Search results for 'tag:Simple past tag:Clauses' matching tags 'Simple past' and 'Clauses'

Re: Again, verbing.

Avangi — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:51:46 GMT

Enchanted
but i dont understand it grammatically.

The participial phrase is a modifier. You can argue whether it's adverbial (modifying the action) or adjectival (modifying the actor); but either way your final analysis is correct, since A does it when/while knowing. That is, you could say, "A, while knowing, does it," or you could say, "A does it while knowing." A. Stars recently made a case for all participial phrases being adjectival only, supporting it with several references.
The rest of the grammar of the participial phrase is that being derived from a verb, (to know) it can take an object, which in this case is a clause, "It will make me walk away."

Since the sentence implies that this is habitual behavior, you could reason that A knew what the result would be before he made his move to answer. But in terms of the grammar, the knowing and the answering were concurrent. The use of present tense also reinforces the "habitual" notion. Simple past would have worked in the sequence you describe. (Why did you answer, knowing - - - .) Present tense implies, "Why do you continue to do it?"

- A.

Re: "whenever" and verb tenses following it

AlpheccaStars — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:09:04 GMT

Velimir:

Sorry I did not understand your question. Here are some comments on the verb tenses in your sentences

1a) Whenever you've sent us your goods, we have received your documents related to the delivery when the truck has already set off .

you've sent: You have sent is present perfect. It is used for an action in the past that is not finally complete yet.

we have received: present perfect. It is OK to combine present perfect tenses in one sentence.

You have sent us goods, and we have received the documents. (and we expect this pattern to continue in the present and future)

when the truck has already set off . (present perfect). Herein lies the problem. The time sequence of the events is difficult to understand. If you change "when" to "before or after", then it is a little bit clearer, because "before" and "after" are more explicit in comparing time sequences.

Whenever you've sent us your goods, we have received your documents related to the delivery after the truck has already set off .

Whenever you've sent us your goods, we have received your documents related to the delivery before the truck has already set off .

Whenever you've sent us your goods, we would receive your documents

This sequence of tenses is not grammatically correct. "would receive" is future relative to the time context. But with present perfect tense, the time context is not specific enough. The simple past is required, to establish a time reference point in the past. The correct form is -- > simple past / modal relative future

Whenever you sent us your goods, we would receive the documents

2a). Whenever you sent us your goods we received your documents related to the delivery after the truck had already set off.

Simple past is fine for the first 2 clauses.

Whenever you sent us your goods we received your documents

The problem comes with the past perfect in the last clause. This means an action completed at a time reference in the past, but there is no such time reference in the sentence. It can be fixed by adding a time reference, either one time, or an adverb making a specific time series. Also, "before" or "after" is needed to establish the sequence of events.

Last Tuesday, when you sent us your goods, we received the documents after the truck had been dispatched. (once, specific time; note that it is better to use the passive to relate the truck to "you". Active voice is better, still)

Last Tuesday, when you sent us your goods, we received the documents after you had dispatched the truck.

Every time that you sent us goods, we received the documents after the truck had been dispatched. (all the time)

In the past, more than 50 percent of the time that you sent us goods, we received the documents after the truck had been dispatched.

You can also use present tense to show a habitual pattern of activities:

Sometimes when you send us goods, we receive the documents after the truck has been dispatched.

When you send us goods, we always receive the documents after the truck has been dispatched.

Note the present perfect in the last clause to show that this action was already started before the time of "receiving the documents". This sequence - present / present / present perfect compares to past / past / past perfect pattern earlier.

2b) Whenever you sent us your goods we would receive your documents related to the delivery when the truck had already set off.

See above comments.

"whenever" and verb tenses following it

Velimir — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:31:06 GMT

Hello everybody,

I had to write some business correspondence recently and I got stuck at the early beginning in the mesh of time clauses and verb tenses. Here's the sentence I would like you to check in various verb tense - options and to give some brief comment if possible. I start with what I believe is a correct sentence and adequate to what I need to express with it :

" Whenever you send us your goods we receive your documents related to the delivery after the truck has already set

off." (this sentence would be followedÂ byÂ i.e : "The solving of this problem would save us money and future inconvenience so we hope you will...etc)

Do I keep the meaning of the original sentence and is it grammatically correct if i tried to rephrase the sentence using the present perfect tense or the simple past tense in the "whenever clause" , as i have done in the 1 and 2 below respectively :

1a) Whenever you've sent us your goods, we have received your documents related to the delivery when the truck has already set off .

1b) Whenever you've sent us your goods we would receive your documents related to the delivery after the truck has already set off.

2a). Whenever you sent us your goods we received your documents related to the delivery after the truck had already set off.

2b) Whenever you sent us your goods we would receive your documents related to the delivery when the truck had already set off.

Also , what if i put the verb in "..when the truck had already set off" in simple past instead of the past perfect tense in the sentences under 2) ?

Thanks a lot for your help

Re: because + past perfect

Mister Micawber — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:55:25 GMT

.
"The board also said it made its decision because he was in a place where .. "-- He was in the place at the same time the board decided or perhaps he was in the place before it decided but is no longer there.
".....because he had been in place where.."-- He was definitely in the place before they decided and is no longer there.

"Back in 2006 my partner called the police because I had broken the door of our apartment." --You definitely broke the door well before your partner called.
" ....because I broke the door of our apartment" )-- You probably broke the door soon before your partner called.

Am I right then that the simple past is a regular tense used in "because clauses" to situate the action in the clause in the past time and that the past perfect is used only if there is a need to emphasize the prior happening of the action in the "because clause" in reference to the action in the main clause ?-- No. It is often but not always true. Much depends on the common sense order of events.
.

because + past perfect

Velimir — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:51:26 GMT

Hello everybody,

I have a question about the use of the past perfect and simple past in " because clauses" .Are the two tenses interchangeable in the most of the "because clauses" ? For example I append a few clauses I have randomly picked from google :

"The board also said it made its decision because he was in a place where .. " (can i replace the because clause with the one with past perfect : "because he had been in place where.." without a change in the meaning ? )

or vice versa , can i replace the past perfect from the below "because clause" with the simple past :

"Back in 2006 my partner called the police because I had broken the door of our apartment." ( would it be the same : " because I broke the door of our apartment" )

I have noticed (by googling it ) that the use of the past perfect in "because clauses" is not so frequent. Am I right then that the simple past is a regular tense used in "because clauses" to situate the action in the clause in the past time and that the past perfect is used only if there is a need to emphasize the prior happening of the action in the "because clause" in reference to the action in the main clause ?

Thank you for your help

Re: Tense confusion

CalifJim — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:36:01 GMT

Ant_222
I can not discern a reason for different tenses in the subordinate clause.

Me neither. It seems they should be the same.

It never happens that he eats beef.

It never happened that he ate beef.

It has never happened that he has eaten beef.

Still, a simple past after a present perfect seems possible:

It has never happened that he ate beef.

I've found examples (through Google) of all of these (above), and also of the oddest of them, the past followed by the present:

It never happened that he eats beef. ???

____

It's not a common turn of phrase, in any case, because you can more easily say

He never eats beef. He never ate beef. ...

Re: past perfect or simple past in the main clause?

Velimir — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:01:25 GMT

Hello Mr.Micawber,

I understand that all the quoted sentences from my first post are acceptable ?Â

Thank you a lot for your really quick response Mr.Micawber.

Best regards

Re: past perfect or simple past in the main clause?

Mister Micawber — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:25:26 GMT

.
It is not a matter of formality; the most that can be said is that the past perfect often occurs as a hyper-correction.

Use past perfect if the order of past events is otherwise unclear, or if you wish to emphasize the priority of the earlier event; otherwise, use simple past.
.

past perfect or simple past in the main clause?

Velimir — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:16:03 GMT

Hello ,

I have a question about how the past perfect tense and the simple past tense fit together in time clauses and specially as to when it is correct to use the simple past tense instead of past perfect in the main clause? Is the simple past tense used in more informal speech and past perfect more formally? Here are some examples with "until" and "before" introducing time clauses and I would like you to check it and give a brief comment as to its usage if possible:

" Before I found this site I hadn't had much experience with the english language" or

" Before i found this site I didn't have much experience with the english language"

and how about with "until" :

"I didn't have much experience with the english language until i found this site"

"I hadn't had much experience with the english language until i found this site"

Would it be correct to infer that the usage of the simple past tense as its shown above is correct only in some cases and only when the sequence of the actions in the main and the dependent sentence is obvious?

And please would you check the sentence I've found in one test and tell me why the simple past tense is incorrect in this case :

Hehadn't wanted to live in the big city until he lived in San Francisko.

why not " He didn't want .." too ?

Best regards and thanks for your help

Re: I have seen your father before I come here

CalifJim — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:26:52 GMT

You can't use the present perfect (e.g., have seen) in the same sentence with an expression of a definite time.

A before clause expresses definite time.

So have seen doesn't go with before. You have to change have seen to saw (the simple past).

I saw your father before I came here.

I saw your father before coming here.