Hello LB The first sentence presents a particular state or period of caring: if at that time I had cared about X, I would have done Y. The second sentence presents a general state of caring: if I cared generally about X, I would have done Y. For instance, 1.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
The first sentence presents a particular state or period of caring: if at that time I had cared about X, I would have done Y.But doesn't "had cared" indicate that something had already been completed prior to another past event? If you had cared about X, then presumably, according to your use of past perfect tense in this sentence, you
CalifJimMostly I read these clauses as follows:
If I cared (now or generally or in the future)
If I had cared (then, at that time, and I didn't)
I would study (now or generally or in the future)
I would have studied (then, at that time, and I didn't)
Nevertheless, there is a Necker cube effect for me, and I can hear the firs
LunchboxOK, that's wonderful, thanks.The first sentence presents a particular state or period of caring: if at that time I had cared about X, I would have done Y.But doesn't "had cared" indicate that something had already been completed prior to another past event? If you had cared about X, then presumably, according to your use of past pe
CalifJimI sense that "... they were quiet ..." is within the same time frame as "... it was retribution, not deliverance". Her intention, however, was before "they were quiet".
Therefore, I would use ... were quiet ..., as though it were retribution ... she (had) intended.
By this I mean I would change it was retribution to