Grammar question!

[cerebovssquire]

Which one is correct?

1)

  Code:

Eliza's father had bought it in an antique shop when she was four years old

or

2)

  Code:

Eliza's father had bought it in an antique shop when she had been four years old

or something else? Does anyone have any idea to make the sentence more elegant (besides the obvious "twelve years ago"-like wordings)? Something seems weird about the "had bought" and "was" in one sentence (two different tenses?) but maybe it's just me. The second version seems more consistent but also sounds wrong.

(also, if anyone makes "jokes" about Eliza's father buying an artefact in an antique shop when she was/had been XL 4...)

[pratamawirya]

Take this with many grains of salt since I'm not a native speaker, but... my mind says this is correct: Eliza's father bought it in an antique shop when she was four years old.

[TehDruid]

I'm not a native speaker but i'm fairly certain it's 1)

[Jabberwocky]

As a native speaker of English, and recipient of knowledge from a collage writing class I believe I can say with a certain amount of certainty that sentence 1, "Eliza's father had bought it in an antique shop when she was XL 4", is correct.

[TehDruid]

Actually 1 says "Eliza's father had bought..." You and Pratamawirya both somehow removed it or didn't see it, it seems. Or maybe I'm the only one seeing it?

[Jabberwocky]

Actually 1 says "Eliza's father had bought..." You and Pratamawirya both somehow removed it or didn't see it, it seems. Or maybe I'm the only one seeing it?

Quite right. It seems like I managed to leave it out when I typed in the sentence. I will edit my post to correct this problem.

[cerebovssquire]

Thanks, all! There seems to be a consensus here so I'll use 1).
I actually am a native speaker but was brought up bilingually (English/German). As a native speaker you don't judge stuff by rules, but look and sound of sentences, and if you constantly use two languages with two different looks and sounds, it gets confusing sometimes. Sometimes I know perfectly how to stuff in English but not in German, or, like in this case, the other way round.

[KoboldLord]

The 'had verb' construct implies that the statement was true, but is no longer true, so it's rather odd here. Saying that Eliza 'had been' four years old implies that Eliza is now dead, since otherwise she'd still be at least four years old.

[PerverseSuffering]

Eh, but doesn't Past Perfect show priority? E.g. "I had been to Zot even before you was born" shows that your presence in Zot was prior.
Past Simple shows something was done at a certain time, e.g. two days ago, yesterday, etc., and "when she was four years old" is a tense marker for Past Simple.
Why would you put Past Perfect in your sentence at all? Just Past Simple would do, I think, have mercy on your readers' mind.

[cerebovssquire]

I'm more curious what the correct usage of tenses is here, not actually intending to use it (it's not really a very aesthetic wording either way, in my opinion, using something else is better). I never know when I might need it though.
The wording does show priority, since he bought it before the time that the story is at that point, and the story is told in simple past.

[Grimm]

(written without seeing about five replies above)

Which one is correct?
1)

  Code:

Eliza's father had bought it in an antique shop when she was four years old

or
2)

  Code:

Eliza's father had bought it in an antique shop when she had been four years old

The first one is correct.

The verb form there - "had bought" - is the past perfect, or pluperfect. It is used for past actions that occurred before another past action, or that are relevant to the present context. Compare the different connotations of

  Code:

Eliza's father had bought it in an antique shop when she was four years old

and

  Code:

Eliza's father bought it in an antique shop when she was four years old

[eharper256]

As Grimm says, if you remove the 'had' from the sentance, it has a different set of connotations.

"Eliza's father bought it in an antique shop when she was four years old." implies that he is buying it now, and she is four, that it is perhaps for her 4th birthday. Obviously, if the surrounding passages imply otherwise, you can still get away with it, though.

Alternatively:
"Eliza's father bought it in an antique shop when she was just four."

Or, if Eliza is narrating first person, then I'd use the below:
"But Eliza knew, long ago, when she was four, her father had bought it from an Antiques shop."
Since that is a more clear cut way of putting it.

[pratamawirya]

(nevermind)

[Confidence Interval]

Which one is correct?

1)

  Code:

Eliza's father had bought it in an antique shop when she was four years old

I agree with the comments above that this is the better version. But the sentence is slightly odd because its subject is the father and then it refers to "she". Read literally this would mean that Eliza's father is female and that when she (i.e. father) was four she bought the item. If it said "Eliza's father had bought it... when he was four years old" this is certainly what we would understand it to mean (presumably meaning he had bought it as a boy).

I think the clearest construction would, in fact, be:
"Eliza's father had bought it in an antique shop when Eliza was four years old" - presuming that's what is meant. (I acknowledge, of course, that the genderfuck reading may have been the one you intended.)

[Grimm]

While that is somewhat true, I would suggest that the sentence as written is perfectly comprehensible and legitimate, because language, and minds, don't work hyperlogically. "Eliza" is a clearly female name, and "father" is never not male; therefore it would be a peculiar reader indeed who thought the antecedent of "she" was "father". Especially given a context which regularly used "she" to refer to Eliza.

Your corrected version is, in my view, a buying of clarity at the cost of style.

[cerebovssquire]

Yeah, when you're not explicitly using it as a stylistic device, I think repetitions of words like that are anything but aesthetic. And this sentence isn't really supposed to stand out stylistically; the reader is just supposed to understand when Eliza's father made the purchase, without the sentence being gramatically incorrect, and without it striking the reader as awkwardly worded.

[Confidence Interval]

I note the points about style over fastidious correctness but the OP did ask "which one is correct?" rather than "which one is more stylistically pleasing?" so I think I am justified, on this occasion, on pointing out that the sentence was not grammatically correct.

[Grimm]

I would dispute that. I grant that your proposal may be more correct, but sentence #1 is, at least in its original context, in no sense incorrect.

[Confidence Interval]

Is being correct a matter of gradation? I imagined it digital rather than analog: something is either correct or it is not. But perhaps that is incorrect...

[Grimm]

It would depend on the thing being assessed and its context. The correctness of a solution to a mathematical equation is digital; language, gestures, dress - these are analog.

[Confidence Interval]

So if something is not simply correct then how correct (or incorrect) can it be: very correct? exceedingly correct? infinitely correct?

In relation to language this implies radical relativism. But in any case, doesn't the idea that we can call things more or less correct imply some underlying "correct" or "incorrect" form such that our imputation of a degree of correctness indicates how close we have come to the "correct" form?

[Grimm]

Not to me. For example, say you're hosting a small cocktail party at your home. If someone shows up naked, that is clearly incorrect dress. Jeans and a t-shirt (let's assume) are less incorrect, or more correct. A casual suit with no tie would be even more correct. But there is no conceivable attire that is perfectly correct for the occasion. Of course people do say "That's the perfect outfit for tonight!". But by that something different is meant.

[JeffQyzt]

A boolean value for grammatical correctness implies that we are all speaking the same language, with the same rules. At best, though, we share a set of common landmarks in a sea of linguistic variation; "correct" use in a language is a consensus, not an absolute. It evolves over time, distance, and both cultural and individual experience.

[Confidence Interval]

If someone shows up naked, that is clearly incorrect...

In this circumstance I think we could exchange "appropriate" for "correct" - and I would think of "appropriate" as being closer to the relative and subjective sense you've described. To me, "correct" has more of the implication of a tick or cross in a schoolbook, that is with an underlying notion of there being a recognizably "right" form. I think I would be more likely to say "He was dressed inappropriately for the party" than "He was dressed incorrectly..." How would you say appropriate and correct differ? Would you use them very differently, in the area of dress or language?

we share a set of common landmarks in a sea of linguistic variation; "correct" use in a language is a consensus, not an absolute.

This is getting into philosophy of language rather than mere grammar, and I don't claim much knowledge of that. I think your comments, though, raise the question of who is involved: a consensus within which group? Not amongst, I presume, all speakers of a language. Language does change over time and space but there are, despite that, attempts to identify correct usages: plenty of books on spelling and grammar exist. If I want to identify a "correct" usage I don't appeal in some way to the consensus but look up a book. There are also widely used forms that I would call incorrect, and the fact that some consensus exists over their use - by which I mean, lots of people use them - does not make me think that they are correct: for example, "I should of known" is not uncommon but I would call it incorrect.

[JeffQyzt]

There are also widely used forms that I would call incorrect, and the fact that some consensus exists over their use - by which I mean, lots of people use them - does not make me think that they are correct...

As you say, it strays into linguistic philosophy, constructionist vs. descriptive. I'll just point out that even documented consensus (i.e. the book reference) varies over time, geography, and culture, so at any given reference point, there may be conflicting notions of "correct." Additionally, many modern "correct" usages and spellings are or derive from ungrammatical (but widely used) constructions in prior iterations of the language in question. It's a matter of opinion when the threshold of "correctness" is crossed. This is especially true in an essentially pastiche language like English where the influencing source languages have divergent notions of "correct" sentence structure, tenses, genders, etc.

However, when I say that "correct" use in language is a consensus, not an absolute, I also mean that as a practical matter. You must target your grammar and vocabulary to your audience.

[Confidence Interval]

You must target your grammar and vocabulary to your audience.

If you knew your audience had poor grammar (from your perspective), how would this influence the grammar you used?

The answer might relate to rhetoric more than anything, i.e. to how you want to appear to them, but would you use the grammar you imagine they would use or would you stick with what you thought to be correct?

[TehDruid]

I agree with the comments above that this is the better version. But the sentence is slightly odd because its subject is the father and then it refers to "she". Read literally this would mean that Eliza's father is female and that when she (i.e. father) was four she bought the item. If it said "Eliza's father had bought it... when he was four years old" this is certainly what we would understand it to mean (presumably meaning he had bought it as a boy).

I think the clearest construction would, in fact, be:
"Eliza's father had bought it in an antique shop when Eliza was four years old" - presuming that's what is meant. (I acknowledge, of course, that the genderfuck reading may have been the one you intended.)

Or you could use;

"Her father (had) bought it in an antique shop when Eliza was four years old"

So you don't have to say Eliza two times in the same sentence. Now it sounds better. But the initial version, as Grimm states, has nothing to really think about. We both know "her" refers to Eliza since she's the only female in the sentence. God forbid any lesbians see this reply. If it was the mother and not the father, then it could lead to misunderstandings, but still, a four year old buying stuff in an antique store? You see how sentences can force only one logical choice when the context is set right?

[Confidence Interval]

The context wasn't really given here. If the previous sentence had said, "Eliza's mother really loved necklaces, particularly a silver one she was given as a gift," then the following, "Eliza's father has bought it in antique shop when she was four years old," wouldn't have been entirely clear - hence my suggestion that one should be as clear as possible. But nothing is absolutely correct, it's all contextual, language use is all relative, etc., etc., so there you go.

Crazy Yiuf's Corner is great but I think right now I need another pint.

[Jabberwocky]

It would depend on the thing being assessed and its context. The correctness of a solution to a mathematical equation is digital; language, gestures, dress - these are analog.

Or possibly digital with very small steps.

[Confidence Interval]

Nothing worse than hosting a small cocktail party at your home (not that I ever did, but some favor such examples) and one of the guests turns up looking pixelated. In either sense of the word.

[Blade]

See, this is what happens when I go on hiatus...I miss awesome conversations like this one. I love discussions of grammar and language.

(someone should totally revive it with a new question or something)