1

I found this from a blog where the writer used this is because:

Through the experience of the DSCE, I felt like my life goal had finally been achieved, but when I desperately pleaded with God to let me back into that state, I soon realized it was almost impossible to achieve on my own. This is because I had only become partially self-realized.

Shouldn't the author have used this was because because they were referring a past event? If not, can someone please explain the rule regarding when to use this is because versus when to use this was because?

herisson
  • 81,803
user250189
  • 177
  • 3
  • 3
  • 8
  • First, identify what the word "this" refers to (the experience vs the goal achievement vs the realisation). Use is if referring to "this" holding in the present; use was if referring to "this" holding in the past. – Lawrence Jul 31 '17 at 23:53
  • 2
    You're right; he should. Everything else in the passage is past and so should this have been. – Robbie Goodwin Aug 15 '17 at 14:51
  • 1
    Present tense e.g. "this is" is used when something is considered as being true in the present as well as the past, to emphasise that it is a lesson for the present. It is common (but not invariable) to state general truths in the present tense even in past-tense writing. But here the author is combining giving a reason for a past event with a general statement about the present, so tenses become muddled. It might be better to say e.g. "This was because I had only become partially self-realized, and the same is true for any of us." – Stuart F Apr 16 '21 at 15:17

2 Answers2

0

In your example, the introductory phrasethis is will be confusing for most readers because the preceding sentence is (1) quite long and, more important, (2) this is could refer to either the fact that God will not let you "back into that state" or that you are only "partially self-realized."

For clarity, the sentence would be clearer if the writer did away with this is and simply ended the sentence with "because I had only become partially self-realized." In addition, the sentence would be better if the writer avoided the ambiguous it in the second independent clause and used enlightenment or a similar word instead.

Docholl1
  • 222
0

Sometimes the present simple can be used

to refer to the past when we want to make events sound as if they are happening now. (Cambridge)

But then all the verbs in your sentence should have been in the present.

However, there could be an explanation to why the present was used in combination with past events. If the speaker had said

This was because I had only become partially self-realized.

it could have meant that he came to understand THEN, IN THE PAST, the reason why it was almost impossible to achieve on his own. Yet the writer chose the present, probably to indicate that he made this realisation NOW, AT THE MOMENT OF WRITING. So that part of the sentence could be understood as:

I now understand that this was true because I had only become partially self-realized.

fev
  • 33,009