Australian music has a remarkable history stretching back to 50,000 – 60,000 years
vs
Australian music had a remarkable history stretching back to 50,000 – 60,000 years
which is the correct form?
Asked
Active
Viewed 5,128 times
1
ro ko
- 113
-
2"Had" would imply that their music history is no longer remarkable or that they no longer make music. – Catija Jun 29 '15 at 17:19
-
1Both can be considered correct, depending on perspective: 1) if Australian aboriginal music is considered no longer extant, then "had", 2) if Australian aboriginal music is considered to be ongoing, the "has." – Jun 29 '15 at 17:49
-
mm thanks! so in my case, I would assume it to be has – ro ko Jun 29 '15 at 18:17
-
1You might also consider removing the "to" in "stretching back 50,000 – 60,000 years." – nomad Jun 29 '15 at 20:54
-
possible duplicate of How do the tenses and aspects in English correspond temporally to one another? – choster Jul 03 '15 at 01:58
1 Answers
1
Has is a 3rd person singular present indicative of have - it is correct if the history is currently ongoing.
Had is the simple past tense and past participle of have - it is correct if the history is no longer ongoing or, not very plausibly, the adjectives you use have ceased to apply to the history. The second could occur if we said "Australian music was thought to have had a history stretching back 200 years but the inclusion of native music into the cannon has extended this to 50,000-60,000 years"
Dale M
- 1,464