No. The past simple is used instead because after already clarifies what happened first.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
whatchadoin As a child, she'd always been awed by the pale lady and the grave man who lay with their eyes closed, hands folded on their *******
whatchadoinSo when a meaning is clear as in the sentence above, I can refer to the past before the past without having to use past perfect?The past simple suffices in such cases, yes.
whatchadoinWhy didn't the writer use simple past in the following sentence:
As a child, she'd always been awed by the pale lady and the grave man wh
Aspara GusThe past simple suffices in such cases, yes.I already knew that. I should've phrased my question a tad differently. Can I use simple past in front of the second past when a meaning is clear? I'll try to make a couple of sentences up.
whatchadoinA lot of people had already lived in it years and years before he rented it. Is past perfect necessary here?It isn't required, no, but the past perfect is often used repeatedly in storytelling for consistency. Just because it's not necessary to avoid confusion doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't use it. Just use your own judgment. That's what I