Why is ていた form used to talk about present states?

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you very much.
So to summarize, in the pattern "relative clause (action 1)+noun+main clause(action 2)", if the ていた form of action 1 is used, then it means action 1 is in the past relative to the main verb (action 2), just for the same reason why 後で always follows た form, right?
ていた(action 1)+noun+main clause(action 2)
=action 1(ていた)後で+action 2
—>action 1 is before action 2

 

[Toritoribe]

Well, that summary is too much simplified. As a famous linguist 寺村秀夫 wrote "it is the most complicated thing how the tense or aspect of a verb or adjective appears in a modifying clause/phrase, and the rules are delicate (連体修飾をする動詞や形容詞におけるテンス、アスペクトの現われ方は、最も複雑で、きまりも微妙である)" in his book, it's actually far more complicated.

First, not only the relative tense (相対時制) is used in Japanese. The absolute tense (絶対時制) is also used. See the following examples.

1. 昨日開放感に溢れていた教室に、去年までは折紙がいた。
2. 昨日開放感に溢れていた教室に、今朝折紙が現れた。
3. 昨日開放感に溢れていた教室に、たった今折紙が現れた。
4. 昨日開放感に溢れていた教室に、明日折紙が現れるだろう。

Regardless of the tense of the main verb (1 and 2 are past, 3 is present(present perfect) and 4 is future) or the temporal order of the two events (1 is "the main verb --> modifying verb", the rest are opposite), the past form 溢れていた is used in the modifying clause. This is actually the absolute tense. The reference point in time is when it's said or written.


Secondly, there are cases where the reference point in time of the modifying clause is neither when the main verb occurs (主節時) nor when the sentence is said/written (発話時).

5. アメリカに留学する夢が去年やっと叶った。

The temporal order is not 夢が叶う --> 留学する, so the reference point is not 主節時, and it's not 発話時, either, since 留学する is a past event (the subject's dream "studying in the US" was fulfilled last year).

Actually, the reference point is when the subject had the dream here. 留学する is future of that time, so the present form(ル形) is used. Some linguists call this reference point 主名詞時基準, and this is also classified into 相対時制. Thus, the key of 相対時制 is that it's not 絶対時制, and the reference point of 相対時制 is not always 主節時.


Thirdly, there are cases where both the present form(ル形) and past form(タ形) can be used for the same meaning.

6. 明日の授業を取る人は、明後日は取らなくてもいいです。
7. 明日の授業を取った人は、明後日は取らなくてもいいです。
8. アフリカに赴任する社員は、皆、事前に予防接種を受けていた。
9. アフリカに赴任した社員は、皆、事前に予防接種を受けていた。

#6 and 9 are 絶対時制. The event in the modifying clause is future of 発話時 in #6, so the present form 取る is used, and it's past of 発話時 in #9, so the past form 赴任した is used.

On the other hand, #7 and 8 are 相対時制. 取った is used in #7 since the temporal order is "modifying verb --> main verb (明日取る --> 明後日取る)", and 赴任する is used in #8 since the order is "main verb --> modifying verb (予防接種を受ける --> 赴任する)".

This doesn't mean that both the present form and past form are always valid, of course. There are cases where only either of 絶対時制 or 相対時制 can be used.

As you can see so far, the past form in the modifying clause does not always show the temporal order of the two events. I only explained about usual actions in this post, but there are different rules for a state/an event that has a relatively long time period, and ～ている form often expresses a state, as you know. Furthermore, you have been asking about narrative part in novels, which also has special rules different from usual speech.


Finally, here's an excerpt from another linguist's book.

日本語には、各節が表す事態ごとに眺める視点の位置があり、それを表す事こそが、ル形、タ形の本来の役割なのである。すなわち、日本語の時制は、そもそも発話時や主節時といった特定の基準時を持つのではなく、事態との相対的な位置に視点を持ってくるものであり、ル形は事態の途中又は事態がこれから起きるという時点に、タ形は事態が終ったものとして見える時点に、認知主体の視点を導くマーカーの様なものである。実は日本語というのは、事態を見ている視点の絶対的位置に関してはどちらかといえば無頓着なのである。

She pointed out that Japanese language is relatively unconcerned about the absolute position of the reference point in time. The reference point can be different even in each clause in a single sentence, and ル形 or タ形 work as a marker to show the reference point.


Sorry for a long post, but I hope this is somewhat helpful for your understanding of Japanese tense system.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you for your time and explanation, toritoribe-san. It's very useful!

So, compared with 溢れている, 溢れていた is focusing more on the open-airness prior to the appearance of 折紙, while 溢れている, if used, is focusing more on the open-airness at the time when 折紙 appears.

Just being a little nit-picking, for the original sentence 瞬間ーーいつの間にやら開放感に溢れていた教室の外から、折紙が現れる。, by the above quote, do I capture the subtle difference between 溢れていた and 溢れている?

 

[Toritoribe]

It totally depends on your aim. Both 溢れていた and 溢れている express that the state is "to be full of open-airness", and the state is not over at the time when 折紙 appears(主節時) because of いつの間にやら, as opposed to かつては, which shows that the state is over at the time (and therefore only the past form can be used after this word). If you just want to get this grammatical difference in the state correctly, I think there is no need to stick to the difference between 溢れていた and 溢れている. However, if you want to get the nuance the author implied in 溢れていた, you need to feel it.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you again. I would resort to my feelings.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Hi. I have a simple question. When I check my grammar book I have come across this sentence:
論文に書こうと思っていたことを他人が先に書いた。
Does it make sense if I say 論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いた。?
I think it's wrong.
Thank you.

 

[bentenmusume]

It would just have a different nuance.

思っていた suggests that the speaker is no longer thinking of writing whatever in his thesis because someone else already wrote it.

思っている would suggest that he's still thinking about writing it despite the fact he wouldn't be the first one anymore. This might be impractical or unrealistic in a real-world sense (generally, a scholar would not publish a thesis saying something that someone else already wrote), but it's not "wrong" grammatically.

 

[Toritoribe]

思っている can be natural in the following expressions.

論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いていた。
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いてしまった。
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人に先に書かれた。

The speaker/writer has found that someone else already wrote it while they still have a will to write it. They can be a past event, but ことがある would be usually add at the end of the sentence for that case.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you both.

論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いていた。
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いてしまった。
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人に先に書かれた。

How are they different from 論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いた。? They are almost the same as it.

 

[Toritoribe]

They are not the same. 書いていた shows that it was written previously, and the speaker/writer (has) realized it.
The rest are both subjective descriptions, and can refer to the present event.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you again.

書いていた shows that it was written previously, and the speaker/writer (has) realized it.

something that someone else already wrote

According to benten-san, the 書いた in 論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いた。means someone else already wrote it. So it looks like 書いた is the same as 書いていた?
Or should I understand it this way?
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いた。
"Somebody else already wrote about something that I was trying to write on the paper."

論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いていた。
"Somebody else had already written about something that I was trying to write on the paper."

 

[bentenmusume]

I believe Toritoribe-san is saying that it's more natural to have 書いていた (rather than 書いた) in that sentence because -ていた makes it clear that it was already written, whereas 書いた would indicate the moment it was written.

(I used the word "already" to describe a general situation in my original post, and did not mean that as a strict interpretation of the tense of 書いた. I apologize if it was misleading.)

At any rate, Toritoribe-san is a native speaker and I am not, so I would encourage you to focus on what he's saying now and not over-analyze my own original response, which was solely intended to clarify the difference between 思っている and 思っていた, and not to fully illustrate the implications of the tense of the final verb.

 

[Toritoribe]

I meant the action of the main verb can be both the present and past tense by "the speaker/writer (has) realized it" and "can refer to the present event". The past and present forms don't (always) refer to the past and present tense, as you already know.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you both. But you and benten-san seem to say different things?

I meant the action of the main verb can be both the present and past tense by "the speaker/writer (has) realized it" and "can refer to the present event". The past and present forms don't (always) refer to the past and present tense, as you already know.

Do you mean the bold parts as follows can be both present and past tense?
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いていた。
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いてしまった。
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人に先に書かれた。
So your three versions are natural because the main verbs in them can be both present and past tense but 書いた in 論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いた。can only be present tense so it's unnatural? Is this your idea?

But according to benten-san, …を他人が先に書いていた is natural because 〜ていた makes it clear that it was already written. So, likewise, don't the following versions work better for the same reason?
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いてしまっていた。
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人に先に書かれていた。

Have I misunderstood something?

 

[bentenmusume]

I'm not going to even attempt to go into here at this point because I'm exhausted and drunk, but I don't believe I've made any statements at all explicitly contradicting what Toritoribe-san is saying. If anything, I've been trying to supplement his explanation(s).

As I said in my last post, I would feel very, very uncomfortable if you were microanalyzing my posts in an attempt to find a reason to contradict what Toritoribe-san (a native speaker, which I am not) is saying. At the very least, looking at your post just now, I don't feel at all like I have made any sweeping, definitive statements along the lines of what you are saying I said.

I'll return to this topic tomorrow when I'm thinking more clearly.

 

[Toritoribe]

Do you mean the bold parts as follows can be both present and past tense?
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いていた。
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いてしまった。
論文に書こうと思っていることを他人に先に書かれた。

I said only about the first one.

So your three versions are natural because the main verbs in them can be both present and past tense but 書いた in 論文に書こうと思っていることを他人が先に書いた。can only be present tense so it's unnatural? Is this your idea?

No. The point is whether it's written as a subjective description or an objective description.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Hi. I know I have asked a lot about ていた, but recently I have learned a new function of it and I try to apply it to the following example:
「な……っ、誰だ！」
十香が呼ぶと、影になっていた廊下の先から、ゆっくりとした足音が響いてきた。
The context is 十香 was running in the corridor and suddenly someone shot a bullet at her and 十香 dodged it.
According to my study, the ていた can indicate the background where an event took place, for example,
我々は山頂で野営をしていた。その三日目の朝、素晴らしいオーロラが見えた。
So I think the 影になっていた is the same usage as the above 野営をしていた, except that 影になっていた is used in a relative clause modifying 廊下.
Does it make sense to you?

By the way, just for confirmation's sake, if we know the state described in the relative clause is over by the time of 主節時, we can't use ている.
For example, in 優雅な仕草で髪をかき上げる。常に前髪に隠されていた左目が露わになった。, 隠されている wouldn't work.
Right?
Thank you.

 

[bentenmusume]

Hi. I know I have asked a lot about ていた, but recently I have learned a new function of it and I try to apply it to the following example:
According to my study, the ていた can indicate the background where an event took place, for example,
我々は山頂で野営をしていた。その三日目の朝、素晴らしいオーロラが見えた。

Honestly, I'm not sure why there is a need to understand this ("indicating the background") as an entirely "new function" of -ていた. I'm curious how you feel it fundamentally differs from all the other instances you've seen thus far. It seems far more intuitive to understand it simply as the past continuous form, which of course is naturally and intuitively used to set up the background of an event, just like it would be in English:

We were camping at the summit of the mountain. In the morning on our third day there, we saw a beautiful aurora.

For example, in 優雅な仕草で髪をかき上げる。常に前髪に隠されていた左目が露わになった。, 隠されている wouldn't work.

Yes, if the state is explicitly over, you wouldn't use -ている.

Of course, it is possible to get -ていた as the "narrative past" even if the state continues. In 影になっていた廊下の先から、ゆっくりとした足音が響いてきた, there is no implication that the state 影になっている is over. (Whereas it would have that implication in a sentence like スイッチを押すと、それまで影になっていた廊下が、いきなり眩しい光に照らされた, etc.)

 

[Toritoribe]

影になっていた廊下, 影になっている廊下 and 影になった廊下 all work well there. 影になっていた could give a nuance that the state is already over in her sense (it's actually not over, as bentenmusume-san wrote, though), so the author might choose it intentionally or unintentionally, I think.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you both.
荷物が届いたとき、すでに倉庫に到着していた田中係長は手際よく荷物を運び入れた。
The above example is taken from my grammar book, which says that 到着していた is the background for 荷物を運び入れた, as shown in the following picture:

I think 十香が呼ぶと、影になっていた廊下の先から、ゆっくりとした足音が響いてきた。is also like the 倉庫 example. Please see the picture below:

And I think 瞬間ーーいつの間にやら開放感に溢れていた教室の外から、折紙が現れる。in post #24 also falls into the same category.
Does my thinking make sense?
Yes, I know it may not be a new function and other interpretations are also possible. Like it can be considered as just "narrative past" even if the ていた is in the relative clause, or it can give a nuance that the state is already over in her sense.
But I'm just not sure if the diagram I have drawn makes sense to you?

 

[Toritoribe]

It seems to me that the example in your textbook is just a usual temporal order of the two events.
There is no problems to talk about とき clause and the main verb, but it doesn't make sense to talk about the verb in the modifying clause. See the following example.

駅に着いたとき、去年まで建っていたビルがなくなっていた。
その瞬間、今まで開放感に溢れていた教室が急に緊張感に包まれた。

As you can see, 建っていた and 溢れていた are not "background". The state is already over at the time. (bentenmusume-san's example それまで影になっていた廊下 is not "background", either, right?)

cf.
駅に着いたとき、ビルはまだ建っていた。
その瞬間、教室は開放感に溢れていた。

Also, the tense in the modifying clause is not the same as the one in the main clause. For instance, 釘が曲がった and 釘が曲がっている are different in aspect ("the action was completed in the past" vs. "the present state"), while 曲がった釘 and 曲がっている釘 are the same in meaning. That's why 影になっていた廊下, 影になっている廊下 and 影になった廊下 all work well, as I wrote.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

Thank you for the response. I see your point.

It seems to me that the example in your textbook is just a usual temporal order of the two events.

But my grammar book says if we rephrase the original sentence into 荷物が届いたとき、田中係長はすでに倉庫に到着していて手際よく荷物を運び入れた。, then it is describing the temporal order of 到着した and 荷物を運び入れた. In the original version, the state 田中係長 is in the warehouse is not over now, I think.

As you can see, 建っていた and 溢れていた are not "background". The state is already over at the time. (bentenmusume-san's example それまで影になっていた廊下 is not "background", either, right?)

Yes, I know if the state is already over at the time, then the ていた clause does not describe a background. But what if the state continues, as in 十香が呼ぶと、影になっていた廊下の先から、ゆっくりとした足音が響いてきた。and 瞬間ーーいつの間にやら開放感に溢れていた教室の外から、折紙が現れる。? Are they still not background?

 

[Toritoribe]

But my grammar book says if we rephrase the original sentence into 荷物が届いたとき、田中係長はすでに倉庫に到着していて手際よく荷物を運び入れた。

That's simply because 到着していた is the past state which was not over at the time in that example. On the other hand, 駅に着いたとき、ビルが去年まで建っていて、なくなっていた doesn't make sense, right? The structure is actually ビルが去年まで建っていたが、駅に着いたとき、なくなっていた, i.e., the key is the relation between ～とき clause and the main verb.

Yes, I know if the state is already over at the time, then the ていた clause does not describe a background. But what if the state continues, as in 十香が呼ぶと、影になっていた廊下の先から、ゆっくりとした足音が響いてきた。and 瞬間ーーいつの間にやら開放感に溢れていた教室の外から、折紙が現れる。? Are they still not background?

As bentenmusume-san already pointed out, I don't understand why you stick to an idea of "background". Again, isn't it just an example of AときB where B is a state (e.g. 家に着いたとき、弟はテレビを観ていた。）?

I also want to emphasize that the problem in the example in your textbook is that it's the tense in the modifying clause. It can't explain why 荷物が届いたとき、田中係長はすでに倉庫に到着している/到着した is ungrammatical as a past event, whereas 荷物が届いたとき、すでに倉庫に到着している/到着した田中係長は手際よく荷物を運び入れた。 （＝すでに倉庫に到着している/到着した田中係長は、荷物が届いたとき、手際よく荷物を運び入れた。 ） is acceptable.

 

[zuotengdazuo]

As bentenmusume-san already pointed out, I don't understand why you stick to an idea of "background". Again, isn't it just an example of AときB where B is a state (e.g. 家に着いたとき、弟はテレビを観ていた。）?

十香が呼ぶと、影になっていた廊下の先から、ゆっくりとした足音が響いてきた。and 瞬間ーーいつの間にやら開放感に溢れていた教室の外から、折紙が現れる。?

Thank you. So are you saying that the 影になっていた廊下 and いつの間にやら開放感に溢れていた教室 in the above examples are just 発見?
(the すでに倉庫に到着していた田中係長 is also 発見? I previously thought only when the 〜ていた appears in the main verb can it be 発見)

 

[Toritoribe]

No, those are a past state (I mean, the past tense of a state, not a state that is already over). Unlike 十香が呼ぶと、影になっていた廊下の先から、ゆっくりとした足音が響いてきた。, just 影になっていた廊下 can be a past state that is already over depending on the context, as bentenmusume-san wrote, though.