26

I saw this sentence:

Hard work never hurt anyone.

It's a good phrase, but I wonder why it is 'hurt' not 'hurts'? I think 'hurts' (3rd-person singular present) is more correct. Why is it 'hurt'?

Improve this question
0

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
66

In the idiom or proverb

Hard work never hurt anyone.

"hurt" is actually a past tense. It could be recast as

Hard work never did anyone harm.

It can be confusing that for regular English verbs, the simple past form is identical to one of the present tense forms (plural).

Much the same meaning could be expressed in the present tense, as

Hard work never hurts anyone.

But for whatever historical reason, this is not the form that became a standard fixed phrase.

Improve this answer
8
  • 1
    The sentence describes (and negates) a hypothetical. Simple past is often used for expressing such meanings. If we were to affirm or deny a general truth or falsehood, we use present. I. E. "smoking kills". Using the past here tells us that it is not a fact, but opinion.
    – Stian
    Sep 2, 2019 at 15:02
  • 2
    note that "to hurt" is not a regular verb!
    – vinnief
    Sep 3, 2019 at 10:04
  • 6
    To make your recasting clearer, how about hard work HAS never hurt anyone?
    – simonalexander2005
    Sep 3, 2019 at 14:14
  • 1
    Instead of the example "Hard work never did anyone harm", it would be clearer to illustrate with "Hard work never harmed anyone"
    – Nayuki
    Sep 3, 2019 at 18:33
  • 2
    @stephen-r Used in this way it becomes conjecture, one isn't making a claim about now per se, one is saying that prior to now it was always so, and the unspoken claim is that it is still like that. This is conjecture. Hypothetical, because it is an hypothesis. So maybe 'opinion' is not the right way to put it, but certainly not fact. If it was fact, you'd use the present. In any case, that specific sentence is also idiomatic.
    – Stian
    Sep 4, 2019 at 15:28
13

I agree with the accepted answer, but would add that using the past tense also adds playfulness.

Maybe you want to avoid hard work, but other people worked hard (past tense) and it didn't hurt them. So it shouldn't hurt you either, but I can't say this for sure.

If it did, you would be the first one in history who got hurt by hard work.

UPDATE:

Regarding the comments that you can in fact get hurt by hard work, it is not "hurt" in the literal sense, i.e. being hurt physically. It is "hurt" as in being disadvantaged. What is meant is that hard work will not disadvantage you, it will benefit you, so you should do it.

Improve this answer
5
  • 4
    Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. haha
    – Aequitas
    Sep 4, 2019 at 1:23
  • 3
    I think history is rife with examples of persons harmed by hard work.
    – le3th4x0rbot
    Sep 4, 2019 at 1:30
  • Nobody has been harmed by working hard (determinedly with persistence). Plenty of people have been hurt doing work that was hard (dangerous). The difficulty of work versus the hazards of particular tasks. You can work hard and be safety conscious, and accidents happen...but not typically because you're working hard, but because of some other factor (carelessness, exhaustion, fatigue - not just of people but of equipment, and others to include what once were called 'acts of God'...don't put up metal siding in a thunder storm).
    – wolfsshield
    Sep 4, 2019 at 13:01
  • Plenty of people have been harmed by working hard (determinedly with persistence). Modern western culture encourages many people to work long hours, often to the detriment of their family, emotional life, and physical wellbeing. There are many, many disadvantages to working hard in our society, and few benefits - very often those who work hardest and longest are paid the least.
    – Bob says reinstate Monica
    Sep 5, 2019 at 10:28
  • Yes, the idiom at hand is part of Western culture that encourages hard work. You have every right to disagree with it.
    – M3RS
    Sep 5, 2019 at 12:38
3

It's a reflection on what has happened (or not!) previously. It's a statement of 'fact' that has (theoretically) been proven in the past. So it's said as a past tense word.

We couldn't really say 'hurts' as the hard work would be happening now, while we speak. It makes more sense to speak about something that happened previously - many times!

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    I think you are being to definate. Provers or proverb-like stastements can be in the present tense. There isn't the degerwee of logic andf rule-bounded ness this answer implies
    – David Siegel
    Sep 2, 2019 at 21:53

You must log in to answer this question.

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