0
Anonymous Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
Past perfect use
Hi.
1. In a book named "The Handy History Answer Book," by Rebecca Nelson, Editor, published by Visible Ink Press, on page 84, under the sub-heading of "What was the Peasants' War?," I saw this sentence.
Prior to the uprising, the peasants had aimed to get Martin Luther's endorsement, but he had declined to give it.
Comment and question: I think we can make the past perfect tense"had declined" past as "declined" for the part that comes after the conjunction "but." What do you think?
2.This deals with the sentence below. Is this correct? Can you tell me what the past perfect tenses do in the sentence? Prior to what does the actions in past perfect prevail? Also, would it be wrong to use the verb "was changed" instead of "had been changed" after the conjunction "but" in the sentence below?
When that was made, most of it had been changed to something else but some had been changed to something we knew already.
1. In a book named "The Handy History Answer Book," by Rebecca Nelson, Editor, published by Visible Ink Press, on page 84, under the sub-heading of "What was the Peasants' War?," I saw this sentence.
Prior to the uprising, the peasants had aimed to get Martin Luther's endorsement, but he had declined to give it.
Comment and question: I think we can make the past perfect tense"had declined" past as "declined" for the part that comes after the conjunction "but." What do you think?
2.This deals with the sentence below. Is this correct? Can you tell me what the past perfect tenses do in the sentence? Prior to what does the actions in past perfect prevail? Also, would it be wrong to use the verb "was changed" instead of "had been changed" after the conjunction "but" in the sentence below?
When that was made, most of it had been changed to something else but some had been changed to something we knew already.
Top answer
1-- You could use both 'declined' and 'aimed', but the past perfect is used by the author to emphasize the completion of the previous events. 2-- The past perfect does the same thing here: it emphasizes the completion of the changes. Again simple 'changed', but it would not be so effective.
- 1-- You could use both 'declined' and 'aimed', but the past perfect is used by the author to emphasize the completion of the previous events.
- 2-- The past perfect does the same thing here: it emphasizes the completion of the changes.
- Again simple 'changed', but it would not be so effective.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
1-- You could use both 'declined' and 'aimed', but the past perfect is used by the author to emphasize the completion of the previous events.
2-- The past perfect does the same thing here: it emphasizes the completion of the changes. Again simple 'changed', but it would not be so effective.
2-- The past perfect does the same thing here: it emphasizes the completion of the changes. Again simple 'changed', but it would not be so effective.
00
Hi. Thank you.
Would it be wrong to leave the part before the conjunction "but" past perfect in tense and make the tense after the conjunction "but" a past tense for both sentences? I think the two sentences are similar in structure as for both of them to be the subject (sentences being referred) of this question.
Would it be wrong to leave the part before the conjunction "but" past perfect in tense and make the tense after the conjunction "but" a past tense for both sentences? I think the two sentences are similar in structure as for both of them to be the subject (sentences being referred) of this question.
00
Yes, but then the time sequence is changed, making the action after 'but' definitely happening after the action before 'but'.
00
Hi. I forgot to ask you these.
As to no.1, I think the part with the word "prior" makes the sequence clear as to make the use of past tense correct.
I think when we have a sentence with a dependent clause (possibly phrases, too??), the tense in the subordinate clause/part need not reflect the tense change as occurred in the main clause.
eg,
The change had ocurr
As to no.1, I think the part with the word "prior" makes the sequence clear as to make the use of past tense correct.
I think when we have a sentence with a dependent clause (possibly phrases, too??), the tense in the subordinate clause/part need not reflect the tense change as occurred in the main clause.
eg,
The change had ocurr
0
Related Questions