PRESENT or PAST

1a. You had to give an interview after you lost. (both verbs are in past tense)

1b. You had to give an interview after losing.

or

2a. You have to give an interview after you lose. (both verbs are in present tense)

2b. You have to give an interview after losing.

- vocabfish

alc24WHICH IS IT?

1 Its as if you had to give an interview after you lost/lose. (getting knock out of a sports event)

thanks

lost, to go with had.

CJ

CalifJimlost, to go with had.

Are you sure that's why, CJ?

Isn't it had because it is an unreal tense-- past subjunctive,

1. The question was, "Is it lost or lose?" Nobody asked anything about had including why had was used.

2. Yes, I'm sure that it's lost so that lost matches the tense of had.

But 'had' doesn't have a tense, does it? It's past subjunctive.

Subjunctives versus tenses...ARGH!

English 1b3But 'had' doesn't have a tense, does it? It's past subjunctive.

What did you just write??? It's past subjunctive. 'past' is a tense; 'subjunctive' is a mood. Of course "had" has a tense!

CJ

Btw, I know I'm going to be wrong, but I just post my comments, as if I'm correct, so that you can correct me easily:

But, the past subjunctive often refers to the present or future, so how can it be a past tense?

Tense and time are not the same. The same tense can be used to express different times. The present continuous often expresses future time, for example. "tense" is usually used to refer to the actual form of a verb regardless of its usage. As it happens (no surprise), the tense and time often coincide. But they don't have to.

CJ

Thought it may have been to do with 'tense vs time.'

Doesn't it make more sense to match time though, not tense?

In other words, because 'had' expresses a present time, I thought for the sake of consistency, the next verb would have to express a present time too...?

Can anyone explain this to me? I'm a wee bit confused.