0
Anonymous Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Past perfect
Hello
I' ve lived here all my life , and I 've been through quakes before. But this one felt different- not because of how big it was but because of all the bad things that happened before.
I t was 8:30 my bother had arrived 3 hours before.
Here is my question , why in the first sentence it is past simple and in the second it is past perfect. I thought with before it was not obligatory to use past perfect
Would it possible to write " my brother arrived 3 hours before."What do we lost in term of meaning using past simple.
I' ve lived here all my life , and I 've been through quakes before. But this one felt different- not because of how big it was but because of all the bad things that happened before.
I t was 8:30 my bother had arrived 3 hours before.
Here is my question , why in the first sentence it is past simple and in the second it is past perfect. I thought with before it was not obligatory to use past perfect
Would it possible to write " my brother arrived 3 hours before."What do we lost in term of meaning using past simple.
Top answer
Anonymous I thought with before it was not obligatory to use past perfect That is true. " There is no comparison / contrast between two different events that were completed in the past, only a simple statement about the events in all past time. The past perfect would not be used in this situation.
- Anonymous I thought with before it was not obligatory to use past perfect That is true.
- " There is no comparison / contrast between two different events that were completed in the past, only a simple statement about the events in all past time.
- The past perfect would not be used in this situation.
- Anonymous It was 8:30 .
- M y bother had arrived 3 hours before.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
9 Answers
0
AnonymousI thought with before it was not obligatory to use past perfectThat is true. And that is why the first sentence is not "had happened before." There is no comparison / contrast between two different events that were completed in the past, only a simple statement about the events in all past time.
The past perfect would not be used in this situat
00
I think I understand
Would it been the same with that sentence:
Before I sent you a letter, I had tried to find your email . Is past perfect obligatory here I think there is a comparison or a contrast
Did I understand well?
thanks for your answer
Would it been the same with that sentence:
Before I sent you a letter, I had tried to find your email . Is past perfect obligatory here I think there is a comparison or a contrast
Did I understand well?
thanks for your answer
00
If I try to resume your answer "It was not because the bad things that took place before the quakes happened " .Both events were not related to each other, there is no logical relation between them so past perfect is not needed.
So now for my example
Before I sent a letter, I had tried to find your email There is a logical relation so is past perfect needed ?Can I write
Bef
So now for my example
Before I sent a letter, I had tried to find your email There is a logical relation so is past perfect needed ?Can I write
Bef
00
Before I sent a letter, I had tried to find your email. That is a good use of the past perfect.
Before I sent a letter, I tried to find your email. That is fine, too.
Before I sent a letter, I tried to find your email. That is fine, too.
AnonymousLast question if I use past perfect do I emphasise the logical relation ( which does exist with past simple, but not as strong as with past perfect)?Yes. In this case, both past pe
00
Should it be possible to write
He arrived 3 hours before 8,30;
He arrived 3 hours before it was 8,30.
yes but in your example the order of the action is respected
First she lost her keys, then she called to say not to lock the door because she could not come back home, then the thief came and stole
the order of the events are clear so there is no need of p
He arrived 3 hours before 8,30;
He arrived 3 hours before it was 8,30.
yes but in your example the order of the action is respected
First she lost her keys, then she called to say not to lock the door because she could not come back home, then the thief came and stole
the order of the events are clear so there is no need of p
00
AnonymousHe arrived 3 hours before 8,30;OK, but it is much more sensible to write: He arrived at 5:30.
AnonymousHe arrived 3 hours before it was 8,30.No. That is way too awkward.
He arrived 3 hours before the train was scheduled to depart.
AnonymousSo if you use past perfect is it to empha
00
Hello
I am not agree with you, It is not the call that leads to the robbery but the fact she lost her keys. If she had not lost her key, she would not have phoned and the thieves would not have known that the door was open.And even if she would have phoned the door would have been locked
Thans for your answers
I am not agree with you, It is not the call that leads to the robbery but the fact she lost her keys. If she had not lost her key, she would not have phoned and the thieves would not have known that the door was open.And even if she would have phoned the door would have been locked
Thans for your answers
00
So
Why can we say
He arrived 3 hours before 8:30
And not
He arrived 3 hours before it was 8:30
Both sentences have the same meaning , in both sentences there is a comparison or a contrast, both actions are completed.There must be a logical reason?
Thanks for answering
Why can we say
He arrived 3 hours before 8:30
And not
He arrived 3 hours before it was 8:30
Both sentences have the same meaning , in both sentences there is a comparison or a contrast, both actions are completed.There must be a logical reason?
Thanks for answering
00
AnonymousThere must be a logical reason?No, except that considering a natural tendency towards economy in language, we don't say that.
0
Related Questions