Could I borrow your thread for a moment?
She
told me that she
had moved on.
So "had moved on" means that the action of "moving on" had been completed before another past event. What would this other past event be? Would it the "told" part?
Somewhat similarly, how would you explain a sentence like this?
"She
had told me that she
had moved on."
I always have a lot of trouble with past perfect tense. In this case, does it mean that both actions of
her telling you and
her having moved on were past events that had already been completed before ANOTHER past event? So my sentence would not make sense without more information, right? I would need to say something more to place everything in a proper time frame:
"She
had told me that she
had moved on, but I
didn't believe her."
My "not believing her" part was that needed past action that indicated there had been two previous, completed actions that came before, hence the use of past perfect for "had told me" and "had moved on"? Did I get this right? Essentially, you cannot use past perfect where past simple would be more appropriate, am I correct? You must have a context set up where you are discussing two events IN THE PAST?
"
I can't remember what I had written" Would this be correct? The answer would be no, right? Because "can't" is in the present, "had written" is a past perfect tense, so where is the second past action that should follow "had written"? Something like "I couldn't remember what I had written" would then be correct, would it not?
Some more,
Even though the only friend I made the entire time was a dog, I was happy.
(I heard it said like that)
But shouldn't it be,
Even though the only friend I had made the entire time was a dog, I was happy.
I have a feeling that this isn't correct. Would it be because the "only friend I
had made" makes it a completed action and not contemporaneous with being happy?
Thanks kindly!!!