Confused about the timeline in this sentence.

Question

Hi,I read this sentence in the papers and got confused over the timeline of events.Donors who were upset then had stopped their support almost immediately, he said.I do not understand the timeline of this sentence. What does this sentence mean? That donors had stopped their support before they were upset?However, from reading the rest of the article, I was able to infer that the writer meant the two events (donors got upset, donors stopped supporting) happened at the same time. Therefore, keeping that in mind, is the writer correct in writing the aforesaid sentence? Or should the sentence be written as "Donors who were upset then, stopped their support almost immediately, he said"?

Mr Wordy · Accepted Answer

There seem to be two possible interpretations, depending on whether "then" applies to "upset" or "had stopped":

Donors who were, at that time, upset had stopped their support almost immediately, he said.

Donors who were upset had subsequently stopped their support almost immediately, he said.

I favour the second interpretation.

IanKCH · Answer

Mr WordyDonors who were upset had subsequently stopped their support almost immediately, he said.

Hi Mr Wordy,

I don't understand. Why do you put "subsequently" into the past perfect phrase? Since the past perfect ("had stopped") tells us this action comes before the simple past ("were upset"), wouldn't the word "subsequently" contradict this timeline?

Furthermore, I believe what the writer wanted to say was that these two actions ("had stopped" and "were upset") happened almost concurrently. So shouldn't he have stuck to the simple past tense throughout his sentence?

Mr Wordy · Answer

IanKCHWhy do you put "subsequently" into the past perfect phrase? Since the past perfect ("had stopped") tells us this action comes before the simple past ("were upset"), wouldn't the word "subsequently" contradict this timeline?

In my scheme, "had" is relative to the time at which the statement was made ("he said"), not to "were upset". "were upset" describes a persisting state of affairs: they were upset before, during and after the withdrawal of support.

IanKCHFurthermore, I believe what the writer wanted to say was that these two actions ("had stopped" and "were upset") happened almost concurrently. So shouldn't he have stuck to the simple past tense throughout his sentence?

I don't care hugely for the original sentence because of the positioning of "then". I personally think the use of tenses is OK.

Anonymous · Answer

Mr WordyIn my scheme, "had" is relative to the time at which the statement was made ("he said"), not to "were upset". "were upset" describes a persisting state of affairs: they were upset before, during and after the withdrawal of support.

Hi, Mr Wordy

Unfortunately, I don't quite grasp what you are saying either. How can 'had' only be relative to the time at which the statement was made without also being relative to 'were upset'? I think of it as a timeline and each verb happens at certain times.

If you could try explaining this again, that would be much appreciated.

Cheers,

Anon

IanKCH · Answer

Hi Mr Wordy,

Thanks for taking the trouble to elaborate.

Mr WordyIn my scheme, "had" is relative to the time at which the statement was made ("he said"), not to "were upset". "were upset" describes a persisting state of affairs

So are you saying that "were upset" is timeless? How did you come to the conclusion that "had" is relative to the time at which the statement was made, and not to "were upset"? I am a little confused here, because I think of the verbs as a timeline as well, just like Anon above.

Pkr · Answer

~~Direct speech could be:~~

~~" Donors who were upset then stopped their support almost immediately",he said.~~

IanKCH · Answer

pkrDirect speech could be:" Donors who were upset then stopped their support almost immediately",he said.

hi pkr,

I am not sure why you struck out your post. Anyway, assuming you are right, can you explain why wasn't "were upset" changed to "had been" in the reported speech?

Mr Wordy · Answer

IanKCHSo are you saying that "were upset" is timeless? How did you come to the conclusion that "had" is relative to the time at which the statement was made, and not to "were upset"? I am a little confused here, because I think of the verbs as a timeline as well, just like Anon above.

Well, this is the way I see it...

In reported speech, "had" is often relative to the time the statement was made. If someone says "donors (have) stopped their support", then, in reported speech, this may be backshifted to "he said that donors had stopped their support".

"were upset" is a continuing state that does not have to be exactly grammatically localised relative to the time of "stopped their support". It's obvious that their withdrawal of support was connected to their being upset, and it's probable that they were upset before, during and after that withdrawal.

Pkr · Answer

Sorry, I was kinda rusty on typing the composition in this forum.

Verb tense in the relative clause doesn't have to go with the main verb. It all depends on the context. For example:
The man who was a criminal has become a law-abiding citizen.

Besides, as Mr Wordy pointed out, "were" can cover the "whole past". It is a stative verb meaning "status", while "stop" is a dynamic verb, denoting events in between.

Confused about the timeline in this sentence.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions