0
Taka Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
difference
About the tense in a subordinate that-cause, if the main clause is the past perfect, I think it's normally 'S+had ...ed+that S'+...ed.' So, is ''S+had ...ed+that S'+ had ...ed.' grammatically wrong? If you native speakers saw a sentence like 'I had thought that he had been busy', how would you interpret it?
Top answer
Interpretation: now I don't think he was busy then .
- Interpretation: now I don't think he was busy then .
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
14 Answers
0
0
Hi,
I wouldn't say it's incorrect grammar at all. It just sounds very old-fashioned and elaborate.
Because of this 'quaint' air, I had thought can be used to suggest irritation politely, which is something the British are good at doing. If my wife says to me I had thought you were going to wash the dishes, she is really sa
I wouldn't say it's incorrect grammar at all. It just sounds very old-fashioned and elaborate.
Because of this 'quaint' air, I had thought can be used to suggest irritation politely, which is something the British are good at doing. If my wife says to me I had thought you were going to wash the dishes, she is really sa
00
Clive,
Do you mean 'I had thought that he had been busy' is essentially the same as ''I had thought that he was busy' in its meaning, but the former is a bit old-fashioned in its style, compared to the latter?
I wouldn't say it's incorrect grammar at all. It just sounds very old-fashioned and elaborate.
Do you mean 'I had thought that he had been busy' is essentially the same as ''I had thought that he was busy' in its meaning, but the former is a bit old-fashioned in its style, compared to the latter?
00
0
Hi,
Do you mean 'I had thought that he had been busy' is essentially the same as ''I had thought that he was busy' in its meaning, but the former is a bit old-fashioned in its style, compared to the latter?
'Essentially', yes, meaning without splitting hairs. I think what you'd usually say is I thought
Do you mean 'I had thought that he had been busy' is essentially the same as ''I had thought that he was busy' in its meaning, but the former is a bit old-fashioned in its style, compared to the latter?
'Essentially', yes, meaning without splitting hairs. I think what you'd usually say is I thought
00
hello everybody,
I remember being taught that in senetnces like those we should use 'the sequence of tenses' i.e. if we talk about the past we should say "I thought he'd been busy" and if we mean that he is busy now we should say "I thought he was busy" .
According to Clive they both mean the same, it means that if we want to say that he is busy now we should say "I thought he i
I remember being taught that in senetnces like those we should use 'the sequence of tenses' i.e. if we talk about the past we should say "I thought he'd been busy" and if we mean that he is busy now we should say "I thought he was busy" .
According to Clive they both mean the same, it means that if we want to say that he is busy now we should say "I thought he i
00
Hello there. I have a little question, please let me ask, using this opportunity.
The past form of?was busy?(i.e. past of past, in the end) is?had been busy?, right?
The past form of?has been busy?, too,?had been busy?.
Seems the distinction between?past perfect?&?past of past?is not so important for most of languages. But I'm not sure at all.
(Sorry for my interrup
The past form of?was busy?(i.e. past of past, in the end) is?had been busy?, right?
The past form of?has been busy?, too,?had been busy?.
Seems the distinction between?past perfect?&?past of past?is not so important for most of languages. But I'm not sure at all.
(Sorry for my interrup
00
Hi guys,
Yogi asked for opinions from others, so I'll stand back a bit. However, let me just add this comment first.
Yogi said According To Clive, they both mean the same but what I actually said was 'Essentially', yes, meaning without splitting hairs. What I meant by that was this. Sure, we often need to use the Past Per
Yogi asked for opinions from others, so I'll stand back a bit. However, let me just add this comment first.
Yogi said According To Clive, they both mean the same but what I actually said was 'Essentially', yes, meaning without splitting hairs. What I meant by that was this. Sure, we often need to use the Past Per
00
I just asked this question strictly from a grammatical point of view: what happens in that-clause in 'S+past perfect+that ...'
So, to summerize the point, it's:
(a) We don't have to make the subordinate noun clause the past perfect even if the main clause is the past perfect.
(b) Even if the sentence is a double-past perfect (i.e S+had ...ed that S' ...ed), it's essen
So, to summerize the point, it's:
(a) We don't have to make the subordinate noun clause the past perfect even if the main clause is the past perfect.
(b) Even if the sentence is a double-past perfect (i.e S+had ...ed that S' ...ed), it's essen
00
Hi Taka,
So, to summarize the point, it's:
(a) We don't have to make the subordinate noun clause the past perfect even if the main clause is the past perfect.
(b) Even if the sentence is a double-past perfect (i.e S+had ...ed that S' ...ed), it's essentially the same as a s
So, to summarize the point, it's:
(a) We don't have to make the subordinate noun clause the past perfect even if the main clause is the past perfect.
(b) Even if the sentence is a double-past perfect (i.e S+had ...ed that S' ...ed), it's essentially the same as a s
0
Related Questions