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

Re: UNTIL + PAST PERFECT

CalifJim — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:36:09 GMT

It is a bit confusing. I think there are a few different things for you to learn before it makes sense, so you may have to be patient.

_______

1. You can use until with the past perfect. It's a backshift of until with the present perfect, like this:

Imagine that it is Thursday today. Today you say:

Until today, Larry has never gone to a museum.

Next week, looking back on the previous Thursday, you say:

Until last Thursday, Larry had never gone to a museum.

Keep this in mind.

_______

2. now does not always mean "at this moment when I am speaking". now can mean "at this point in the story". Here's an example:

Helen's car broke down on Tuesday. Now (=on Tuesday=at this point in the story) she was stuck. Now (=on Tuesday=at this point in the story) she had no way to get home.

Keep this in mind.

______

3. You can combine the two points above like this.

Suppose that Helen never had any trouble with her car, but it broke down on Tuesday.

Helen's car broke down on Tuesday. Until now (=until Tuesday=until this point in the story) she had never had any trouble with her car.

Here, now doesn't mean "at this moment when I am speaking", so until now means until Tuesday.

_______________

With these things in mind, let's turn to your example.

I looked up the article. The article contains this, later:

Friday afternoon, she pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about her use of banned drugs from 1999 to 2001.

So now in the headline means last Friday -- the Friday preceding the writing of the article.

Here's the full thought:

Jones pleaded guilty to lying on Friday. Until now (=until last Friday=until this point in the story), she had been steadfast in doping denials.

Compare:

Helen's car broke down on Tuesday. Until now (=until Tuesday=until this point in the story), she had never had any trouble with her car.

Re: The Continuous tense

Tanit — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:52:57 GMT

Anonymous
Is it a rule that the auxiliary, the past participle and the main verb are immediately after one another with no other words inbetween?

No, such a rule does not exist.

Anonymous
For example: "Have you ever had the feeling that you're being followed?"
This sentence has both "have" and "had" and two continuous verbs in it ("feeling" and "being"), but is it neither Present Perfect Continuous nor Past Perfect Continuous?

Your sentence is in the present perfect. "Have you ever had ..."
"the feeling" is a gerund, and acts as if it were a noun (it's the direct complement of "have had"). Try and replace it with "idea", "impression" etc (I'm not saying they are perfect synonym for "feeling" -- it's just to demonstrate that you can have a noun there, and to show you that "feeling" is not acting as a verb in your sentence). Another clue to understand its function is that it's preceded by the article "the".
"that you're being followed" this is a "that-clause" which describes what sort of "feeling" we are talking about. "being" here has to be seen together with "are" and "followed": "are being followed" is present continuous, passive.

Re: earlier in the evening

Avangi — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:32:32 GMT

Aha! This one is a little difficult. Absent earlier context setting the present time, "earlier in the evening" does two things. It establishes that the present time is this evening. And it establishes that Chavez picked the thing up at some time earlier this evening.

Well, I guess that's a dumb way to explain it.

Since "her eyes went" is simple past, the evening we're talking about is in the simple past also. Two things happened on that fateful evening: (first) he picked up the hold-all (second) her eyes went to it.

The main clause is in simple past, so the relative clause describing the earlier event is in past perfect.

So I should have said, it establishes that the [reference time] is that evening. And it establishes that Chavez picked the thing up at some time earlier that same evening.

You may well ask how we know that both events happened on the same [simple past] evening, since the sentence doesn't say so. We just have to assume it, since there's no other information.

There's also the fact that the speaker chooses to use the definite article, "the evening," and there's simply no other evening for "the" to refer to.

I"m thinking of a Jim Webb song, The Paper Chase: And later in the day she'll be searching for a way/ To let you know she's ready for your little game to end. Here again, the important thing is the use of the definite article, "later in the day." It will always mean "that same day," which may or may not have already been mentioned. Not the day before!

Sorry to go on and on. - A.

Memos show Clinton turmoil

Jackson6612 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:05:10 GMT

Memos show Clinton turmoil

Question: I would have written ''Clinton's turmoil''. Why didn't the author use apostrophe?

BY CRAIG GORDON AND TOM BRUNE | <email addresses removed by mod.>
August 13, 2008

Question: Why is semicolon used instead of comma to separate the email addresses above?

WASHINGTON - In a fresh postmortem (=an examination of a plan or event that failed, done to discover why it failed, =autopsy) on Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid (=attempt to obtain or do something), newly published staff memos (=a short official note to another person in the same company or organization) and e-mails reveal a campaign hobbled (=to hobble something or someone means to make it more difficult for them to be successful or to achieve what they want) by internal rivalries (=a situation in which two or more people, teams, or companies are competing for something), faulty planning, bloated (=more than needed, =excessive) spending - and perhaps most important, Clinton's own failure to make the hard decisions.

Clinton offered herself to voters as a hyper-competent (=extra competent) executive ready to be president from day one. But atop (=on top of something) her own campaign, she was a hesitant leader, who allowed bitter infighting (=when members of the same group or organization argue, or compete with each other in an unfriendly way) to fester (=If an argument or bad feeling festers, it continues so that feelings of hate or dissatisfaction increase) among staffers over whether to go negative against Barack Obama, according to the Atlantic magazine.

The most bare-knuckled (=characterized by disorderly action and disregard for rules) lines of attack came from Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, who urged Clinton to highlight Obama's "lack of American roots" due to his upbringing in Indonesia and Hawaii - saying he could only win if he faced Attila the Hun ((?406-453 AD) a king of the Huns (=an ancient people from Asia) who attacked and took control of large parts of the Roman Empire. He is famous for being violent and cruel).

But Clinton didn't embrace Penn's flag-waving (=the expression of strong national feelings, especially when these feelings seem too extreme) approach (=way of doing something), which campaign aides (=someone whose job is to help someone who has an important job, especially a politician) insist was never seriously considered.

Question: Clinton didn't embrace Penn's approach because she did not consider it seriously. Therefore, what campaign aides were saying is redundant.

The article also says that Clinton at times grew frustrated and short-tempered - including on the morning after her stunning third-place finish in Iowa in January, when aides on a call were silent. Clinton's camp dismissed the story as "inside-the-Beltway gossip" and "old news." And former campaign aides sharply disputed the notion of Clinton as an indecisive leader, with one campaign veteran saying, "Nobody seems to want to remember the fact that we had so many successes and come-from-behind victories in this campaign ... and they are due in large part to Senator Clinton's leadership."

Question: What does the line including on the morning...when aides on a call were silent mean? If she finished third place, then why would the author describe it as stunning? What does call mean in when aides on a call were silent?

Question: What does the phrase inside-the-Beltway gossip mean?

Question: What does the line Nobody seems to want to remember...to Senator Clinton's leadership'' mean?

But the e-mails and memos offer vivid (=very clear and detailed) new details about what had long been reported - that Clinton's headquarters was beset (=to make someone experience serious problems or dangers) by caustic (=bitter) internal battles involving Penn and former President Bill Clinton, who wanted to forcefully attack Obama, and others who wanted the New York senator to take a more positive tack (=method, =way of doing something). At one point, it was Bill Clinton - and not Hillary - who approved the famed 3 a.m. phone call ad.

Question: what had long been reported is passive past perfect tense. Am I right?

Question: I think headquarters should take plural verb. What do you say?

Question: Why are the hyphens used in -and not Hillary-? I believe commas would do instead?

Adding to the turmoil was the fact that the campaign had little strategy and no money left to seriously compete in the post-Super Tuesday contests - having (=the form having with a past participle can be used to introduce a clause in which you mention an action which had already happened before another action began) burned through $106 million before Iowa. That allowed Obama to win 12 straight contests and effectively wrap up (=to finish a job, meeting etc) the nomination.

Question: What does burned through mean?

In the end, the campaign's strategy came to reflect some of the internal turmoil, as Clinton veered (=changed course) from attacking Obama to emphasizing her personal side.

Question: What does her personal side mean?

Penn did offer some advice in March 2007 that proved on the mark - Clinton's path to victory lay with women and lower- and working-class voters.

Question: What does proved on the mark mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary.

But by the time Clinton finally settled on that strategy to win the later primaries, it was too late.

Excerpts from the memos

"All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light ... It also exposes a very strong weakness for him - his roots to basic American values and culture are at best (=even when considered in the most positive way) limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Strategist Mark Penn, from a March 19, 2007, memo to Hillary Rodham Clinton advising her to attack Barack Obama for his "lack of American roots."

Question: What does centre mean in the above context?

"The right knows Obama is unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun, and a third party would come in then anyway." Penn, from the same memo.

Question: Does right refer to right wing in the above context?

"This has been a very instructive call, talking to myself." Clinton, before angrily hanging up on a staff conference call the day after coming in third in Iowa in January. "She complained of being outmaneuvered (=to gain an advantage over someone by using cleverer or more skilful plans or methods) in Iowa and being painted as the establishment candidate," according to the Atlantic - but was met with near-silence.

Question: I would have written This has been..., talking to me. Why did she use myself?

Question: What is a conference call? Is it some kind of telephone call which address many poeple?

Question: Why is in used in coming in third?

"STOP IT!! I have help my tongue for weeks. After this morning's WP story, no longer. This makes me sick. This circular firing squad that is occurring is unattractive, unprofessional, unconscionable, and unacceptable ... It must stop." Robert Barnett, a Clinton lawyer and Washington insider, from a March 6, 2008, e-mail to campaign staff after a Washington Post story detailed the infighting.

Question: What does I have help my tongue for weeks mean?

Question: What does This circular firing squad mean?

Question: Were the comments in the last paragraph made by Robert Barnett?

Re: Where is the error (if any)?

ngngmaiphuong — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:40:35 GMT

Avangi
The only problem I see is a small one, possibly logical. When you say, "I've been invited to write for the newspaper," it's understood to mean on a regular basis. As we read on, we find that the invitation would have been for a one-time piece, on one particular occasion. In this case, we'd say, "intended to invite both you and me to submit articles for [possible] publication in his newspaper," or something like that.

Also, the punch line is missing. How did the editor solve his problem? When you use the past perfect, there's supposed to be a simple past tense event which the "had intended" preceded. Tune in tommorrow to see who will submit an article.

- A.

I completely agree with you about the tense error; however, my book somehow shows me that there is no problem with this sentences. That may be a printing error.

Thank you for replying

Re: Where is the error (if any)?

Avangi — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:25:52 GMT

The only problem I see is a small one, possibly logical. When you say, "I've been invited to write for the newspaper," it's understood to mean on a regular basis. In the case of a one-time assignment, you might say, "I've been invited to write something / a piece / an article for the newspaper."

As we continue reading your sentence, we find that the invitation would have been for a one-time piece, on one particular occasion. In this case, we'd say, "intended to invite both you and me to submit articles for [possible] publication in his newspaper," or something like that.

Also, the punch line is missing. How did the editor solve his problem? When you use the past perfect, there's supposed to be a simple past tense event which the "had intended" preceded: "So the editor decided that only one of us can submit an article." OR " . . . ; However, because of space constraints, the editor decided that . . . . " Tune in tommorrow to see who will submit an article.

- A.

Re: must be past perfect?

Delmobile — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:59:15 GMT

"he hadn't seen the article in almost half a century" - I would use past perfect here. The speaker is describing not a single occurrence but a long period during which he has not seen whatever it is.

Yesterday, I looked for Dapper Dan hair jelly at the store and didn't see it.

I haven't seen Dapper Dan brand for years now.

Yesterday, he said that he hadn't seen Dapper Dan for years.

I would also use past perfect in your second example. Without context, it sounds as though the narrator is referring to quite a bit of conversation, none of which has been addressed to him. Past perfect makes it clear that it is the whole conversation, not just the last remark, that is being described.

Again without more context, I think the last example doesn't require past perfect for the opposite, or inverse, reason: only Mr. Sweeney's most recent remark is referenced, not the entire conversation. It is a single event. "Was asking" is used instead of "had asked" or simply "asked" to emphasize that the question, unanswered, is still "hanging out there" - Mr. Sweeney is still waiting for his answer, so the "asking process" is in effect still taking place. If the musician were remembering a conversation that took place earlier in the day, than "had been asking" or "had asked" would be appropriate.

must be past perfect?

Anonymous — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:01:40 GMT

Hi,

I was looking at an article named "Metropolitan Diary" DATED October 16, 2000 by ENID NEMY from the New York Times and wonder if the past perfect tenses are absolutely required in some of the situations noted.

Passages from the article:

When he said he hadn't seen the item in almost half a century, the owner insisted he take a package without charge. -- To me, the past perfect tense was used in "he hadn't seen the item" since it is using the reported speech of "he say he didn't see the item in almost half a century."

"Finally the shoeshine was finished, and I said, 'It was nice talking to you,' when I suddenly realized that his conversation hadn't been addressed to me. He had been talking on his cellular phone the whole time. Needless to say, I was embarrassed. -- To me, the past perfect use as in "that his conversation hadn't been addressed to me" is good since it denotes the sequence of events as it being previous to the realizing of what happened but could this OK?
... , when I suddenly realized that his conversation wasn't addressed to me. Does it have to be a past perfect tense as Clive seemed to have said something like this rhetorically: If something occurred before something else, why not make it clear?

Then the light dawned and the musician realized trhat Mr. Sweeney was asking about the music and not inquiring about his profession. -- Why is there no need to change to passive past perfect like this since my reading of this is that the asking probably has occurred before Mr. Sweeney's realization -- why not make it passive past perfect here when the noted writer has used past perfect in a previous case although not in passive?? Then the light dawned and the musician realized that Mr. Sweeney had been asking about the music and not had been inquiring about his profession.

Re: tense - why wrong?

26TMNTJG2PG — Fri, 30 May 2008 10:16:53 GMT

The past perfect tense serves only to place a narration in the "more distant past," without determining its particular time or duration, as follows: "He had risen early that morning and had drunk coffee earlier than usual. â Wikipedia. There are many ways to express an idea. Why must we choose a way that infringes grammatical rules? How do you do it?
Easy.
Yesterday we finished our lunch and then Tom arrived. Yesterday we finished our lunch. Then Tom arrived.
Are they not equally good, if not better?
Notice that I used 'Easy' above. I say it is a sentence or a paragraph. Do you agree?
You don't. Everybody knows that "A sentence must have a verb and can stand on its own"; but then so many famous writers use this so-called effective style of writing (at the expense of grammatical rules) in newspaper articles and books including reference books teaching their users to speak and write better English.
"A sentence must have a verb and can stand on its own" has become a schoolroom rule. If you engage yourself in formal writing or if you are a student, are you not inclined to follow this rule?A job applicant using the sentence, "I like employers that (instead of who) take good care of their employees", is facing a risk of his/her application being turned down should his/her prospective employer consider such use (of 'that') as inappropriate; and the applicant will be left with no chance to defend himself/herself since normally no reason will be given for the rejection. 'That' for human antecedent is a disputed usage. If I use the word 'unidiomatic' in my thesis for a degree, I am facing the danger of marks being deducted for such usage because 'unidiomatic' cannot be found in online dictionaries but it is used in Wikipedia. What I am stressing is that if you don't follow the rules, there may be a cost to bear.Coincidentally, there is an article titled "Position matters" by Dr Lim Chin Lam in the popular national English daily today which article somewhat talks about the importance of following grammatical rules and which article, however, has three disputed usages namely (1) 'that' for human antecedent (without any explanation), (2) split infinitive (with convincing reasonings) and (3) ending a sentence with a preposition (quoting Winston Churchill).
HTH. HAND.

Re: Please suggest!

Yankee — Sun, 11 May 2008 02:05:33 GMT

Just to summarize:

had arrested = past perfect form of the verb 'arrest'

had to = simple past form of 'have to'

Although it is more common to say 'the police', the word 'police' is also sometime used without the definite article ('the') -- especially in news reports.