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

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: What should I do? Estranged relationship

Huevos — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:58:20 GMT

Hi,

I would use "during" when the point of view was from within one unit, and one unit only; so "during our fourth year" is ok but if there were more than one year it would be "between our fourth and our seventh year" or "over the period from our fourth year to our seventh year". With regard to "had become" why do you believe you need past perfect here? Both indefinite and past perfect work but why did you choose past perfect? To me indefinite sounds clearer and more straightforward.
They are almost synonyms: Hardly, barely, scarcely imply a narrow margin by which performance was, is, or will be achieved. Hardly, though often interchangeable with scarcely and barely, usually emphasizes the idea of the difficulty involved: We could hardly endure the winter. Barely emphasizes the narrowness of the margin of safety, âonly just and no moreâ: We barely succeeded. Scarcely implies a very narrow margin, below satisfactory performance: He can scarcely read. In your context barely emphasizes no more than was absolutely necessary while hardly just means very little.

Re: Not stopping until reaching

Casi — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:33:24 GMT

RE: I didn't stop until I (had) reached the top"

an attempt wrote:
Some confusion arises if we do use the Past Perfect here: it appears that the action in the first clause, ânot stoppingâ (i.e. going up the hill), came first and the action in the second was after that going. So we see that in the sentence âBut I didn't stop until I had reached the topâ the Past Perfect marks the later of the two actions. Can it?â

I see your point. You're saying that since the "walking" itself started before reaching the top, the perfect marker should be on "stop", the first event:

walking => reach the top
I had not stopped until I reached the top.

Therefore the opposite event structure "I did not stop, until I had reached the top" is awkward in your view because in accordance with the past perfect marker the sequence of events seems backwards, right?

walking => reach the top
I did not stop until I (had) reached the top.

OK. I see what's perplexing. (Thanks for the clear explanation, an attempt.)

Now according to the task, we are to change "to stop/not" so that it fits the sentence structure, and that verb form is negative, not affirmative, so walking, an affirmative event should not find its way into our analysis. It's the negative event "not stop" that's connected to "reached the top":

walking starts => not stopping => reach top => stopping .

In terms of event structure, not stopping ended once I reached the top. It's the stopping itself that's connected to reaching the top, not the walking. Remember, the task provides us with a negative verb, so we shouldn't be looking at affirmative walking; on the contrary, we should be looking at what's provided: 'not stop', and when it ends, because it's when it ends that's being connected with reaching the top.

I didn't stop until I (had) reached the top.

Now, the opposite event structure "had not stopped is used for emphasis, and "before" is generally used with it; although, "until" is often used as its synonym, but informally:

I had not stopped (at all) before I reached the top ~ before reaching the top .

The speaker is emphasizing "not stopping" as something that had not taken place at all before reaching the top . Of course, stopping happened when the top was reached, but "stopping", as with "didn't stop" is not in focus here. It's the emphatic "not stop" (stopping had not taken place at all), that's in full view. There's a difference between 'didn't stop until' and 'hadn't stopped until' that the task does not take into consideration, but mind you, "didn't stop. . . (had) reached" would be my educated choice given that the example sentence we're asked to parse is not in context. If it were, then emphasizing "had not stopped" would be a more viable choice.

All the best,

Re: Not stopping until reaching

Casi — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:26:49 GMT

an attempt wrote:
In case the background of the original question is still unclear, you may have a look here: http://info.study.ru/index.cgi?open=1040328225_34110. Thatâs where the question comes from.

I see, and thank you for the link.

Seems to me the discussion surrounds the semantic contribution and function of the preposition "until". In English, "until" has three meanings: up to, as far as, and before. As a subordinating conjunction, which is how it functions in our original example sentence (Shown below for our convenience), "until" is synonymous with "before". Now, in the past, or rather the history of the English language, the preposition "before", and its counter "after", were used along with the past perfect (e.g., had reached). They fit well together, that pair "before . . had -ed", because each expresses a connection of two events in time, wherein one of those events happens/ed before the other event. In this day and age, though, the set phrase "before . . . had -ed" is in the process of changing. Since both the preposition "before" and past perfect "had -ed" expess the same meaning, "had", the prefect marker tends to be omitted by speakers from speech and writing, giving,

1a) I didn't stop before I (had) reached the mountain.

Synonymously,

1b) I didn't stop until I (had) reached the mountain.

So, you see, if "until" is viewed as a synonym for "before", then "had" is optional in that context, and even though the perfect marker, the one that tells us which event happened first, has been omitted, it's there all the same since "until" carries the same meaning as "had -ed".

In short, "until" (1b) doesn't mean as far as. Consider also, the Russian forms, particularly the last one, which I have highlighted:

The Russian preposition ??+Gen has two meanings: Its temporal sense is simply "before" or "until", and it also can mean "as far as", implying "reaching" something as well as going up to it.

Source: http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/language/prepgen.html