Past Perfect Grammar Questions?

Question

Past Perfect Grammar Questions?

0
1,214

+0

I have 2 questions:

1. [some long text] could damage the firm -- a firm whose stock price had already dropped close to 27% since two of its highly leveraged hedge funds had imploded in June.
Should the underlined be 'imploded' ?

2. Tay had exposed himself to two other girls at the void decks in [some place] on Sept 25 last year and Jan 25 and had two others considered.
Should it be 'exposed' instead due to the dates given?

3. The blogger, a 20-year-old student, claimed that the molester had touched her friend at 1.40pm that day.
Should it be 'touched'? There is a time '1:40pm' here

Sep 08 2008 17:37:31

Comments

heloOOI have 2 3 questions:

1. [some long text] could damage the firm -- a firm whose stock price had already dropped close to 27% since two of its highly leveraged hedge funds had imploded in June.
Should the underlined be 'imploded' ? The answer to your question is undoubtedly buried in the [some long text] you've secreted. We don't know if "since" means "subsequently" or "because." We don't know if the previous lines mention a past event which followed the two expressed here in the past perfect. If not, then your answer could be "Yes." That is, we switch "had imploded" to simple past.

2. Tay had exposed himself to two other girls at the void decks in [some place] on Sept 25 last year and Jan 25 and had two others considered.
Should it be 'exposed' instead ~~due to~~ because of the dates given? Yes, absent previous context. But if this were preceded by "Tay was indicted yesterday for indecent exposure," the answer is "No." The expression, "and had two others considered" is a phrase in past tense, which strongly suggests reference to a past time more recent than the exposures.

3. The blogger, a 20-year-old student, claimed that the molester had touched her friend at 1.40pm that day.
Should it be 'touched'? There is a time '1:40pm' here No. Regardless of the time, it's clear that the touching preceded the reporting of it. It doesn't matter if it's only by ten seconds. "Claimed" is simple past. But you may say, "The student claims / is claiming the molester touched her."

Sep 08 2008 19:59:07

AvangiYes, absent previous context.

The past perfect doesn't require a prior event. It can also be used in a narrative.

Sep 08 2008 20:10:34

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

heloOOShould the underlined be 'imploded' ?

Not really. It goes well with had already dropped.
____
Your other two questions are concerned with a definite time mentioned in the same sentence with a past perfect tense. This is completely fine.
It is, in fact, the present perfect tense to which the objection applies. Don't use a definite time with the present perfect!
CJ

Sep 08 2008 22:15:39

Thanks. I didn't know that time can be used with past perfect.

So it makes sense to say
'I ate at 7pm. I had eaten at 6pm'.?

How about
'I ate at 7pm. I had eaten at 6pm. I had eaten at 630pm' ( does this look like 630pm is earlier than 6pm )?
Or should i rephrase to 'i ate at 6pm, 630pm and 7pm'?

Sep 09 2008 11:59:26

heloOO My two cents:

Thanks. I didn't know that time can be used with past perfect.

So it makes sense to say
'I ate at 7pm. I had eaten at 6pm'.? Well yes, why not?

How about
'I ate at 7pm. I had eaten at 6pm. I had eaten at 630pm' ( does this look like 630pm is earlier than 6pm )? Errm, the last sentence doesn't match good witht he others.
Or should i rephrase to 'i ate at 6pm, 630pm and 7pm'? This would be better than the first version.You could rephrase this sentence with different versions too.

Sep 09 2008 15:40:46

Try out our live chat room.

I don't know what you're trying to convey by putting both the simple past and the past perfect together, but yes, it makes sense to say:
I had eaten at 6 pm.
CJ

Sep 09 2008 22:08:33

Suppose i have

1. I ate at 6pm. I also ate at 7pm. I had eaten.
Does the underlined sentence mean eaten before 6pm or 7pm?

2. I ate at 6pm and 7pm. I had eaten.
Similarly, does it mean before 6pm or 7pm?

Sep 10 2008 17:35:02

You are making this more complicated than it is! There is nothing about the past perfect that tells what time the action happened unless you add that information yourself.

Take a look at these posts -- and the entire threads that they are located in -- for more information about how the past perfect works.
See Past / Past perfect
See Past perfect

CJ

Sep 10 2008 18:25:18

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Answer this Question

heloOOI have 2 3 questions:

1. [some long text] could damage the firm -- a firm whose stock price had already dropped close to 27% since two of its highly leveraged hedge funds had imploded in June.
Should the underlined be 'imploded' ? The answer to your question is undoubtedly buried in the [some long text] you've secreted. We don't know if "since" means "subsequently" or "because." We don't know if the previous lines mention a past event which followed the two expressed here in the past perfect. If not, then your answer could be "Yes." That is, we switch "had imploded" to simple past.

2. Tay had exposed himself to two other girls at the void decks in [some place] on Sept 25 last year and Jan 25 and had two others considered.
Should it be 'exposed' instead ~~due to~~ because of the dates given? Yes, absent previous context. But if this were preceded by "Tay was indicted yesterday for indecent exposure," the answer is "No." The expression, "and had two others considered" is a phrase in past tense, which strongly suggests reference to a past time more recent than the exposures.

3. The blogger, a 20-year-old student, claimed that the molester had touched her friend at 1.40pm that day.
Should it be 'touched'? There is a time '1:40pm' here No. Regardless of the time, it's clear that the touching preceded the reporting of it. It doesn't matter if it's only by ten seconds. "Claimed" is simple past. But you may say, "The student claims / is claiming the molester touched her."
AvangiYes, absent previous context.
The past perfect doesn't require a prior event. It can also be used in a narrative.
heloOOShould the underlined be 'imploded' ?
Not really. It goes well with had already dropped.
____
Your other two questions are concerned with a definite time mentioned in the same sentence with a past perfect tense. This is completely fine.
It is, in fact, the present perfect tense to which the objection applies. Don't use a definite time with the present perfect!
CJ
Thanks. I didn't know that time can be used with past perfect.

So it makes sense to say
'I ate at 7pm. I had eaten at 6pm'.?

How about
'I ate at 7pm. I had eaten at 6pm. I had eaten at 630pm' ( does this look like 630pm is earlier than 6pm )?
Or should i rephrase to 'i ate at 6pm, 630pm and 7pm'?
heloOO My two cents:

Thanks. I didn't know that time can be used with past perfect.

So it makes sense to say
'I ate at 7pm. I had eaten at 6pm'.? Well yes, why not?

How about
'I ate at 7pm. I had eaten at 6pm. I had eaten at 630pm' ( does this look like 630pm is earlier than 6pm )? Errm, the last sentence doesn't match good witht he others.
Or should i rephrase to 'i ate at 6pm, 630pm and 7pm'? This would be better than the first version.You could rephrase this sentence with different versions too.
I don't know what you're trying to convey by putting both the simple past and the past perfect together, but yes, it makes sense to say:
I had eaten at 6 pm.
CJ
Suppose i have

1. I ate at 6pm. I also ate at 7pm. I had eaten.
Does the underlined sentence mean eaten before 6pm or 7pm?

2. I ate at 6pm and 7pm. I had eaten.
Similarly, does it mean before 6pm or 7pm?
You are making this more complicated than it is! There is nothing about the past perfect that tells what time the action happened unless you add that information yourself.
Take a look at these posts -- and the entire threads that they are located in -- for more information about how the past perfect works.
See Past / Past perfect
See Past perfect

CJ

Past Perfect Grammar Questions?

Answer this Question

Related Topics