Past Perfect vs Past Simple

Question

Hello all,Do you think that the Past Pefect is unnatural in this context (a description of a computer game, in  the present tense):«[In the game] Things do change with time. A night visit to a location that had looked safe and cosy during the day may proof fatal for beasts of prey prefer to roam under the darkness' cover while men usually sleep.»I used this tense because I felt it might emphasize that the place is no longer "safe and cosy". Did my intuition cheat on me? I know that technically the Past Simple should be enough...Thanks in advance,Anton

Mr Wordy · Accepted Answer

You're referring to "had looked"? Given that you're writing instructions in the present tense, this seems iffy to me. I prefer plain old "looked". A couple of other corrections/suggestions:

"Things do change with time. A night visit to a location that looked safe and cosy during the day may prove fatal, for predatory beasts ~~of prey~~ prefer to roam under the cover of darkness while men usually sleep."

The comma is desirable because otherwise one naturally reads "fatal for beasts" as a unit and then has to backtrack when this doesn't work out.

CalifJim · Answer

Ant_222A night visit to a location that had looked safe and cosy during the day may ~~proof~~ prove fatal for beasts of prey that prefer to roam under the ~~darkness'~~ cover of darkness while men usually sleep.

The past perfect is fine. The daytime look came before the nighttime visit, so the sequence makes sense. Note, however, a few other problems that I corrected (in red). cover of darkness is pretty much a set phrase you can't tamper with. [Sounds spooky! Hee!]

CJ

Mr Wordy · Answer

Just in case it's not obvious, Anton, CJ and I are interpreting the "fatal for beasts" part in completely different ways. In my interpretation it's fatal for "you" (the person you're addressing). In his, it's fatal for the beasts.

CalifJim · Answer

Yipes! Mr. Wordy to the rescue! I hadn't noticed that. I doubt Anton meant it the way I saw it.

CJ

Ant_222 · Answer

Thanks for the replies.

"Proof"/"prove" is a foolish typo indeed.

As for the "beasts of prey"/"predatory beasts" — I just don't understand what you don't like about "beasts of prey"...

CalifJim:
«The past perfect is fine. The daytime look came before the nighttime visit, so the sequence makes sense.»

Now that I have got a positive answer (also taking into account its being iffy to Mr. Wordy) my doubt has only increased )). As I said, the game is dscribed in a present timeframe, which means using the Past Perfect is like shifting from second to neutral without going through first. I myself have only a feeling that it might work, with no logical reason behind. Please, confirm that it is indeed possible.

Mr. Wordy:
«Just in case it's not obvious, Anton, CJ and I are interpreting the "fatal for beasts" part in completely different ways.»

Yes, I used the "for" as "because", so thanks for inserting the comma.

Anton

Mr Wordy · Answer

Ant_222As for the "beasts of prey"/"predatory beasts" — I just don't understand what you don't like about "beasts of prey"...

I thought "beasts of prey" sounded a bit odd, but looking at Google results it seems to be a much more well-used expression than I had imagined, so apologies and ignore me.

Ant_222Now that I have got a positive answer (also taking into account its being iffy to Mr. Wordy) my doubt has only increased )). As I said, the game is dscribed in a present timeframe, which means using the Past Perfect is like shifting from second to neutral without going through first. I myself have only a feeling that it might work, with no logical reason behind. Please, confirm that it is indeed possible.

My misgivings are just as you describe. Let's try to think of an analogous present-tense instructional example. Say a public information leaflet: "Stick to well-lit routes. A street that seemed safe in the day may be dangerous at night." I would not say "had seemed" here. However, CJ's reply makes me wonder if I'm missing something.

Ant_222 · Answer

Mr WordyHowever, CJ's reply makes me wonder if I'm missing something.

Deat CJ, can you explain to us your viwepoint?

Anton

CalifJim · Answer

Ant_222can you explain to us your viwepoint?

Probably not!

All I can say is that the past perfect didn't bother me when I read what you wrote. (By the way, I think the simple past is just fine as well.)

This would be my approach to explain further:

Sometimes what had seemed safe at an earlier time turns out to be quite dangerous when revisited later.

The comparison itself is present tense because it is "an eternal truth", or, less dramatically, a timeless relationship. (Sometimes X turns out to be Y.)

The parts being compared reference two different (imaginary, abstract) times, one before the other (earlier; later), and both in the past, because you have to have experienced the correlation before you can formulate it as your "statement of eternal truth".

Most readers will find that the words earlier and later, or other words that imply that relationship, are enough to clarify the time sequence. These readers will be quite happy with the simple past. But that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that the past perfect is wrong. In fact, I rather like it.

I can't predict whether any of my explanation will convince you that your past perfect is OK, but it may.

CJ

Ant_222 · Answer

CalifJim
Ant_222can you explain to us your viwepoint?
Probably not! All I can say is that the past perfect didn't bother me when I read what you wrote. (By the way, I think the simple past is just fine as well.)

))
Yeah, that's what (and how) my intuition counsels, but it can't seem to convince my mind ).

CalifJimThe parts being compared reference two different (imaginary, abstract) times, one before the other (earlier; later), and both in the past, because you have to have experienced the correlation before you can formulate it as your "statement of eternal truth".

Interesting approach, although I don't think the phrase "when visited later" to be a reference to a past time. It too seems timeless to me.

CalifJimI can't predict whether any of my explanation will convince you that your past perfect is OK, but it may.

Not that it convinces, but it does help. Thank you!

Mr Wordy · Answer

I don't know if this helps, but it occurred to me that in my present-tense usage of "I had thought", "It had seemed" and similar expressions, the intermediate time (Anton's "first gear") doesn't have to be very specifically identified but can be little more than a notional timestamp: Originally I thought this, then at some unspecified time it changed, now I don't.

Past Perfect vs Past Simple

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions