2

I found this test question on the internet and apparently the author says the correct answer is ‘knew’ not ‘know’

The movie Jaws, directed by Steven Spielberg, hit the theaters in 1975 and was a huge hit. Millions saw the movie, and even those who did not know / knew the story.

According to someone who replied to the author’s question, the answer is ‘knew’ since ‘see the movie’ is omitted behind ‘even those who did not’.

‘Know’ seems just fine in that context and it’s way tricky to use ‘knew’ and I don’t think people would prefer writing or saying in such a confusing way. Is it possible to omit a phrase that has a verb in it?

Improve this question
10
  • 2
    The piece is all about the past. It is written using past tense verbs - hit, was, saw, did not, so you need the past tense (knew') for the final verb. That's why the verb is not 'know', not because of the shortening of 'did not see the movie'.
    – Michael Harvey
    Commented Sep 3 at 11:42
  • 1
    Why do you find it 'tricky' and 'confusing' to use knew? The sense is not "those who did not know the story", but "even those [people] who did not [see the film] knew the story".
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Sep 3 at 11:58
  • 1
    @KateBunting, I understand that the answer is ‘knew,’ thanks to the people, including you, who left replies to enlighten me. Based on the context, the answer is B. Technically, however, I still wonder if saying ‘even those who did not know the story’ is simply grammatically incorrect, because I don’t believe it is. If there’s even a small chance that it could confuse people, isn’t the test question itself flawed?
    – pheno8
    Commented Sep 3 at 12:46
  • 4
    @pheno8 The comma is required after "did not" to show that (see it) is omitted. The confusion whether to use present tense or past tense is due to the missing comma
    – James Mathai
    Commented Sep 3 at 13:14
  • 1
    @KateBunting Yes. You are right. I think without the comma only "know it" is possible. "did not knew it" sounds awkward.
    – James Mathai
    Commented Sep 3 at 14:12

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

Two unrelated questions here.

Is the ellipsis licensed? Yes. "Those who did not (see it)" functions as a unit and this unit is the subject of the next verb. It's no different from this situation:

It was infamous among those who saw it and even among those who did not.

Can the present tense be used? Yes, but it's a little less logical. The reasoning that people who didn't see it still know the story today is sound, but combined with the simple past for "didn't see it", it suggests that they only had a limited opportunity to see it and missed it.

If we were talking about a state of knowing that persists into the present, we would be much more likely to combine it with the present perfect for the seeing:

Even those who haven't [seen it] know the story.

Even those who've never [seen it] know the story.

Whereas by linking "didn't see it" and "knew", we relegate both verbs to the past, without commenting on whether anyone still can see the movie and/or know the story today.

Thus, "knew" is better because it doesn't exclude the reality that people can still watch Jaws today.

Improve this answer
4
  • I think the past - past emhasizes on the fact Jaws were a hit and millions saw it "fresh" and made fuzz around it so intensively that those who didn't see it at the time were introduced to the plot anyway. Now, Jaws are yet another film from 70s and there is no fuzz about it.
    – Crowley
    Commented Sep 3 at 22:51
  • @Crowley Yeah, and even in that interpretation, the first past creates the suggestion that there was a window of opportunity / time when they might have seen it, but didn't. They didn't "catch the first wave" or something. If it's past - present, then it seems like that window is somehow permanently closed, which is probably not the intended meaning.
    – Luke Sawczak
    Commented Sep 4 at 1:58
  • I would read it as past-past means the frame of relevance is gone in the past - no one cares how many people know the plot nowadays. In case of past-present I would read it as the folm was so significant that even after 45 years people (not even concieved at the time of the premiere) know the plot from the omnipresent discussion of it.
    – Crowley
    Commented Sep 4 at 2:36
  • @Crowley Yes, but in addition, the second reading carries the idea that the chance to see it is gone. Again, this is certainly not impossible, just less likely to be what's intended (in my mind). The whole frame is the past. But the snippet is so short that one more sentence before or after could blow either theory out of the water.
    – Luke Sawczak
    Commented Sep 4 at 10:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .