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

Ungrammatical? "She belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner had even begun."

Peaceblinkfriend — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:29:27 GMT

She belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner had even begun.

This is an example sentence provided for the entry on the 'belt down' in a Chamber's guidebook on phrasal verbs. And from what I have learned about Past Perfect, it seems to me that it is ungrammatical that 'had even begun' is in Past Perfect tense. I reckon it should be 'She had belted most of a bottle of wine down before dinner even began' instead. I know it is probably presumptuous to say this, but anyhow, I will be virtually over the moon if I got this right.

Thanks

PBF

Re: when past perfect is necessary?

Marius Hancu — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:49:52 GMT

He looked as if he had seen a ghost.

This is more complicated, because he had seen in this context is not past perfect indicative, but past perfect subjunctive mood here (they have the same form)

Read my posts in that thread:

Re: as if + backshift

where I'm saying among others:

Some prefer to concentrate on the mood here, and forget about the sequence of verbs, because when you have modality around, the tenses/timing are a bit mudied .... and I think that's a reasonable point of view.

Re: tense check

Clive — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 01:29:55 GMT

Hi again,

Thank you so much again.

Here,

Your correction:

"If John comes home about an hour later, he will be looking for me to play chess with him and when he finds out I am not there, he will be disappointed," I think. Do you have a question about this? Yes,but does it have to be "will"? I thinK we can say, "I would be playing chess when he comes home," giving the element of conditional that the modal "would" imparts. On the second thought, it would go against the no. 1 conditional structure and that wouldn't be good, IMO. Then, again, what can I do to send a message of uncertainly by the use of a verb form, still keeping the word "will"? How about saying something like "I think maybe I will . . . '?

Always have to be this?

When Joe comes home an hour later, he will (probably) - not would?? - be waiting for me at the bus stop with an umbrella so I won't get wet.
Will -not would??- Joe wait for me with an umbrella when I arrived at the bus stop an hour later?
What will - not would??- Joe do when Jane comes back is beyond me.
Will - not would?? - he be going out with Jane if she asks him out?

Always have to be a "definite" "will"? How can I impart a conditional element (if it is possible) with a touch of hesitation to a sentence that has "will"?

If you say something like What will - not would??- Joe do when Jane comes back is beyond me, you are mixing conditional factual elements. Instead, you need to say one or other of the following.

What Joe will do when Jane comes back is beyond me.

What Joe would do if Jane comes back is beyond me.

2. My position: I don't think we need to use a past perfect in the if-clause; of course, it would be needed if I were to put the if part in the past and that would put the sequence very clear but this would work fine too, IMO. At best, it would leave readers to figure out the sequence by themselves or at worst, it would be considered wrong:

If I went shopping when Joe called, I would be in the chic district of Seoul, window-shopping for all those fabulous lastest-trend clothes.

If I went shopping when Joe called . . this sounds like scenario in which you went shopping after he called. Yes, I think this situation would create that doubt on the part of a reader, but can you think of a sitution or two where it is OK, although not preferable, not to make it a past perfect but leave it as a past and leave to the readers to figure out the sequence involved? Not offhand, although I'm sure there are some. But why do you want to make the readers do the work?

Best wishes, Clive

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

Anonymous — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:05:24 GMT

This is the use of the past perfect. You use the past perfect when you have two events that happened in the past and you want to put them together in one sentence. The event that happened firts is spoken in past perfect which means you have to use the auxilary "had + verb in past participle" and the event that happened second is spoken in simple past. The most common connectors are: before, after, when and by the time. The first thing that you have to decide is in which order the events happened. There are many ways to write the sentence that depends on what connector you are using.
e.g. This happended first: all the passangers got out of the plane.
This happened after: the plane exploded.

All the passangers had gotten out of the plane when / before / by the time the plane exploded. or
Before / by the time / when the plane explded, all the passangers had already gotten out of the plane. (already is only for emphasis) or
The plane exploded after the passengers had gotten out of the plane.

Using the past perfect simple (had + verb in past participle)
means that the event that happened first stopped before or long before the second one started.

Using the past perfect continuous or progressive (had + been + verb in gerund ing) means that the first event stopped at the same time the second started.
e.g. I had been driving my new car for only 3 months when my brother crashed it.

I hope this info is helpful.

Re: tense check

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:49:45 GMT

Thank you so much again.

Here,

Your correction:

"If John comes home about an hour later, he will be looking for me to play chess with him and when he finds out I am not there, he will be disappointed," I think. Do you have a question about this? Yes,but does it have to be "will"? I thinK we can say, "I would be playing chess when he comes home," giving the element of conditional that the modal "would" imparts. On the second thought, it would go against the no. 1 conditional structure and that wouldn't be good, IMO. Then, again, what can I do to send a message of uncertainly by the use of a verb form, still keeping the word "will"?

Always have to be this?

When Joe comes home an hour later, he will (probably) - not would?? - be waiting for me at the bus stop with an umbrella so I won't get wet.
Will -not would??- Joe wait for me with an umbrella when I arrived at the bus stop an hour later?
What will - not would??- Joe do when Jane comes back is beyond me.
Will - not would?? - he be going out with Jane if she asks him out?

Always have to be a "definite" "will"? How can I impart a conditional element (if it is possible) with a touch of hesitation to a sentence that has "will"?

2. My position: I don't think we need to use a past perfect in the if-clause; of course, it would be needed if I were to put the if part in the past and that would put the sequence very clear but this would work fine too, IMO. At best, it would leave readers to figure out the sequence by themselves or at worst, it would be considered wrong:

If I went shopping when Joe called, I would be in the chic district of Seoul, window-shopping for all those fabulous lastest-trend clothes.

If I went shopping when Joe called . . this sounds like scenario in which you went shopping after he called. Yes, I think this situation would create that doubt on the part of a reader, but can you think of a sitution or two where it is OK, although not preferable, not to make it a past perfect but leave it as a past and leave to the readers to figure out the sequence involved?

Re: Need help over here.

Mr Wordy — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:08:00 GMT

1. Well, "had" is the past tense of the verb "have", but I think you're asking specifically about its use as an auxiliary to form the past perfect tense of other verbs:

I played -- simple past tense

I have played -- present perfect tense

I had played -- past perfect (or pluperfect) tense

So, even though "have" on its own is present tense, it forms a past tense with other verbs. If you do a Google search for these tense names then you will find tons of information on their uses. See, for example, http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html (this page describes the past perfect; all the other tenses are linked down the left hand side).

"I have played football yesterday" isn't right. "have played football" has the general sense of "played football on one or more unspecified occasions in the past", and it doesn't go with "yesterday", which is a specific occasion. Instead you would say "I played football yesterday".

2. "Never" can be used with a variety of different tenses, depending on when the thing in question wasn't/isn't done or didn't/doesn't happen. A couple of examples:

You never told me that you loved me -- means that you didn't tell me in the past, but you might tell me now (or in the future).

You never tell me that you love me -- means that you didn't tell me in the past and you don't tell me now. In other words, the absence of telling continues up to and including the present.

It's not possible to use the present tense with "never before", so "I never do that before" is wrong. It should be "I never did that before" (or "I have never done that before").

Re: "Impurities"

Anonymous — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:57:38 GMT

Hi Goodman,

Well, I understood that in fact there isn't an exact grammatic explanation why we use "It's" with plural nouns, isn't it? Is it the same as to ask for example, why the simple past and past perfect of the verb to cut is : cut - cut. Am I wrong?

So, when you say "It's the artificial ingredients in the foods.." We have to understand the meaning of "it's" as being in plural, in spite of writing it in the singular form, don't we?

Thanks again,

Saadi

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: changing tenses-any restrictions?

Mister Micawber — Thu, 29 May 2008 03:30:16 GMT

.
I don't think that 'free-wheeling' is the right register for verb choice in language use, generally.

Tense applies to the timing and duration of the action and its relation to other actions. I cannot judge the appropriateness of the past perfect in your example without more context.

Re: had had dinner

Goodman — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:13:26 GMT

This is helpful information regarding Past Perfect. Despite all that has been said, there is still murky spots . This may help clear it up:

http://icalweb.com/wiki/index.php?title=Past_Perfect

Past Perfect

From ICALwiki

Jump to: navigation, search

The past perfect simple is used to talk about events in a past time before another time in the past. It is mainly used:

Â· to provide the background to a past event

Â· to offer a simple sequence of events

Form

We make the past perfect simple by using had and the -ed form of the verb (the past participle):

{subject} + {had} + {past participle}

We did not all pass the exam though we had studied hard.

The Queen died of a broken heart after the King had left her.

The Past Perfect is often used in conjunction with the Past Simple.

Usage

We use the Past Perfect to provide background the main event in the past.

I had worked hard for a long time before I completed the work.

She had attended many interviews before she found the right job.

I had seen the film six times already and I didn't want to see it again.

When we want to provide a simple sequence of events, we can use the past simple or the past perfect with the past simple:

The King died. The Queen died three days later.

The Queen died three days after the King had died.

Retrieved from "http://icalweb.com/wiki/index.php?title=Past_Perfect"