
> _Mrs May *called* a snap election in April.  The results of that election, announced today, *have demonstrated* that her decision to do so *was* a serious error of judgment.
> _
> Using the past perfect would sound unutterably weird—and yes, incorrect—for the reasons Dojibear explained above.



Thank you, you provided a very good example.


----------



## cointi

dojibear said:


> Earlier than what? Earlier than now? Simple past shows that. It is not "good practice" to use past perfect about a single event in the past.
> 
> You use past perfect for this purpose: to draw attention to the fact that one event happened earlier than another event. Most sentences are not about that: they are not drawing attention to the time difference between two events. So for most sentences, past perfect is wrong.
> 
> In this example, PM May "chose to call an election". The emphasis is on the fact that she made the decision to have the election (so clearly she thought the election would help her), but the election hurt her instead. The emphasis is not about the fact that "choosing to call an election" happens before the election: that is so obvious that no-one would make that comment.



I'm genuinely trying to understand even though it's going to look like I'm trying to prove I'm right no matter what.

Here's a sentence illustrating the use of the past perfect:

_We were shocked to discover that someone had graffitied “Tootles was here” on our front door. We were relieved that Tootles had used washable paint._

I'm going to be mean and use your own words:

Do we need to draw attention to the time difference here? Isn't it obvious that you can be shocked only after something shocks you? I believe the emphasis is on the fact that someone had graffitied their front door, not the fact that somebody graffitied the door happens before being shocked.

I just repeated your reasoning. Was the speaker wrong to use the past perfect then?


----------



## dojibear

Giesiek said:


> I can see how the past perfect is not necessary here. Would using it be incorrect?
> 
> Given that the article was written soon after the election and the fact that he chose to call the election clearly affects the present, shouldn't the present perfect be used?



I have heard this rule before: "use a perfect tense if the past event clearly affects the present". But I have only heard it in the forum. And I believe it is 100% false. It may be a useful style guide for English learners, but that is just a guess. It certainly is not what "past perfect" means and not what "present perfect" means. Those tenses talk about when something happened. The rules for using them are the same, even for events that have *no* effect on the present. For example:

I killed a bug last year.
I have killed a bug in the last year.
I had killed a bug before I got married.


----------



## dojibear

Giesiek said:


> Here's a sentence illustrating the use of the past perfect:
> 
> _We were shocked to discover that someone had graffitied “Tootles was here” on our front door. We were relieved that Tootles had used washable paint._
> 
> I'm going to be mean and use your own words:
> 
> Do we need to draw attention to the time difference here? Isn't it obvious that you can be shocked only after something shocks you? I believe the emphasis on the fact that someone had graffitied their front door, not the fact that somebody graffitied the door happens before being shocked.
> 
> I just repeated your reasoning. Was the speaker wrong to use the past perfect then?



Apparently you mis-understood my reasoning. I was replying to this statement of yours, which I quoted:



Giesiek said:


> isn't it good practice to use the past perfect to show that the event happened earlier?



This statement was about *one* event (PM May chose to call the election), not about a pair of events. My reply was that it is not "good practice" to use past perfect about a single event in the past.

In this new example, you have two past events described in the same sentence. Using past perfect for the earlier event, and past for the later event, is normal grammer. It also "tells the reader" one thing happened before the other (it "draws attention" to the time order).



Giesiek said:


> Isn't it obvious that you can be shocked only after something shocks you?



The two events (at different times) in this sentence are not "being shocked" and "something shocking you". They are "We discovered graffiti on the door" and "someone graffitied the door". Those events could be hours apart. If only one event was mentioned, or only one was mentioned in each sentence, simple past could be used. When you mention both in the same sentence, you use past perfect for one.


----------



## Andygc

Giesiek said:


> I believe in British English the present perfect would be preferred here.


No.



dojibear said:


> I have heard this rule before: "use a perfect tense if the past event clearly affects the present"


That is a misrepresentation of the guidance.
I have killed a bug in the last year.
I had killed a bug before I got married.
In both of those sentences the action of killing a bug has a relevance to the present. That is, the time period during which the bug was killed extends into the present - in the second the relevant "present" is, of course, in the past.


----------



## dojibear

Andygc said:


> In both of those sentences the action of killing a bug has a relevance to the present. That is, the time period during which the bug was killed extends into the present



Thank you, Andygc! This confused me for a long time. I did not understand that "has a relevance to the present" or "affects the present" simply means that "the time period extends into the present".


----------



## cointi

dojibear said:


> I have heard this rule before: "use a perfect tense if the past event clearly affects the present". But I have only heard it in the forum. And I believe it is 100% false. It may be a useful style guide for English learners, but that is just a guess. It certainly is not what "past perfect" means and not what "present perfect" means.



I agree - it is not what "past perfect" means. But I still believe that the easiest way to explain why we say "I have broken my leg (so I cannot go skiing with you guys)" is to say that breaking the leg affects the present. The action of breaking the leg is definitely finished, but the effects can be clearly felt in the present. The breaking itself does not extend into the present.




dojibear said:


> Those tenses talk about when something happened. The rules for using them are the same, even for events that have *no* effect on the present. For example:



Sure, that's why we say "I've been to Paris many times", even if it has no effect on the present. The time frame (my life) is unfinished, hence the present perfect.


----------



## cointi

dojibear said:


> Apparently you mis-understood my reasoning. I was replying to this statement of yours, which I quoted:
> 
> This statement was about *one* event (PM May chose to call the election), not about a pair of events. My reply was that it is not "good practice" to use past perfect about a single event in the past.
> 
> In this new example, you have two past events described in the same sentence. Using past perfect for the earlier event, and past for the later event, is normal grammer. It also "tells the reader" one thing happened before the other (it "draws attention" to the time order).
> 
> 
> The two events (at different times) in this sentence are not "being shocked" and "something shocking you". They are "We discovered graffiti on the door" and "someone graffitied the door". Those events could be hours apart. If only one event was mentioned, or only one was mentioned in each sentence, simple past could be used. When you mention both in the same sentence, you use past perfect for one.




Thank you, it's a very clear explanation.


----------



## cointi

Andygc said:


> No.
> 
> That is a misrepresentation of the guidance.
> I have killed a bug in the last year.
> I had killed a bug before I got married.
> 
> In both of those sentences the action of killing a bug has a relevance to the present. That is, the time period during which the bug was killed extends into the present - in the second the relevant "present" is, of course, in the past.



I have killed a bug in the last year. - does it mean "within the last 365 days"? Then sure.

I had killed a bug before I got married. - I'm not sure here: how is it relevant to the then-present? I mean: does the period extend here? Why? Just because I want to emphasize that I had had this experience (already) when I was getting married?


----------



## cointi

Andygc said:


> No.



Almost every single grammar book that I have read has said that the present perfect should be used for recent events (especially with "just"). Is it not true?


----------



## london calling

Giesiek said:


> I believe in British English the present perfect would be preferred here.


Yes, 'I've just taken my dog for a walk'. 


Giesiek said:


> Almost every single grammar book that I have read has said that the present perfect should be used for recent events (especially with "just"). Is it not true?


Definitely not. That may be true for other European languages (Italian, for example) but not for English. Have a look at this:

_John.: Have you spoken to Jane about the meeting tomorrow?
Tim.: Yes, she *phoned me a moment ago* to confirm._

Would you not class 'a moment ago' as a recent event? And yet we use the simple past: the present perfect would be incorrect here because we are talking about a completed action in the past. The same goes for '..who *chose* to call the election...'.


----------



## cointi

london calling said:


> Yes, 'I've just taken my dog for a walk'.
> 
> Definitely not. That may be true for other European languages (Italian, for example) but not for English. Have a look at this:
> 
> _John.: Have you spoken to Jane about the meeting tomorrow?
> Tim.: Yes, she *phoned me a moment ago* to confirm._
> 
> Would you not class 'a moment ago' as a recent event? And yet we use the simple past: the present perfect would be incorrect here because we are talking about a completed action in the past. The same goes for '..who *chose* to call the election...'.



In the context you have chosen, the past simple should obviously be used. We specify when it happened and provide details as well, putting it into a narrative frame.

But something made you say that it should read "I've just taken my dog for a walk". What was it?


----------



## london calling

Giesiek said:


> But something made you say that it should read "I've just taken my dog for a walk". What was it?





sdgraham said:


> "I just took my dog for a walk."



That said, the tense you use it depends what you mean and on the context. For example, if  'just' means 'recently' I would use the present perfect:

Kate: "Fancy a walk?"
Lee:  "Not really. I've just taken the dog for a walk and I'm a bit tired."

On the other hand if  'just'  means 'only' the simple past is fine:

(Apprehensive) Mother: " How many times do I have to tell you to let me know where you are and what you're doing. I was worried sick about you!"
(Unthinking) Son: " I just took the dog for a walk. What's wrong with that?"


----------



## cointi

london calling said:


> That said, the tense you use it depends what you mean and on the context. For example, if  'just' means 'recently' I would use the present perfect:
> 
> Kate: "Fancy a walk?"
> Lee:  "Not really. I've just taken the dog for a walk and I'm a bit tired."
> 
> On the other hand if  'just'  means 'only' the simple past is fine:
> 
> (Apprehensive) Mother: " How many times do I have to tell you to let me know where you are and what you're doing. I was worried sick about you!"
> (Unthinking) Son: " I just took the dog for a walk. What's wrong with that?"



I couldn't agree more. Thank you. Grammar rules must be simplified to be usable, which sometimes leads to misunderstandings. I'm glad to see that we are on the same page after all.


----------



## Andygc

london calling said:


> Yes, 'I've just taken my dog for a walk'.


Obviously, from my previous post, I disagree. Both sentences are normal in BE and it is not a case of one being preferred unless there is relevant context, and sdgraham's post had no context to make the present perfect preferable.

london calling's examples in post #21 demonstrate my point about "a relevance to the present". However, the choice doesn't depend on the meaning of "just". Here it also means "recently":

Kate: "I just took the dog for a walk. Fancy going to the pub now?"
Lee: "Yes."

That is a simple statement of a completed past event, so it does not need the present perfect. I would not expect Kate to say "I've just taken the dog for a walk" unless there was some prior context that made it preferable:

Lee: "That dog lies around too much."
Kate: "I've just taken it for a walk. Fancy going to the pub now?"
Lee: "Yes."

Even there, the preference is quite weak, and it could easily be "I just took it for a walk."

Lee: "That dog needs a walk."
Kate: "I've just taken it for a walk. Fancy going to the pub now?"
Lee: "Yes.

There the present perfect is, I think, necessary.


----------



## dojibear

Edit: I agree with all Andygc's comments, especially the idea that one tense is never "preferred" -- they just have different meanings. My only disagreement is about the comment I quote here, and even in this comment he may be right about BE. I am only talking about AE.



Andygc said:


> Lee: "That dog needs a walk."
> Kate: "I've just taken it for a walk. Fancy going to the pub now?"
> Lee: "Yes.
> 
> There the present perfect is, I think, necessary.



In AE, either sentence is perfectly fine here:
Kate: I've just taken it for a walk.
Kate: I just took it for a walk.

In fact, if Kate was reacting to Lee's implied criticism ("you should walk it more often") she would say emphatically:

Kate: I just *took *it for a walk!

I think for many sentences either present perfect or simple past is "correct" and "idiomatic". For some of these, the meaning is the same with either tense. For others, switching tenses changes the meaning.


----------



## cointi

Andygc said:


> Kate: "I just took the dog for a walk. Fancy going to the pub now?"
> Lee: "Yes."
> 
> That is a simple statement of a completed past event, so it does not need the present perfect. I would not expect Kate to say "I've just taken the dog for a walk" unless there was some prior context that made it preferable:
> 
> Lee: "That dog lies around too much."
> Kate: "I've just taken it for a walk. Fancy going to the pub now?"
> Lee: "Yes."
> 
> Even there, the preference is quite weak, and it could easily be "I just took it for a walk."
> 
> Lee: "That dog needs a walk."
> Kate: "I've just taken it for a walk. Fancy going to the pub now?"
> Lee: "Yes.
> 
> There the present perfect is, I think, necessary.




Could you please explain the implicit meaning in the third example that makes the present perfect necessary (as opposed to the second example)?


----------



## cointi

dojibear said:


> I think for many sentences either present perfect or simple past is "correct" and "idiomatic". For some of these, the meaning is the same with either tense. For others, switching tenses changes the meaning.



Could you please think of a sentence that would illustrate how the tense changes the meaning?


----------



## dojibear

Giesiek said:


> I had killed a bug before I got married. - I'm not sure here: how is it relevant to the then-present? I mean: does the period extend here? Why? Just because I want to emphasize that I had had this experience (already) when I was getting married?



It isn't "relevant to the then-present". Remember, I was disagreeing with that rule, and this was an example. It does not have to "be relevant to the present" to use a perfect tense in English. That was my point in picking this example. 

I didn't want to "emphasize" something: I wanted to "say" something. I wanted to say that I had killed a bug before I got married.


----------



## cointi

dojibear, I was quoting Andygc. He was the one to talk about relevance. I happen to agree with you here.


----------



## wandle

Giesiek said:


> Why did the writer go for *chose? *Wouldn't* had chosen* or *have chosen* be more suitable here?


The writer is simply presenting the event as a fact in its own right, not as a step in a narrative sequence. The past tense is the right and natural one. The statement resembles an accusation against her.


----------



## cointi

wandle said:


> The writer is simply presenting the event as a fact in its own right, not as a step in a narrative sequence. The past tense is right and natural one. The statement resembles an accusation against her.



Thank you so much!


----------



## Andygc

There has to be a reason to use the present and past perfect. That reason is that there is some relevance between 'now' and the past event. That doesn't mean that you *have to *use the perfect in all such cases.


dojibear said:


> In AE, either sentence is perfectly fine here:
> Kate: I've just taken it for a walk.
> Kate: I just took it for a walk.


As i just said, there's no 'have to' about using the present perfect there,  but in that particular case the preference in BE is so strongly for the perfect tense that I think it is needed. I don't think a BE speaker would use the simple past. Note that I'm presenting this as a simple conversation with no implied criticism.

I killed a bug before I got married. A simple statement of a past event
I had killed a bug before I got married. Now why did he say that? For some reason he is connecting killing a bug with his marriage. I don't know why because there is no context,  but there is a connection otherwise he would have said "I killed a bug before I got married".


----------



## dojibear

Thank you for this clear explanation, Andygc. I don't fully understand yet, but I understand that I'm missing something.

Here is a realistic example of the bug sentence: "Ever since Bob and Jane got married, Bob was the bug-killer in the family. Jane had killed lots of bugs herself before she got married, but now she always asked Bob to do it." Clearly the sentence is comparing Jane's single and married behavior. And clearly "had killed" could be simple past tense ("killed") and be correct. In fact, I wouldn't notice any difference in meaning. So perhaps this isn't a good example -- perhaps it isn't a sentence where people would prefer to say "had killed". 

But I don't want to sidetrack this thread just to educate me. I learn new things in this forum every week.


----------



## wandle

dojibear said:


> Jane had killed lots of bugs herself before she got married, but now she always asked Bob to do it.


'Had killed' is the right and natural tense here. Unlike the topic sentence, it is giving the action its place within the narrative sequence.


----------



## Andygc

wandle said:


> Had killed' is the right and natural tense here.


in BE, but not necessarily in AE, as dojibear has made clear.


dojibear said:


> And clearly "had killed" could be simple past tense ("killed") and be correct. In fact, I wouldn't notice any difference in meaning.


That may be just dojibear's version of AE, or it may be shared with other AE speakers. We can only know with any degree of confidence the BE norm, which is to use the past perfect.


----------



## wandle

I do not believe there are two languages, British and American, and I do not think it is helpful to assume there are. There are many differences in usage around the world, and treating each as a different language is liable to increase the differences and reduce the value of English as a world tongue.

For the purpose of a forum such as this, where people of all nations come to learn, we should I believe aim to promote a common norm based, among other criteria, on the principle of maintaining the richness of meaning and distinctions which the language presents.

In the present case, there is a clear difference between the examples given in post 1 and post 32. *Giesieck's* 'chose' and *dojibear's* 'had killed' are typical, indeed classic instances of the past tense and the past perfect respectively.

That makes them excellent teaching examples for the difference between the tenses and they make this too good an opportunity to throw that benefit away.

It is true that sometimes people talk as if there were only one past tense, to be used for all past situations, but that is not good English and it is not what I believe most learners come to the forum for.

It is possible that this reductive tendency is more common in the US than the UK, but that would be hard to prove. I do not believe it is exclusive to one or the other.


----------



## Andygc

A bit of a straw man there,  I see. Nobody said there are two languages.

You might not think there are at least two variants of English, but this forum regularly demonstrates characteristic varieties of vocabulary, spelling and usage that are identifiable as American or British. "Rolling a fag" has a benign meaning in BE: I'm not sure how it would be interpreted in America. If I use an American "rubber" on my chalkboard, I doubt much chalk would be rubbed off. "Gotten" dropped out of BE many generations ago. The list is long and goes well beyond Americans spelling "color" the way Shakespeare did.

PS. I forgot to mention that "ginger nuts" are one of the most popular biscuits in Britain - or did I mean "cookies"?


----------



## wandle

The various vocabulary differences between the UK and the US are interesting and often entertaining, but seem rather beside the point here.


----------



## kentix

_Dojibear: Jane had killed lots of bugs herself before she got married, but now she always asked Bob to do it.

Wandle: 'Had killed' is the right and natural tense here.

Andy: in BE, but not necessarily in AE, as dojibear has made clear._

As an AE speaker, I have a clear preference for "had killed" in this instance. ...For what it's worth.


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> Nobody said there are two languages.


 How true. The problem is that the terms 'British English' and 'American English' and their abbreviations can create the impression of two languages, which in turn can mislead learners. In a forum such as this, I think those terms are better avoided.


----------



## Andygc

kentix, just a small point, you seem to have misrepresented dojibear's input





dojibear said:


> And clearly "had killed" could be simple past tense ("killed") and be correct. In fact, I wouldn't notice any difference in meaning. So perhaps this isn't a good example -- perhaps it isn't a sentence where people would prefer to say "had killed".


That's why I said "_as dojibear has made clear".


wandle said:



			The problem is that the terms 'British English' and 'American English' and their abbreviations can create the impression of two languages
		
Click to expand...

So what do you suggest we say to highlight the clear differences that sometimes exist between British, American and Indian varieties of English? They are not restricted to vocabulary and spelling, but include usage (as I already said, but you appear to have ignored)._


----------



## wandle

I try to use expressions such as 'in the UK', 'in American usage' etc.


----------



## Andygc

So you describe them as two clearly identifiable and separate varieties of English. How does that differ from AE and BE, which describe them as two clearly identifiable and separate varieties of English?

We won't agree.


----------



## wandle

The difference is that the terms 'American English', ' British English', 'AE' and 'BE' allow people to infer that there are two languages, exaggerating the difference. I have noticed a number of times that some users of the forum have tended to do that and concluded that a rigid difference existed where in fact it was no more than a difference in frequency of a particular usage.


----------



## wandle

Andygc said:


> So you describe them as two clearly identifiable and separate varieties of English.


That is not how I see it. There are differences in vocabulary and usage, but it is essentially one language. It is easy to overstate difference, because we notice it readily, while similarity tends to pass unnoticed, simply because it is similar.

One of the things I have learned on this forum is that the differences are less marked than I had thought.  My suggestion is to do what is possible to reduce differences, rather than increase them, for the sake of maintaining a common world language.


----------

