5

The late Dr. Francis was a compassionate doctor who __________ his life to helping the poor.

This is a question in an exam paper and the correct answer is: has dedicated.

Can anybody explain why 'has dedicated' is the answer instead of 'had dedicated'? Technically speaking, Dr Francis's dedication is a thing of the past which means it does not affect the current situation. In this case, shouldn't 'had' be used instead of 'has'?

Tan Kin Meng
  • 51
  • 7
    My take on this is that the 'correct' answer is wrong. It's not a matter of "affecting the current situation"; rather, the present perfect predicates a current state which the subject is no longer capable of sustaining. – StoneyB on hiatus Apr 30 '17 at 17:18
  • 9
    No. Nobody can explain this because the answer is completely wrong. It should be simple past: dedicated. You can't use had dedicated because there's no reference time in the past that was after his life (assuming this sentence stands alone in the exam). And you shouldn't use has dedicated because he's no longer doing any dedicating. – Peter Shor Apr 30 '17 at 17:19
  • 4
    There's a codicil to the Perfect construction to the effect that one can't use the present Perfect with active verbs and subject NPs referring to dead people. Except for the Hot News! sense, which can refer to the subject's death (The oldest acrobat in the world has just died), but not much else. – John Lawler Apr 30 '17 at 17:50
  • 1
    @StoneyB: My take on it is that although the 'correct' answer is wrong, the usage would still be possible/credible *in the right context* (eulogising at Dr. Francis's funeral wake, perhaps), where a speaker who couldn't quite bring themselves to say Dr Francis is* [blah blah]* might nevertheless not wish to consign him entirely to the past while his mortal coil was still being given its "send-off" from the earthly domain. – FumbleFingers Apr 30 '17 at 18:09
  • 2
    Present perfect for dead subjects, though incorrect in the sentence you ask about, is appropriate in some contexts: Shakespeare has changed the way people think about English. – Arm the good guys in America Apr 30 '17 at 20:24
  • 3
    True, but that's really metonymy for Shakespeare's work, which is not dead. – John Lawler Apr 30 '17 at 22:19
  • @John Lawler: I'm sure "news" covers most exceptions, but I don't think all the ones it doesn't cover necessarily involve "metonymy". It seems to me a man whose wife died died in childbirth might reasonably say She has given me something to live for (the child) long after her (the wife's) death (because the dead wife lives on in his mind and/or thru the child?). I dunno, but I can't really see she there as metonymy for the child or anything similar. – FumbleFingers May 01 '17 at 00:01
  • 1
    Funny thing is I would have said dedicated. Most people would have said that, I think... which is correct, and saves you the worry! – eup. Apr 30 '17 at 18:49
  • 1
    I don't see anything wrong with present perfect in The late Jane Black has ensured that her cats will continue living lives of luxury by leaving the bulk of her estate for their care. But that's because Jane Black manages to continue caring for her cats after her death, which isn't true for the OP's sentence. – Peter Shor May 01 '17 at 02:57

6 Answers6

1

From a strict grammatical perspective, "had dedicated" is correct, since the continuing action of "dedicating" (i.e. devoting a significant amount of time and effort to something) has come to an end with the doctor's death.

For example, consider a more definite completed action in the past, e.g. The late Dr. Francis was a compassionate doctor who had studied in London before joining the Hospital.

However, when the action is not as specific, not as far in the past, and more of a property of the person being described, the construction with "had" is awkward, e.g. The late Dr. Francis was a compassionate doctor who loved his family as much as his work.

Something that a person IS survives their death. Something they have DONE must be situated correctly in time.

For many readers, "dedicated" probably falls into a grey area. If you read the word and visualize the concrete actions, you'll probably lean towards using "had dedicated". If you see it as an essence of the man himself, you'll probably find that "dedicated" by itself is more natural. It's not really a fair question for an exam.

0

I would stick with "dedicated" both for accuracy and simplicity. Any time after death, he is no longer capable of dedicating anything.

DebraH
  • 173
0

Here is the OP's already answered "fill-in-the-blank" test question:

The late Dr. Francis was a compassionate doctor who has dedicated his life to helping the poor.

The past perfect, has dedicated, should be changed to the simple past, dedicated:

The late Dr. Francis was a compassionate doctor who dedicated his life to helping the poor.

Both being (was) and dedicating one's life are things that went on for a period of time in the past, and are now complete.

COMPARE: The late Dr. Francis was a compassionate doctor who had dedicated his life to helping the poor, when he contracted tuberculosis, was quarantined and, eventually, died in a sanatorium.

For further exceptions, based on context, SEE: https://books.google.com/books?id=qFpkAIAOeg8C&pg=PA296&dq=present+perfect+deceased+grammar&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2idCjqPjTAhWHr1QKHdZzA3kQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=present%20perfect%20deceased%20grammar&f=false SEE: 5.34 Reference to entities that no longer exist

Antonia Lederhos Chandler
  • 123
0

No, you can't, but you can use past perfect in this case. For instance, my brother ”Yousef” had played football during his lifetime. Otherwise, you can use past simple Or” used to.” Furthermore, you have to remember that the present perfect can be used when the person who did the action can do it in the future.

Mr. Grammar
  • 1
0

Let's assume that a specific type of doctors exist. Their specific characteristic is: "a compassionate doctor who has dedicated his life to helping the poor".

It looks to me that it can be said as follows (no matter when Dr. Francis died - yesterday or 10 years ago):

  • The late Dr. Francis was one of this specific type of doctors.
  • The late Dr. Francis was "a compassionate doctor who has dedicated his life to helping the poor."
  • Now he is dead and he is no more "a compassionate doctor who has dedicated his life to helping the poor." But he was such.
fev
  • 33,009
Ghost Guest
  • 1
-1
  1. The late Dr. Francis was a compassionate doctor who dedicated his life to helping the poor.
  2. The late Dr. Francis was a compassionate doctor who has dedicated his life to helping the poor.

If we're talking about a recently deceased person, e.g. this sentence is part of his eulogy, either tense seems correct. Because you're at that critical point where you are transitioning from Dr Francis being in the present, to him being a person from the past.
This transition can be different for other people. His wife will presumably take longer to recognize him as a person from the past than e.g. his insurance agent.

But once we are talking about Dr. Francis as a person from the past, only the past tense is correct. Present tense no longer applies.

Flater
  • 7,767
  • A recently deceased person is not in the present, they are in the past. – AndyT May 12 '17 at 09:14
  • 1
    @AndyT: Objectively, when creating a timeline, yes. But imagine if Dr Francis' notary will be handling Dr Francis' affairs for the next month following his death. That notary would still be correct in saying "Dr Francis has left the house to you in his will", because the notary is still dealing with Dr Francis' decisions in his (the notary's) present. – Flater May 12 '17 at 09:20
  • your argument doesn't stand up. In "Dr Francis has left his house to Steve", Steve hasn't received the house yet, it is still Dr Francis's. Once Steve receives the house, it becomes "Dr Francis left his house to Steve". While Dr Francis is still alive, someone introducing him can say "Dr Francis has dedicated his life to...", but as soon as he is dead he has no life any more, and it becomes "Dr Francis dedicated his life to..." – AndyT May 12 '17 at 09:26
  • Steve hasn't received the house yet, it is still Dr Francis's Actually, that is incorrect. Dead people cannot hold possessions. The house was also never in the possession of the notary, unless the will specified that the house would not go to Steve until he meets certain criteria (e.g. get married). When the house is de facto given to Steve, it is immediately considered his property when Dr. Francis is definitively dead (even if the notary takes a week to notify him, although Steve can argue that he is not liable for ownership until he is informed). – Flater May 12 '17 at 09:48
  • @Flater: Legally, no. At least, not in the U.S. It is considered the property of Dr. Francis's estate until the estate is settled. You don't own it until the title is transferred to you (which could take a long time), and you can't use it without the executor's permission. – Peter Shor May 24 '17 at 13:25