0
Lunchbox Posted 20 years ago
Grammar

did not meet vs. had not met

We hadn't met for two months and then suddenly we met in June.

We didn't meet for two months and then suddenly we met in June.

What exactly is the difference between the two? I've heard both said before and they sound correct to me. Thanks kindly once again! =)
  

Top answer

It's purely a difference in point of view, as explained in another of my recent posts. We hadn't met asks the reader to think in terms of an action that happened in a time period preceding the time period of the main story line. We didn't meet does not.

— CalifJim

  • It's purely a difference in point of view, as explained in another of my recent posts.
  • We hadn't met asks the reader to think in terms of an action that happened in a time period preceding the time period of the main story line.
  • We didn't meet does not.
  • It simply seems to the reader that the main story begins with that statement.
  • Another observation seems relevant here as well.
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.

7 Answers
0
It's purely a difference in point of view, as explained in another of my recent posts.

We hadn't met asks the reader to think in terms of an action that happened in a time period preceding the time period of the main story line. We didn't meet does not. It simply seems to the reader that the main story begins with that statement.

Another observation seems re
0
0
As Jim said, but I'd add that the "do" form can imply that they decided not to meet for two months.
0
0
But what I didn't anticpate was how thirsty I would get.

But what I hadn't anticipated was how thirsty I would get.

How about these two sentences? There is no previous action that needs to be referred to by the use of past perfect (like in the first sentence of my first post), so
0
0
LunchboxBut what I didn't anticpate was how thirsty I would get.

But what I hadn't anticipated was how thirsty I would get.

How about these two sentences? There is no previous action that needs to be referred to by the use of past perfect (like in the firs
0
0
Lunchbox

1. But what I didn't anticipate was how thirsty I would get.

2. But what I hadn't anticipated was how thirsty I would get.

Oct. 9th...............................Oct. 10th................Oct. 11th

(time of not anticipating
0
0
But what I didn't anticpate was how thirsty I would get.

But what I hadn't anticipated was how thirsty I would get.

How about these two sentences? There is no previous action that needs to be referred to by the use of past perfect ...

Anything else that might have preceded this sentence is part of the main story line. Imagine what might have preceded this
0
0
"We hadn't met asks the reader to think in terms of an action that happened in a time period preceding the time period of the main story line. "

"Anything else that might have preceded this sentence is part of the main story line."

So when does the main story line begin if the time period preceding the main story line could simultaneously be a part of and NOT a p
0

Related Questions