I'd like some help if these are correct understandings?
********
1. They talked to him as if he were/was their enemy. ? means that he was not their enemy but they treated him like their enemy.
2. They talked to him as if he had been their enemy. ? means that he was not their enemy but they treated him like he had been their enemy in the past.
3. They talked to him as if they didn' know{hadn't known} him. ? "didn't know" means they knew him at the time they talked to him but they pretended not to know him.
"hadn't known" means they talked to him like they hadn't known him before the time of talking to them, thus this expression is not much used.....
Top answer
1. Yes - they treated him as their enemy at the same time as when they were talking to him. 2.
— Michael Chambers Teaching English
1.
Yes - they treated him as their enemy at the same time as when they were talking to him.
2.
They had considered him as their enemy from a point in the past (before speaking) up to and including the time of speaking.
The distinction in meaning from 1 is small and, in practice, it often does not matter which tense you use.
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1. Yes - they treated him as their enemy at the same time as when they were talking to him.
2. They had considered him as their enemy from a point in the past (before speaking) up to and including the time of speaking. The distinction in meaning from 1 is small and, in practice, it often does not matter which tense you use.
3. This sounds odd. They obviously knew him if they wer