Search results for 'tag:Grammar tag:Past perfect' matching tags 'Grammar' and 'Past perfect'

Re: Until

Liveinjapan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:41:14 GMT

New2grammar
until it had sounds like until after it ..., IMO. Waht do you think?

What do you mean does 'until after' imply here, New2?

I think "until after" might imply a time lag between biting and the next action(,or maybe not). But I think the past perfect, to the contrary, indicates 'just after it stopped biting', IMO.
If the sentence is like 'I didn't do that until it had stopped...,' then it means 'just after it stopped it I did that,' where there may be no time lag, IMO.

Re: When past perfect is optional?

Huevos — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:37:11 GMT

There's no right or wrong here. You just need to decide whether you want your grammar or your context, or both, to show the order in which a particular series of events took place.

When the teacher (had) arrived, they stopped talking.

Viceidol — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:47:12 GMT

Hello, everyone. One of my grammar books says both past perfect and simple past tense mean the same thing in the following example:

When the teacher had arrived, they stopped talking.=When the teacher arrived, they stopped talking.

But my another book says they don't mean the same thing. It gives two examples:

When he closed the door, I began to scream. The book says it means "I screamed before the door was completely closed."

When he had closed the door, I began to scream. The book says it means "I screamed after the door was completely closed."

(Both books are not written by native speakers)

May I ask which opinion of the two books is true? Please help me with this, thank you!

Re: If I had listened to you

Huevos — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:57:21 GMT

New2grammar
Oh no. I didn't buy a lottery ticket (?? This means any ticket of any lottery. How to be specific to the lottery his friend advised)

You could say "Oh no. I didn't buy that lottery ticket".

New2grammar
Why is there a condition? "supposing that the numbers had been selected before the draw"

The winning number was drawn, say, yesterday, and matched the number his friend advised him to buy

The condition is that the if clause may be fulfilled. In your sentences it is already impossible to fulfil the if clause making the sentences purely hypothesis. This is known as a type III conditional and is formed thus: if + past perfect + would + have + past participle. A conditional formed with if + simple past is known as a type II conditional and is used where it is still possible to fulfil the if clause however unlikely that may be.

Re: tense - why wrong?

Kooyeen — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:56:46 GMT

Applicant: Hello. I'm here for that job for which you need a technician. My grammar is good. For example, I never end a sentence with a preposition. *smile*
Employer: Oh, that don't matter. *smile* We gotta do some stuff with computers, websites, y'know, crap like that. *light a cigar* *cough* Really, that ain't no problem... *smile*

Anyway, the rule "no past perfect with a specific point in time" doesn't exist in any ESL book. The rule you usually find is actually "no present perfect with a specific point in time". Nothing is said about the past perfect, which is perfectly ok even when we want to refer to very specific points in time. Sometimes it's even necessary:

I was so shocked. I had just checked it a few seconds before, and it was there. Then I turned my head and it was gone. There's a ghost there, trust me.
If I'm not mistaken, you can't use a simple past there, and say "I just checked". I guess it's because of that "just". Right?

Re: tense - why wrong?

26TMNTJG2PG — Wed, 28 May 2008 09:54:48 GMT

Thank you Grammar Geek.

The past perfect is not to be used for a definite point of time in the past (like yesterday). Like it or not, I am afraid this is the rule.

I have come across a blog post titled Simple Past Tense against Past Perfect which hopefully can do the necessary explanations.

Thanks again!.

Re: sequence

Anonymous — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:21:25 GMT

I think New2grammar said that, to him, a past perfect always precedes a present. It seems that is not always correct, isn't it??

CalifJim wrote:

To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence.

Maybe the first part about the dogs should have read The sites had first been identified ..., but the author simplified the tense to the simple past because it was clear from context that the dogs were first and the testing next.

In isolation it's a strange sequence of tenses.

I think iff the first clause didn't have the word 'first', then we could not make the assertion that the dog found the site first and later used the equipment to verify the result. Sorry I couldn't paste the original sentence.

Re: had had dinner

Goodman — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:00:03 GMT

When do we use it?

This is one manâs opinion.

If we canât sort out the mechanics on how, when and where to apply past perfect tense, itâs safe to assume that there will be always problems associated logic, tone and grammar in the usage as it may be used incorrectly or over-killed. In may instances of past perfect usage, it is not actually needed but by oneâs using it unnecessarily, he may have in fact created result opposite of his expectations.

I had advised you several times on the issue in the past, but yet, you didnât take it seriously.

Further Past | --Advising --| recent past --failed to take advantage--| past

Past perfect is used to describe something happened in the past which spanned over a period of time and another event followed i.e.

I had served 3 years in The National Guard before I returned to school 2 years ago to finish my B.S. in Mechanical Engineering.

Re: which vs of which

CalifJim — Wed, 21 May 2008 08:21:16 GMT

New2grammar
He'd only left her a note on the bedside table of which she had not understood the content.

This sentence could occur in a short story or novel. It would not likely occur in a casual conversation. Instead, it might be

He left her a note on the table beside the bed, but she didn't understand it.

Or if the past perfect is absolutely necessary in the context.

He'd left her a note on the table beside the bed, but she hadn't understood it.

Or if the "only" idea is absolutely required, a person might add only as in the original or might say

All he did was leave her a note on the table by the bed, but she didn't understand it.

The grammatical structures of ordinary everyday conversation are much simpler than those found in novels and essays.

Re: the tense of two sentences

CalifJim — Tue, 20 May 2008 01:45:23 GMT

New2grammar
1. Can I change 'when' to 'that' as suggested by you before the context was given?
2. Can I change to past tense "She felt..." since the time shift has occurred, there's no need to shift in time again.

1. Yes, but then you should probably change so to very because so ... sets up reader expectation for another clause beginning with that ...

She had been very happy that Dahu chose her.

She had been so happy that Dahu chose her ------ that she jumped up and kissed him. (Ignore the first that. It's not part of the so ... that ... structure.)

Compare:

He was so tall that he had to stoop to enter the room.

2. There's no need to shift again; that's true, although this is a matter of opinion. Most authors will keep reminding the reader of the intended position in time with an occasional past perfect. Theoretically, even those subordinate clauses would be in the past perfect, because they happened during the same time period as the main clauses, thus:

She had been so happy when Dahu had chosen her as the future mother of his children. He was the best toolmaker in the group and it was a great honour to be chosen. She had felt so proud as the group had shouted loudly to applaud his choice.

Writers tread a fine line between overusing and underusing the past perfect. Typically, they try to use it as little as possible, but not so little that it confuses the reader about the order of events in time. These are matters of style more than of grammar.