English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Between these sentences:
Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations. There was a bridge that connected them.
Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations. There is a bridge that connects them.
Which one is correct when telling a story if the bridge still exists, if the bridge no longer exists, and if i don't know whether the bridge still exists or not?
There should be a bridge that connects them -> it's supposed to be there, that much we know. (If there was used to be, that would mean then, that the bridge no longer exists)
Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations. There is a bridge that connects them.
It is plain here, that the bridge still exists and that we know about it.
Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations. There was a bridge that connected them.
From my point of view, the Past Simple in "there was a bridge..." indicates, that the bridge no longer exists...
...or does it? It's a bit tricky question I think. To me the Past Simple here does not give full certainty as to whether that bridge is still there or not. We know that there was, because a friend of ours told us so. But is it still there? It depends on what follows after these two sentences.
I hope this was of little help. Do correct me, if I'm wrong in my understanding.
This is a question of logic rather than mere proofreading.
All statements start in the same way with
{Statement about an event at a past time}
Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations.
This is followed by three alternatives:
The bridge is known to exist now
{Statement about a present truth relating to those stations now}
There is a bridge that connects them.
This tells us the bridge exists now but does not tell us if it existed ten years ago or not. To suggest that did not exist ten years ago you could say
There is now a bridge that connects them.
Emphasis using "now" suggests a contrast with the past, implying that the bridge did not exist then.
The Bridge is known not to exist now
{Statement about a past truth relating to those stations at that past time}
There was a bridge that connected them.
Although true, this does not tell us if the bridge exists now or not. To suggest that it no longer exists you could say
There was a bridge at that time that connected them.
Emphasis using "at that time" suggests a contrast with the present, implying that the bridge no longer exists.
It is not known if the bridge now exists or not
{Statement about a truth relating to those stations at that past time}
There was a bridge that connected them.
The last statement tells us that there was a bridge in the past but tells us nothing about the present. To suggest the uncertainty of its still being there - or if it still exists or not - needs additional prose. To give only one example: There was a bridge, which may still be there, that connected them.
You are thinking about this too much, Let's take it strictly
The first sentence, "there was" means that a bridge was there at the time of showing (ten years ago). It tells us nothing about whether the bridge is still there, or even if the speaker knows it is still there. For example, if telling a story focussed on the past, it makes no sense to jump between past and present tense depending on what you know.
For example:
Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations. There was a bridge that connected them. We walked across it, drinking beer, and he told me his life story. It was at that time I got the idea for turning it into a TV show.
No speaker would suddenly switch to the present tense in the middle of that just because he happens to know that the bridge still exists.
The second sentence "there is" means that the bridge is there at the time of telling. It probably means the bridge was there at the time of showing the locations, but not always.
We need to get the supplies from one station to the other. Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations, and there is a bridge that connects them, built a couple of years ago.
You are trying to force the verbs to do too much work:
Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations. There used to be a bridge that connected them. (It is no longer there.)
Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations. There [still] is a bridge that connects them. (It is still there.)
Ten years ago he showed me the location of the stations. There was a bridge that connected them that could/might still be there. (You don’t know if it’s still there.)
