judgement

Question

There was absolutely NO judgement on my part, and I stand by it. So, stop telling me that I had done something I know for a fact I didn't do. Thank you. Please proofread.Thanks a bunch!

Avangi · Accepted Answer

PreciousJonesThere was absolutely NO judgement on my part, and I stand by it. So, stop telling me that I had done something I know for a fact I didn't do.

In the second sentence, I'd use either the present perfect or the simple past. "Had done" sounds strange to me. The person is "telling" you this in the present time frame.

I'd probably say, "and I stand by that."

PreciousJones · Answer

Avangi PreciousJonesThere was absolutely NO judgement on my part, and I stand by it. So, stop telling me that I had done something I know for a fact I didn't do.In the second sentence, I'd use either the present perfect or the simple past. "Had done" sounds strange to me. The person is "telling" you this in the present time frame.I'd probably say, "and I stand by that."

But I'm using the third conditional to describe something I didn't do in the past. It didn't happen, so I'm trying to make it seem imaginary, because it wasn't said or implied.

THanks!

Avangi · Answer

That's way over my head!

Perhaps a conditional counter can help us out with this.

In my opinion, if you insist on using the past perfect, there needs to be some past time reference.
(I suppose you can say that it's implied, and that your sentence is taken out of context.)

Okay, maybe you're right. When you say "There was absolutely no judgement on my part," you're clearly referring to a past event.

My problem is that "Stop telling me etc." is in the simple present tense (imperative mood), and the time of the alleged "judgement" surely doesn't precede the event which might have prompted it.

There need to be two past time events (or hypothetical events) in order to justify the past perfect, in my opinion. I see only one.

PreciousJonesThere was absolutely NO judgement on my part, and I stand by it. So, stop telling me that I had done something I know for a fact I didn't do.

Avangi · Answer

(My cursor is locked in the danged box!)

Stop telling me that I had done something. .

I admit that I had done something. The grammar is the same here as far as the tense is concerned.

Why would you use "had" instead of "have"?

I admit that I had done something before we went out. This would be correct.

(Stop telling me that I had done something before we went out.)

PreciousJones · Answer

Avangi(My cursor is locked in the danged box!)Stop telling me that I had done something. .I admit that I had done something. The grammar is the same here as far as the tense is concerned.Why would you use "had" instead of "have"?I admit that I had done something before we went out. This would be correct.(Stop telling me that I had done something before we went out.)

Because had done is third conditional. And the third conditional states that it's something that didn't happen in the past and was imagined by the speaker, so I thought it would fit better for the sentence.

Fivejedjon · Answer

PreciousJonesBecause had done is third conditional. And the third conditional states that it's something that didn't happen in the past and was imagined by the speaker, so I thought it would fit better for the sentence.

'Had done' is not third conditional. It is past perfect. When it is used as part of a third conditional utterance, in conjunction with 'if', then it indicates a counterfactual situation.

There is no conditional of any sort in your sentence. All that is needed is, "Stop telling me that I did something I know for a fact I didn't do". Of course, you could later report, "He kept telling me that I had done something ..."

CalifJim · Answer

PreciousJoneshad done is third conditional.

Just to repeat what was said above (for emphasis), 'had done' is only third conditional in an if-clause, and you don't have an if-clause. So in this case it's just an indicator of a time before another past time, and as such it is not necessary at all in your sentences.

CJ

PreciousJones · Answer

fivejedjonPreciousJonesBecause had done is third conditional. And the third conditional states that it's something that didn't happen in the past and was imagined by the speaker, so I thought it would fit better for the sentence.'Had done' is not third conditional. It is past perfect. When it is used as part of a third conditional utterance, in conjunction with 'if', then it indicates a counterfactual situation.There is no conditional of any sort in your sentence. All that is needed is, "Stop telling me that I did something I know for a fact I didn't do". Of course, you could later report, "He kept telling me that I had done something ..."

Thanks for clarifying!

PreciousJones · Answer

CalifJim PreciousJoneshad done is third conditional.Just to repeat what was said above (for emphasis), 'had done' is only third conditional in an if-clause, and you don't have an if-clause. So in this case it's just an indicator of a time before another past time, and as such it is not necessary at all in your sentences.CJ

But the first sentence occurred in the past as well, and the had done part happened before the first sentence that uses was.

Avangi · Answer

The "did something wrong" and the "was no judgement" both refer to the same event, so there's no "sequence of events" to clarify.

You are the actor (or non-actor) in both statements. (It's unfortunate that we don't have some insight into what this non-event was! It would make it easier to picture the situation.)

If you had made the judgement (3rd cond.?) which this person is accusing you of, then you would have done something wrong. (That would have been something wrong.) We're talking about a single non-event --- a single non-moment in time. (Of course something happened which made this person angry.)
You can't say which happened first, your not making the judgement or your not doing something wrong.

judgement

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions