+0
My son, a grade 7 student in a French school, is struggling with English grammar. Unfortunately, on this one, his English speaking mother cannot decide which is correct.
He must decide which to use: "...she had run the whole way" or ".....she had ran the whole way". They both seem plausible to me. HELP!!!!!!
1 2 3 4
Comments  (Page 2) 
Dear anonymous,

You helped me. I was confused with the past perfect tense (had run/had ran)
Thanks : )

Vaibhav,
Bangalore, India.
Excuse me, mr annonymous, but coming from someone who has a Master's in TESOL, Englishes, are the many varieties of English that exist in the world today, so there are many variations on the English language, hence "Englishes". Check out a textbook used in an MA TESOL class if you want to verify this. If you care to do a corpus study on this matter try going to news.google.com, and search for "have run" and "have ran" and you will find that there are publications from reputable publishers using both forms. "have run" comes up with more results, so this leads me to think it is more "correct" but until English develops some governmentally enforced language policy, it is all left up to how and when native speakers use the language.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
HI DEAR,

use She had run the whole way. OR She ran the whole way.
Run is the past participle form of the irregular verb run. Ran is the simple past form of the verb. With the auxiliary verb had you are using the past perfect tense. We use the past participle form of the main verb combined with the auxiliary verb in this tense. So, had run is the correct choice. She had run.... and then in simple past we would say, She ran....
this is a debate that i have argued with my mother who was raised before i was. she is turning 40 this year december 31 and im about to turn 22 on january 15th. she says its improper use and you should use "has run" instead because it makes sense with the word run as in "had run".... the only reason she can say that is because during her generation they were taught that in school. in our generation its up to the individual to decide how they want to epress themselves in grammer and what country they are from. they dont teach "1st, 2nd, 3rd person with past, present, and future agreement" in english like they did in latin. latin was based off the endings of one word and another(keeping the same ending to show a link in tense) where the english is based of endings AND different words.

a few examples.

ran=past tense only!

run=past, present, or future tense

running(complicated english only word...)= past, present, or future tense

"i am running to the store" saying, you are presently doing something

"he was running to the store" saying that, in the past he was presently doing something... usually in a response to a question. questions being "what was he doing?"

running seems to be used more as a persons perspective of an event.

its more or less a choice preference based on who is in the lead on the media at the time and what is considered educated... i have a link below that even states on the word "had" and how vague is used because there is no direct translation from the previous languages since they are wrote difference.

my thoughts on the words based of english and lating learnings, as well as "logic" implementation.

had seems to be used mostly in past tense, if not only in the past tense. there seems to be no logical reason not to use the phrase "had ran" instead of using "had run". when talking/writing of the "past", there is no need to separate the "tense" of the verb from the "tense" rest of the sentence of when it was being used... that would be illogical. unfortunetaly the word run can be used in either case because of its indistinguishable meanings. since both are clearly understandable, both can be used. the only reason to say one is wrong over the other is to honestly be a dick and make the other person feel unedjucated since it clearly doesnt matter and "had ran" makes more logical sense when you look at tense agreement like you would in latin. run is to vague and is determined by the sentence's "tense" where ran re-inforces the past tense in the sentence.

this is a wikipedia link and you will note that in the text it even says

"The sentence is also used to show the semantic vagueness of the word "had", ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_bette...

i hope that helps. i think latin and english are completely different in their(their=giving the words latin and english a "persona" when "their" should desegnate personal examples of "their clothes" and relating mostly to people) usage of agreements because there are to many words to choose from in english. "their" also is another word that can be manipulated to the text of the writer. the english language is full of fualts when it comes to litterary composition. i am not a good speller and probably spelled things wrong in this text, but i have the ability to bring the other party in my debates to an understanding of what i am saying. unerstanding is the point of communication.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
had run
Hi,

Let me say it this way.
Saying 'I had ran' in an interview for a professional job is not a good idea. Emotion: smile

Clive
Anonymous wrote, "....the only reason she can say that is because during her generation they were taught that in school. in our generation its up to the individual to decide how they want to epress themselves in grammer and what country they are from. they dont teach "1st, 2nd, 3rd person with past, present, and future agreement" in english like they did in latin."

Wow! Really? Think about that for a minute. Perhaps another explanation is because in the past grammar was actually taught, but recently it was felt that to correct students somehow made them less creative and lowered their self-esteem. The sad thing is that this way of thinking, that is to speak however you choose and it is somehow correct, has created the most profound 'me generation' in history. Unfortunately, the educated among us have sat idly by and allowed complete idiots to run our schools. The products of this system will be the ones taking care of us when we are old and may God be with us because we have not taught them even how to speak correctly, let alone math, science or even the basic principles of right from wrong.

It is painful for me to read some of the writings from today's high school students and even college graduates; as they are illiterate. And it truly is our fault. If only we 'had run' things differently.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Your post is helpful, but I think it's "every day" in your example (not everyday).

"These shoes are great for everyday wear."

"I go to the park every day."
Show more