When we write a rule in a past tense narrative, should it still be in the present simple tense? This was an excellent question raised by a reader, from a fairly unexpected source – this Christmas reading exercise. It contains the phrase “everyone knew how magical Santa was”. The issue is that saying “was” in the past tense suggests Santa is either no longer magical (or perhaps has died?!). So, how can past simple still be correct here? Like much in English, it depends on our context.
When to use the past tense for timeless rules
When a text is framed in the past tense, all the information can be reported in the past. Whether the rule, or a certain fact, is still true now, or is always true, the context of a past tense narrative can make the past simple more appropriate than the present simple. In this case, it’s not that the text suggests Santa is no longer magical, but that at the time of the story it was true. It’s common practice in a past narrative to put present simple rules into the past in this way to avoid mixing tenses – and to correctly frame the information. This is because although the rule or fact might be timeless, it is being reported at a certain time.
This could apply to rules like “water boils at 100 degrees” – if we said “everyone understood that water boiled at 100 degrees” we’re not necessarily suggesting the rule no longer applies, but just that this rule was understood that way at that time. If we expand on the example, “Everyone in the auditorium understood that water boiled at 100 degrees”, it may clearer – because this rule was understood by this specific group of people, in this specific place, therefore it was true at that time, and to them. The context frames it.
This works a bit like reported speech – we say “I like cats.” but report “He said he liked cats.” – it doesn’t necessarily mean he no longer likes cats, it’s just framed grammatically as a past account.
Would it be incorrect to use the present simple for past rules?
“Everyone knew how magical Santa is” sounds awkward because we’re mixing tenses. It raises the question: how could people in the past know something now? In this case, no, the past simple works better. However, “everyone understood that water boils at 100 degrees” is more flexible. This is a timeless rule that isn’t related to a specific person or changeable event (such as the magical nature of Santa, which could, at some point, differ). With a truly timeless rule like this, we can use the present simple in the past in such a way. How you choose, then, may depend on where your emphasis lies, and the context of when you say it. If the timeless nature of the rule is relevant to us now, for example, the present simple will be more appropriate. On the other hand, if the understanding of such a rule in the past (for example) is more important, then the past simple is better.
Consider these two examples:
- My parents told me that smoking causes cancer, that’s why I’ve never smoked. (from then until now, an ongoing state)
- In the latter half of the 20th Century, more legislation came into effect as people better understood that smoking caused cancer. (a historical narrative makes it more relevant in the past)
I hope this helps clarify a rather nuanced bit of grammar. If you have any questions, do let me know! Want to learn more about the finer details of the English tenses? Try my book, The English Tenses Practical Grammar Guide.
Hi , I know so much uses of modal verb “would” .primarily it talks about hypothetical situation , uses for offer and invitation and habitual actions in past. but still I got confused while reading books when writer uses the modal verb ” would”. I can’t fathom the use of would such as you used in this article
” would it be incorrect to use present simple for past tense”?
Here I don’t understand the use of would.
Also if you have lesson , please share me link.
Hi Sara,
Good question – I’ve been meaning to do more on the modals as I don’t have specific articles up yet myself. I can see why it is confusing, and my use here was quite advanced. Partly, this is because the usage may be connected to the way you understand it, but not presented in the expected way. The question here is conditional for a hypothetical situation, but not quite written as a conditional. In a typical conditional form, we might expect:
“Would it be incorrect, if you used the present simple for the past tense?” (a second conditional question)
I hope that makes more sense of it! I do have more articles on the conditionals in general which cover some of this use of “would”, such as this: https://englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/the-conditionals-rules-and-exercises/
But I will try and do a more general article on uses of “would”.
Best,
Phil
Hi, Phil
At beginning of this post, when you mentioned the statement” It contains the phrase “everyone knew how magical Santa was”. The issue is that saying “was” in the past tense suggests Santa is either no longer magical (or perhaps has died?!). “, are you saying this statement is not correct?
Since what I understand is that using simple past to describe something in the past just simply talks people things happened and finished is the past, and it is not a function of simple past tense to talk us whether the facts or events in the past are true or not now, such an inference that past facts or events are no longer true will really depends on the context. (Please let me know if my understanding is correct or not, thanks!)
Best regard
Yichun
10/27/2022
Sorry for the slow response again! This is a tricky one as you could arguably suggest the present tense is appropriate for a rule even in the past, but when we report rules in the past in this way we’d usually put them in the past tense to agree with the narrative text. This is because it (a) sounds smoother to have the tenses agree and (b) could reflect that the rule was true at the time of acknowledging it (i.e. it was true in the past). This wouldn’t necessarily mean the rule is no longer true, but merely frames it in the time of the narrative (it was known to be true then, or observed or discussed then; we’re not necessarily saying whether or not it still is true). I hope that explains it?
Phil
Hi Phil
Thank you for your explanation, and I am also wondering when you said the narrative text, does it mean the written novel, or any things happened in the past and in both spoken and writing English.
And the rules you explained here are true for past simple sense used in both spoken and writing English, right?
Yichun
Yes that’s right, it applies in written and spoken English (though as always the rules are sometimes loose in spoken English, depending on the speaker!). Sorry that’s probably a bit technical saying narrative, yes I mean anything that happens in the past, I just used that word to make clear that the past tense is creating a narrative, describing something in the past.
Phil
Thank you, I get it!
So it has nothing to with novel when you said narrative here, right? Or we can consider novel is one of the applied scenarios, as it essentially tells stories in the past.
Since when I looked up the dictionary, narrative means the stories in a novel, which makes me confused somehow.
But anyway your explanation makes sense to me!
Best regards,
Yichun
Hi Phil
And when you said the rules in the past, it doesn’t necessarily mean a timeless rule, like water boils at 100 degrees, 1+1=2, it can be any statements the speaker made in the past, right? For instance, I liked or wanted something, I felt sad, or I moved to somewhere.
Yichun
Hi Yichun,
Yes, that’s right.
Phil
Hi Phil
Since all the examples you mentioned here are sentence structure like I said/ understood that some statements in the past. I am wondering without the I said/understood that, even with a simple sentence talking about the past(e.g. I wanted or liked something, I felt good, or I had a headache), the rules(the simple past only tells us something in true in the past, but not indicate whether it is still true now or not or in the future, unless the context indicates that)are still applied, right?
For example, I liked or wanted something, it just means I wanted or wanted something in the past, but not tell us whether I still like or want it or not in the present or even future. We can only infer that information regarding whether it is true or not now or in the future base on the context, right?
Yichun
Hi Yichun,
Yes – strictly speaking on its own the tense only tells us that the state was true in the past. While it does suggest it’s no longer true (or stopped being true at some point), as we’re talking about the past, the past tense doesn’t necessarily tell us that the state finished or is not true now. If the state has been continued into the present we might use the present perfect to show that, but we might also just use the past tense to define that the state was true at a certain time in the past, even if it’s still true now. For example:
I have wanted a bike since I was ten years old.
I wanted a bike when I was ten years old and I still want a bike now.
Hopefully that makes sense! Essentially though you have it right – in the strictest terms, without extra context, the past tense defines something in the past but does not necessarily tell us about the present.
Phil
Hi Phil
What do mean when you said” While it does suggest it’s no longer true (or stopped being true at some point), as we’re talking about the past, the past tense doesn’t necessarily tell us that the state finished or is not true now.”
Is it supposed to be it does NOT suggest it’s no longer true…..?
Best regards,
Yichun
Hi Yichun,
No, I meant merely that by its nature the past suggests it happened it in the past, so we could infer that the state subsequently finished. E.g. “I was happy then.” might not tell us we are not sad now, but it does suggest I stopped being happy after that, at least for a certain amount of time before now (as opposed to “I have always been happy.”)
Phil
Hi Phil
Thank you for your explanations!
I have always been happy means I was happy in past and that continues to now, right? (I am still happy now)
But I have been happy, just means I was happy at some time in the past, but doesn’t tell us whether I am happy or not now, additional context may be needed to infer my feeling now.
Best regards,
Yichun
Hi Yichun,
You’re welcome. Yes, you’re absolutely right there.
Phil