0
New2grammar Posted 18 years ago
Grammar

sequence

0The sites were first identified by cadaver dogs, and testing equipment had shown the possible presence of remains, police said. 02br
02br
00Does it mean equipment testing was performed before confirmation by the dogs?02br
02br
00Thanks in advance!0-
  

Top answer

0 I can see both meanings here before and after - it is not clear to me from the sentence which came first 0-

— Optilang

  • 0 I can see both meanings here before and after - it is not clear to me from the sentence which came first 0-
Free · every Monday

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
0 I can see both meanings here before and after - it is not clear to me from the sentence which came first 0-
0
0
0The event described by perfect tense should always go first, as far as I know.0-
0
0
0To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence.02br
00Maybe the first part about the dogs should have read 01i00The sites had first been identified ...,02i00 but the author simplified the tense to the simple past because it was clear from context that the dogs were first and the testing next.02br
00In isolation it'
0
0
0In March, search crews found indications that human remains could be buried within a few yards of the ranch in 01a01b01font00Death Valley02font02b02a00 in east-central California.02br
02br
00The sites were first identified by cadaver dogs, and t
0
0
0No, but I don't blame you for asking. I expect the past perfect for the equipment use relates to some other past event in your piece.02br
02br
00I'd say the word "first" trumps the 01u01i00tense02i02u00 factor. Before the dogs, the "sites" as such were unknown.02br
02br
00Edit. Sorry guys, I got called away. This
0
0
1blockquote
01cite10CalifJim12cite10To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence.12br
10Maybe the first part about the dogs should have read 11i10The sites had first been identified ...,12i10 but the author simplified the tense to the simple past because it was clear from context that t
0
0
0 Then my interpretation is that the dogs found the sites and then testing equipment was used on these sites to determine if the dogs had been correct0-
0
0
0I think New2grammar said that, to him, a past perfect always precedes a present. It seems that is not always correct, isn't it??02br
02br
00CalifJim wrote: 02br
02br
00To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence. 02br
02br
00Maybe the first part about the dogs should have read 01i00
0
0
1blockquote
01cite10Anonymous12cite10I think iff the first clause didn't have the word 'first', then we could not make the assertion that the dog found the site first and later used the equipment to verify the result. 12blockquote
10That's the long and the short of it. 0-
0

Related Questions