# Did you notice that I <had> italicized the names



## JJXR

Hello to all,

Thanks for reading my post.


*Source:*

Perfect English Grammar by Grant Barret.

*Context:*

The author gives some examples in which certain words are italicized. Then, the sentence below follows.

*Sample sentence:*

Did you notice that I <*had*> italicized the names of some of the proper nouns in this section? In most US guides, names of newspapers, musical recording, television shows, movies, and museum exhibits are italicized.

*Question:*

The bolded "had" isn't used in the source. Would it be correct to include it?


Thanks a lot for any comments, corrections or suggestions!

Regards,
JJXR


----------



## dojibear

No. It is not correct to use pluperfect (past perfect, "had") in this sentence. Simple past is correct.

You only use pluperfect when comparing 2 past actions, to say that one of the actions happened before the other one. This sentence only has one action.


----------



## PaulQ

Had is only necessary if the sentence had a second action: "Did you notice that I *had* italicized the names of some of the proper nouns in this section and then changed them to uppercase/and then changed them back"

(Crossposted)


----------



## e2efour

dojibear said:


> No. It is not correct to use pluperfect (past perfect, "had") in this sentence. Simple past is correct.
> 
> You only use pluperfect when comparing 2 past actions, to say that one of the actions happened before the other one. This sentence only has one action.


How can the past perfect be _incorrect?_ What about _By year end he had earned two billion dollars _or _She admitted that she had lied to the police_?
There is only one action in these sentences.


----------



## DonnyB

I don't think the pluperfect is correct there: from what I can see of it online, the whole book is written in the _present_ tense (as evidenced by "*are* italicized" at the end of that sentence).

"Did you notice that I *have* italicized..." would work for me.


----------



## bennymix

PaulQ said:


> Had is only necessary if the sentence had a second action: "Did you notice that I *had* italicized the names of some of the proper nouns in this section and then changed them to uppercase/and then changed them back"
> 
> (Crossposted)



Granted.  You gave a situation where 'had' is necessary.   Here it's not.  But is its presence a grammatical error, or just sloppy, bad, or graceless writing?

I see e2e has raised the same point (I think).

JJXR:  Note that I'm agreeing with the above posters.  I don't approve of your adding 'had';  I'm just trying to clarify the issue.


----------



## alexl57

Adding "had" is "incorrect" in that it forces the reader to search for the past reference point, but there is none in the sentence OP gave. In my view, it confuses more than it helps.
In the two examples given by e2efour, the first provides such a reference point (the end of the year), and the other is back-shifting required by the reporting verb in the main (matrix) clause (where the reference point is the time of utterance in the past).


----------



## bennymix

alexl57 said:


> Adding "had" is "incorrect" in that it forces the reader to search for the past reference point, but there is none in the sentence OP gave. In my view, it confuses more than it helps.
> In the two examples given by e2efour, the first provides such a reference point (the end of the year), and the other is back-shifting required by the reporting verb in the main (matrix) clause (where the reference point is the time of utterance in the past).



If there is context, there will be other actions.   Likely in the past tense.   Even if they were present tense, a reference point would be established.

I come into the room.   I look around.   I had forgotten my glasses.   I couldn't see any details, nor any bugs on the floor.


----------



## JJXR

Thank you all for the responses.

The two actions are:

(1) The author italicized the words.
(2) The reader noticed the italicized words.

What if I were to remove the words "in this section", would the past perfect work:

_(2) Did you notice that (1) I *had italicized* the names of some of the proper nouns *in this section*? In most US guides, names of newspapers, musical recording, television shows, movies, and museum exhibits are italicized.
_
Or should it still be:

_(2) Did you notice that (1) I *italicized* the names of some of the proper nouns *in this section*? In most US guides, names of newspapers, musical recording, television shows, movies, and museum exhibits are italicized._


----------



## bennymix

Asked and answered.    No 'had'.


----------



## DonnyB

I don't see why removing "in this section" should make any difference. 

The author is still referring to the words which he <has/had> italicized.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks bennymix and DonnyB.


DonnyB said:


> "Did you notice that I *have* italicized..." would work for me.


What do you think about the combinations of tenses below:

*Do* you notice that I *have* italicized...
*Have* you noticed that I *have* italicized...

According to the sequence of tenses rule, the bolded tenses in the two sentences above are in agreement.

Is "*Did* you notice that I *have* italicized..." equivalent to "*Do* you notice that I *have* italicized...", I mean, does "*Did* you notice..." use the past tense form "did" but actually refer to the present the same way as "*Do* you notice..." does? If that is the case, then I understand why it is not necessary to backshift "*have* italicized" to "*had* italicized".


----------



## JJXR

e2efour said:


> How can the past perfect be _incorrect?_ What about _By year end he had earned two billion dollars _or _She admitted that she had lied to the police_?
> There is only one action in these sentences.


Here's another example:

_I didn't even notice that I *had bought* a model that was made in 2013.
Did I even notice that I *had bought* a model that was made in 2013?_

The above example can be reworded to match the topic of the sentence in post #1:

_I didn't even notice that Grant Barret *had italicized* the names of some of the proper nouns.
Did I even notice that Grant Barret *had italicized* the names of some of the proper nouns?_


----------



## e2efour

The comment made by alexl57 in #7 seems to be a useful contribution to this question.

In the example in #1 I agree that the use of the past perfect does not seem appropriate.

In general, however, the use of the past perfect throws back the action in time. Context is therefore important.
If the action takes place recently you are much less likely to use this tense.

For example, someone has just entered the room (the "here and now"). So you are more likely to say _I didn't even notice [just now] that someone (has) entered the room._
If you are talking about a situation that occurred some time ago, you are more likely to use the past perfect (_I didn't notice [at the time] that someone had entered the room_). The emphasis is on a past occurrence rather than on something that happened at the time. But both _had entered_ and _entered_ are possible_. _The choice of tense is then a matter of style.
The same applies if there is an implied sentence (which does not appear in the text), such as _Did you notice that someone had come into the room [before you began to speak]?_ The past simple is more likely if you say _before you began to speak_, since there is no ambiguity there. But ambiguity would exist if you said _Did you notice that someone came into the room when you began to speak?
_
It may be that backshifting is more likely because of _Did you notice that ... _But I see no difference in the use of _had bought_ and _bought _in your sentence in #13 (_that I had bought a model (that was) made in 2013_).
I am not sure that the use of _didn't even notice_ makes any difference.

If a cereal manufacturer has changed the amount of sugar in their product, which of the following are you more likely to say?
1) _I wasn't aware/I didn't know that they had reduced the sugar content of the product.
2) I wasn't aware/I didn't know that they reduced the sugar content of the product.
_
I would personally choose sentence 1). But a context could be created for either sentence. They don't seem to me to mean exactly the same thing.

[By the way there seems to be something unnatural about _Did I even notice that I had bought a model that was made in 2013?_]


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, e2efour.

What about the following versions, do they work in the context provided in post #1:

1.* Do*_ you *notice* that I *(**have) italicized* the names of some of the proper nouns in this section? In most US guides, names of newspapers, musical recording, television shows, movies, and museum exhibits are italicized._

2.* Have*_ you *noticed* that I *(**have) italicized* the names of some of the proper nouns in this section? In most US guides, names of newspapers, musical recording, television shows, movies, and museum exhibits are italicized._


----------



## e2efour

I think sentence 2. is more natural (with _I italicized_).

In sentence 1. I would probably say _Can/Do you see that ...
_
But you are probably more interested in _I (have) italicized, _which seems ok in  sentence 1. In sentence 2. I don't like the repetition of _have _very much.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks e2efour.


----------



## se16teddy

JJXR said:


> The two actions are:
> (1) The author italicized the words.
> (2) The reader noticed the italicized words.


The past perfect tense is use to *emphasize or clarify* that a past event happened before another past event. (Also to signal reported speech, in conditional sentences, etc.)

There is no relevant issue here around whether the italicization happened before or after the noticing. There is therefore nothing to emphasize or clarify.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, se16teddy.


----------



## Englishmypassion

While I wouldn't use the pluperfect in the sentence in the OP, I understand why JJXR considered that. "Did you notice" may refer to noticing in the past, as opposed to just having noticed, and the action of italicizing took place before that. (More understandable for BE speakers, I think, who use the simple past for past actions and the present perfect for the ones in the immediate past.)

*Another example *
_Editor: Did you take a look at the edited manuscript I mailed you 2 weeks ago?
Author: Yes, I did, last week, and (technically) accepted all your suggestions. But I'm sorry I reverted the font to the original one. 
Editor: Oh, so you did notice I had changed the font. _


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Englishmypassion.


----------



## Forero

In the original sentence, I would use past simple or present perfect, not past perfect. And neither deleting "in this section" nor adding "and then ..." affects my choice:
_
Did you notice that I italicized some of the proper nouns (in this section) (and then changed them to uppercase).
Did you notice that I *have* italicized some of the proper nouns (in this section) (and then changed them to uppercase)?
Did you notice that I *had* italicized some of the proper nouns (in this section) (and then changed them to uppercase)?_ [Before what?]

I agree with Se16teddy about the reason:





se16teddy said:


> There is no relevant issue here around whether the italicization happened before or after the noticing. There is therefore nothing to emphasize or clarify.


The following examples that have been offered use past perfect to emphasize or clarify:

_By year end he had earned two billion dollars.
She admitted that she had lied to the police_?

_I came into the room. I looked around. I had forgotten my glasses. I couldn't see any details, or any bugs on the floor.
I come into the room. I look around. I have forgotten my glasses. I can't see any details, or any bugs on the floor.
I come into the room. I look around. I had forgotten my glasses. I couldn't see any details, or any bugs on the floor._ [Historical present in the first two sentences]





JJXR said:


> Thanks bennymix and DonnyB.
> 
> What do you think about the combinations of tenses below:
> 
> *Do* you notice that I *have* italicized...
> *Have* you noticed that I *have* italicized...


"Do you notice ...?" is an odd question (I agree with E2efour's alternatives), and the second sentence suggests you are referring to multiple occasions. Why else would you need two present perfects in such a sentence?





> According to the sequence of tenses rule, the bolded tenses in the two sentences above are in agreement.
> 
> Is "*Did* you notice that I *have* italicized..." equivalent to "*Do* you notice that I *have* italicized...", I mean, does "*Did* you notice..." use the past tense form "did" but actually refer to the present the same way as "*Do* you notice..." does?


No.





Englishmypassion said:


> While I wouldn't use the pluperfect in the sentence in the OP, I understand why JJXR considered that. "Did you notice" may refer to noticing in the past, as opposed to just having noticed, and the action of italicizing took place before that. (More understandable for BE speakers, I think, who use the simple past for past actions and the present perfect for the ones in the immediate past.)
> 
> *Another example *
> _Editor: Did you take a look at the edited manuscript I mailed you 2 weeks ago?
> Author: Yes, I did, last week, and (technically) accepted all your suggestions. But I'm sorry I reverted the font to the original one.
> Editor: Oh, so you did notice I had changed the font. _


It does not matter to me whether we are talking about years, months, weeks, or minutes:

_Editor: Did you ever look at the edited manuscript I mailed you 2 years ago?_ [not _had mailed_]
_Author: Yes, I did, last year, and (technically) accepted all your suggestions. But I'm sorry I reverted the font to the original one.
Editor: Oh, so you did notice I had changed the font. _[before I mailed it, which was before you looked at it, which was before you reverted it]

_Editor: Did you take a look at the edited manuscript I mailed you 2 minutes ago?_ [not _had mailed_]
_Author: Yes, I did, just now, and (technically) accepted all your suggestions. But I'm sorry I reverted the font to the original one.
Editor: Oh, so you did notice I had changed the font._ [before I mailed it, which was before you looked at it, which was before you reverted it]


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, Forero.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Forero said:


> No.It does not matter to me whether we are talking about years, months, weeks, or minutes:



Exactly. I just gave that example with two weeks ago just to avoid the confusion as AE speakers often use the simple past where BE speakers would have used the present perfect (to reger to something just completed) but you're right that doesn't matter really as long as there are two sequential incidents in the past.


----------



## sound shift

Re. the OP:

"Did you notice that I italicized some of the proper nouns in this section?" To me this means "Did you see me do this?"

"Did you notice that I had italicized some of the proper nouns in this section?" To me this means "Did you see that some of the proper nouns were italicized as a result of what I had done earlier?"


----------



## JJXR

Is the past perfect tense "had italicized" natural in the sentence below:

_When you were reading my book yesterday, did you notice that I *had italicized* the names of some of the proper nouns in this section?_


----------



## sound shift

JJXR said:


> Is the past perfect tense "had italicized" natural in the sentence below:
> 
> _When you were reading my book yesterday, did you notice that I *had italicized* the names of some of the proper nouns in this section?_


It sounds natural to me.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, sound shift.


----------



## Ivan_I

The things which make me puzzled.



PaulQ said:


> Had is only necessary if the sentence had a second action: "Did you notice that I *had* italicized the names of some of the proper nouns in this section and then changed them to uppercase/and then changed them back"



How come it doesn't have two actions?

Did you *notice *(1) that I (had) *italicized *(2)


Forero said:


> _Did you notice that I *had* italicized some of the proper nouns (in this section) (and then changed them to uppercase)?_ [Before what?]


Before you noticed.



DonnyB said:


> "Did you notice that I *have* italicized..." would work for me.


Is it standard? I thought these were better:

Have you noticed that I have italicized...
or
Did you notice that I had italicized...

This sounds very logical to me


sound shift said:


> Re. the OP:
> 
> "Did you notice that I italicized some of the proper nouns in this section?" To me this means "Did you see me do this?"
> 
> "Did you notice that I had italicized some of the proper nouns in this section?" To me this means "Did you see that some of the proper nouns were italicized as a result of what I had done earlier?"




To me "Did you notice that I did something" sounds as if two actions happened at the same time which is not the case.
or if we move it to the present we will get

I notice that he does it.  (not what OP meant) we need
I notice that he has done it.


----------



## Myridon

The words were italicized when the book was written. It's not something that the author did just before you read them.   We don't consider the writing of the book to be an event that needs to be put in order with the reading of the book.  The author doesn't need to use a tense to clarify the fact that he wrote the book including the italicized words long before you read it.


----------



## Ivan_I

Myridon said:


> The words were italicized when the book was written. It's not something that the author did just before you read them.   We don't consider the writing of the book to be an event that needs to be put in order with the reading of the book.  The author doesn't need to use a tense to clarify the fact that he wrote the book including the italicized words long before you read it.


1) OK, I can see you point. But is it really "WRONG" to use the past perfect or unnatural?
2) So, if it was another type of action, e.g. "Did you notice what I just *produced* out of my pocket?" or "Did you notice what I *had* just *produced* out of my pocket?" what tense would fit?
3) Can you comment on this:

*"Did you notice that I have italicized..."* how come it can  be in line with the OP sentence? It clearly shows that the action is recent? Plus the combination of the tenses is weird.


----------



## Myridon

Ivan_I said:


> It clearly shows that the action is recent?


No.  It shows that the action has an effect on the present.  The words are still italicized.  I italicized them then so that you can see them now.  I have lost my keys with the effect that I am locked out now (even if it's five years later because I'm too cheap to hire a locksmith).


----------



## Ivan_I

Myridon said:


> No.  It shows that the action has an effect on the present.  The words are still italicized.  I italicized them then so that you can see them now.  I have lost my keys with the effect that I am locked out now (even if it's five years later because I'm too cheap to hire a locksmith).


OK. Let it be. It still has an effect on the present. Then why does it have to start with "did you notice"? If the effect is still in the present why does the person have to notice it in the past? I am just thinking... It's like to say "Did you notice (yesterday) that I have just done it"? A bit murky.... to be honest... 

Well, if you have the time, I would be happy to have you answer the other questions in post 31


----------



## newname

Perhaps, it’s polite to ask ‘did you notice’. It’s another way of saying ‘you’re brilliant you have already seen that.


----------



## Myridon

The italicized words were earlier in the text. You read them in the past and that is when you would have noticed that the words were italicized - in the past.


----------



## Ivan_I

Myridon said:


> The italicized words were earlier in the text. You read them in the past and that is when you would have noticed that the words were italicized - in the past.


It's understood that it should be in the past, I mean - reading. However, there are different pasts. The problem here is that we have two pasts.

1 Did you notice (in the past)  that I did something (in the past). 

At first, it looks like the two pasts happened at the same time which puzzles. We can see it when transferring it into the present.

1 Do you notice (in the present)  that I do something (in the present). 

I can see the reasoning of Myridon, but still this is not clear.

"Did you notice what I just *produced* out of my pocket?" or "Did you notice what I *had *just *produced* out of my pocket?" what tense would fit?


----------



## Ivan_I

Myridon said:


> The italicized words were earlier in the text. You read them in the past and that is when you would have noticed that the words were italicized - in the past.


*1) Did you notice that the names of some of the proper nouns were italicized?  

*1a) Did you notice (when you were reading) that the names of some of the proper nouns were italicized?

*2) Did you notice (when you were reading) that I *italicized *the names of some of the proper nouns in this section? (    )

It means that "When you were reading the article I *italicized *the names of.... " (  )

*3)  Did you notice (when you were reading) that I had italicized the names of some of the proper nouns in this section?

I can't see how the majority of the contributors see 2 as fitting... Very confusing...


----------



## Forero

With the original sentence, the speaker thinks of "I italicized the names ..." as a fact and asks whether it was noticed. There is no "when".

It makes a difference when you add "when you were reading", especially if you make "when you were reading" part of the "I italicized" clause.

_When you were reading, did you notice that I italicized ...?_
_Did you notice when you were reading that I italicized ...?_ [better with "had italicized"]
_Did you notice that I italicized ... when you were reading?_


----------



## se16teddy

Ivan_I said:


> I can't see how the majority of the contributors see 2 as fitting... Very confusing...


The past perfect is used to *emphasize or clarify *that the past action happened before another relevant past action. I don’t see that any emphasis or clarification is needed here. What areas of potential doubt or confusion do you see?


----------



## Ivan_I

se16teddy said:


> The past perfect is used to *emphasize or clarify *that the past action happened before another relevant past action. I don’t see that any emphasis or clarification is needed here. What areas of potential doubt or confusion do you see?


The confusing area is the chronological correlation between the two actions which are "notice" and "_italicize". _

There are two possible chronological combinations.
1 *Noticing *and *italicizing *took place at the same time.
PAST ----------------*Noticing*---------------NOW---------------FUTURE
PAST ----------------*Italicizing *-------------NOW---------------FUTURE

The first combination can unequivocally be conveyed by this construction:
*1) Did you notice me *_*italicize the...?*_


2 *Noticing *took place after *italicizing *was done.
PAST -----------------*Noticing*-----------NOW---------------FUTURE
PAST --*Italicizing *----------------------- NOW---------------FUTURE

The second combination clearly shows that one action happens BEFORE the other which is _usually _emphasized by *the past perfect*. But the majority of the contributors *do all* to reject this alternative. I don't understand why. It's very logical to put it this way:
*2) Did you notice that I had *_*italicized the...?
(Did you notice (yesterday) that I had italicized the nouns (three days ago)? *_

But the folks insist that it should be:

3) *Did you notice that I *_*italicized the...? *_
However, this sentence more likely conveys the first combination: *Did you notice me *_*italicize the...?*_
Why would "that I _italicized" have happened before "I noticed" and even if it could, the first interpretation would still remain as an unremovable one._


----------



## se16teddy

I don’t think it makes any sense in the context for the italicizing to happen after the noticing. I am not sure if it makes sense in the context for the noticing and the italicizing to happen at the same time, but if it did we would use the continuous aspect to signal simultaneity: _Did you notice that I was italicizing ...._


----------



## Forero

Ivan_I said:


> ...
> The first combination can unequivocally be conveyed by this construction:
> *1) Did you notice me *_*italicize the...?*_
> ...


That is not valid.

_Did you see me italicize ...?
Did you notice me italicize ...?_

To notice that I italicized the nouns, you have to see those nouns already in italics.


----------



## loviii

PaulQ said:


> Had is only necessary if the sentence had a second action: "Did you notice that I *had* italicized the names of some of the proper nouns in this section and then changed them to uppercase/and then changed them back"


We have two sentences:
the OP's one where "_had_" is unnatural:
_Did you notice that I italicized the names of some of the proper nouns in this section_?​and the longer one where "_had_" is necessary:
_Did you notice that I had italicized the names of some of the proper nouns in this section and then changed them back_?​
To me, there is no difference between them. Why, then, does "_had_" suddenly appear in the longer sentence?

Thanks!


----------



## JJXR

Forero said:


> To *notice* that I *italicized* the nouns, you *have* to see those nouns already in italics.


In this case, italicizing the nouns is earlier in time than both noticing them and having to see them already in italics. 

If I backshift the tenses in that statement, is the following correct:

_To *have noticed* that I *had* *italicized* the nouns, you *had* to see those nouns already in italics._

In this case, is it still true that italicizing the nouns is earlier in time than both noticing them and having to see them already in italics?


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> In this case, italicizing the nouns is earlier in time than both noticing them and having to see them already in italics.
> 
> If I backshift the tenses in that statement, is the following correct:
> 
> _To *have noticed* that I *had* *italicized* the nouns, you *had* to see those nouns already in italics._
> 
> In this case, is it still true that italicizing the nouns is earlier in time than both noticing them and having to see them already in italics?


That's a mess, but it seems to put the noticing before the having to see.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Forero.

I think I should have written:

_To *notice* that I *had italicized* the nouns, you *had* to see those nouns already in italics._

My point is that "had intalicized" places the italicizing before both the noticing and the having to see.


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Thanks for the response, Forero.
> 
> I think I should have written:
> 
> _To *notice* that I *had italicized* the nouns, you *had* to see those nouns already in italics._
> 
> My point is that "had intalicized" places the italicizing before both the noticing and the having to see.


That's right.


----------



## lentulax

JJXR - it's a long and laboured thread, but I agree with you - 'Did you notice that I *had* italicised etc' is perfectly acceptable (it doesn't mean 'I italicised' is wrong); of course there are two actions and one precedes the other . As you'll know, in English we often don't bother with the past perfect, even where it's logical and perfectly permissible; that sort of fluidity of usage is common English. The objection raised appears to be that the past perfect is only used when you want to stress that one past action happened before the other; this is a new one to me. It might be sensible to say that, if we *wish* to stress this , or if it is *necessary* to do so, then we *should* use the past perfect for the earlier action; but this is entirely different from saying that we should ONLY use it in those circumstances. The fact that, if we don't have to, we often don't bother to doesn't make it *wrong.*


----------



## Ivan_I

lentulax said:


> JJXR - it's a long and laboured thread, but...


Words of wisdom. (I mean the whole post)


----------

