= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SilasBarta comments on Common Errors in History - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (47)
Sorry, didn't realize I was unique in this regard. Obviously, I can infer the meaning from context too, but sometimes -- like at the beginning of the sentence, it takes a second to adjust. And sometimes context can't even disambiguate.
In contrast, if you see "red", you immediately think of the sound of the word "red", which jumps you straight into thinking of past tense. (Again, for me at least.) That's why every other verb like this works the same way (lead-led, breed-bred, etc.).
How about "readed"?
How about "have read"?
"Have read" is already a separate grammatical tense.
How about "did read", which is the same tense, but with excessive emphasis on the act?
You're the judge here; you tell me! Although FWIW, I don't see the point of merely reshuffling the ambiguity to a phrase or variation in emphasis that already exists.