1

New york time - Mirgants ...

The unrest in Tijuana comes amid broader discussions about how to deal with the growing number of migrants fleeing poverty and violence in Central America who are amassed at crossing points in Tijuana and elsewhere along the border.

The main tense in this article is past.

veered, fired ...

Why did this sentence come out as simple present tense?

  • 3
    First, it's awkward not having everything needed to understand a question in the question itself. (I had to go to the link to figure out what you were asking—because neither veered nor fired appears in the passage you quoted.) Tenses can be mixed without a problem. This can be done between paragraphs (in this case) and even within the same sentence, if done appropriately. Not mixing tenses is merely a rule of thumb—because it often results in something ungrammatical or strange—but it's not a necessity. There's nothing inherently ungrammatical about it. – Jason Bassford Supports Monica Nov 26 '18 at 3:08
  • @JasonBassford no "veered, fired", because I just don't want to put too many stuff in a question. – Zhang Nov 26 '18 at 3:11
  • For example: I still have some of the cake that I bought last week. – Jason Bassford Supports Monica Nov 26 '18 at 3:11
  • @JasonBassford, I just want to know WHY. Why this particular sentence? If I wrote an article about the accident, can I randomly pick a sentence to write it as simply tense? – Zhang Nov 26 '18 at 3:13
  • 2
    In this article, because the unrest is still happening. It's an event in the present. It would be far less meaningful (and somewhat untrue) to describe it as something that only happened in the past—making it sound as if things are now fine. There was an accident but there is still unrest. – Jason Bassford Supports Monica Nov 26 '18 at 3:14
1

For additional context, here are the two initial paragraphs from the New York Times article:

A peaceful march by Central American migrants waiting at the southwestern United States border veered out of control on Sunday afternoon, as hundreds of people tried to evade a Mexican police blockade and run toward a giant border crossing that leads into San Diego.

In response, the United States Customs and Border Protection agency shut down the border crossing in both directions and fired tear gas to push back migrants from the border fence. The border was reopened later Sunday evening.

And to repeat the phrase in question (emphasis mine):

The unrest in Tijuana comes amid broader discussions.


First, tenses can be mixed without a problem. This can be done between paragraphs (as in this case) and even within the same sentence, if done appropriately. Not mixing tenses is merely a rule of thumb—because it often results in something ungrammatical or strange—but it's not a necessity. There's nothing inherently ungrammatical about it.

For instance:

I still have some of the cake that I bought last week.


In this case, although an incident took place in the past, and there was unrest in the past—it's also true that there still is unrest.

If the past tense had been used, the reporting would be both less meaningful and also somewhat misleading. It might be interpreted as implying that there is no longer any unrest and that things are now fine.

By using the present tense in this section, the ongoing unrest is being highlighted.

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.