0

I have the following idea, The first part is written in a present form as it is more general. As I explained what I did in the second part, it is written in past tense. here is my example.

  1. The proposed graph analysis method is based on a correct segmentation of point data.
  2. The work in this study mainly focused on the modeling process.

And I join them using and as follows.

The proposed graph analysis method is based on a correct segmentation of point data and the work mainly focused on the modeling process.

Now, I am doubted whether we can keep two tenses within a one single sentence. Any idea please.

  • 2
    They are not in a different tense; the second is is implied: The ... method is based on ... and the work [is] mainly focused on.... – choster Oct 23 '13 at 20:15
  • @gnp choster is reading your sentence as an (unintended) example of gapping. – snailboat Oct 23 '13 at 20:34
  • @choster There is no such elision of "is" possible; if that is the intent, it is not grammatical. By removing "is" from "is focused", you end up with "focused", which unambiguously becomes the verb of the sentence, since no other verb is visible. – Kaz Oct 25 '13 at 19:45
2

The problem here is that you are using coordination: [present clause] AND [past clause]. Joining sentences from different times in this way is somewhat awkward.

Changing tense is smoother if you subordinate the second clause to the first:

For instance, if a causal relationship applies:

The proposed graph analysis method is based on a correct segmentation of point data, because the work in this study mainly focused on the modeling process.

In any case, there is no reason why the past tense cannot be brought into the present. We can speak about studies in the present tense:

The study mainly focuses on the modeling process.

This point of view can be used even if the study concluded years ago. The present tense does not imply that the study is still going on. If that were the case, this imperfective situation would be expressed with a gerund like this:

The study is mainly focusing on the modeling process.

1

Since they're both independent clauses, you can join them in this way, but without a comma before the "and" that joins them, it becomes a run-on sentence (and may be misinterpreted, as choster mentions in the comments):

The proposed graph analysis method is based on a correct segmentation of point data, and the work mainly focused on the modeling process.

A simpler example of joining two independent clauses of different tenses would be something like this:

I'm going to the store today, and my mother went yesterday.

  • thanks but in your example both are past tense I guess. not present and past. – gnp Oct 24 '13 at 8:47
  • With the comma, they can also be misinterpreted in the exact same way. But since the misinterpretation means almost the same thing as the original, that doesn't really matter. – Peter Shor Oct 24 '13 at 18:52
  • @gnp D'oh! You're right. Corrected example sentence. – Adrockski Oct 25 '13 at 19:02
1

I think Kaz's answer is a good one. As Kaz says, we can speak about studies in both the past and the present tense. One way to think of this is that the study was done (in the past), but it is also available in the present.

Kaz assumed that there is a causal relationship between the two sentences, and if this is true, then it makes sense to use "because," as Kaz suggests. But if there is no causal relationship involved, it would be better to write this in two sentences, exactly as you wrote them in your example:

"The proposed graph analysis method is based on a correct segmentation of point data. The work in this study mainly focused on the modeling process."

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.