0
Believer Posted 19 years ago
Grammar
Should be situationally explicit
Hi,
When you use the past perfect tense, I think the sentential situation has to be explicit and that explicitness should be MANIFESTED in the sentences of your writing.
Cases in point:
I think CalifJim said something to the effect in his response that a sentence like this with the underlined point of past reference isn't specific enough to warrant the past perfect tense mode:
1. I hadn't washed my face last night.
For this sentence, it sounds odd and the better sentence would be"
2. I didn't wash my face last night.
For Sentence 1 to work, there should be a somewhat explicit sentential situation, one can draw from the writing like this:
3. I went shopping last night with my boyfriend, and I got bitten by a dog. I hadn't gone shopping in a very long time.
Here, it is the past perfect tense uses are based on clear points of reference: He had gone shopping in a very long time before last night. The sentence "I hadn't gone shopping in a very long time" has an explicitly understandable point of time reference -- his shopping out with his boyfriend last night. This point of time reference is absent in Sentence 1.
But there are some other quirks, I think. I think Mr, M said something to the effect that that when the word 'after' or 'before' exists, then the point of time reference is set somewhat definitely and the past perfect tense need not be used. For example,
4. After she passed the age of twenty-six, she got (not 'had gotten') the key to a new car from her father.
5. Before she turned twenty-six, she got (not 'had gotten) the key to a new car from her father.
For Sentences 4 and 5, I think the existence of the words 'after' and 'before' makes it redundant, if not incorrect, for the past perfect to be used.
Now, I am going to give you one more sentence and hope you give me your opinion.
6. When she was twenty-six, she got (not 'had gotten') the key to a new car from her father.
I think, like the Sentences 5 and 6 with 'after' and 'before', when a person uses 'when'. the point of time reference is set and the use of past perfect is unnecessary. Right? For Sentences 4, 5, and 6, I said what I said but I do not understand totally. Can you help me to convince myself?
When you use the past perfect tense, I think the sentential situation has to be explicit and that explicitness should be MANIFESTED in the sentences of your writing.
Cases in point:
I think CalifJim said something to the effect in his response that a sentence like this with the underlined point of past reference isn't specific enough to warrant the past perfect tense mode:
1. I hadn't washed my face last night.
For this sentence, it sounds odd and the better sentence would be"
2. I didn't wash my face last night.
For Sentence 1 to work, there should be a somewhat explicit sentential situation, one can draw from the writing like this:
3. I went shopping last night with my boyfriend, and I got bitten by a dog. I hadn't gone shopping in a very long time.
Here, it is the past perfect tense uses are based on clear points of reference: He had gone shopping in a very long time before last night. The sentence "I hadn't gone shopping in a very long time" has an explicitly understandable point of time reference -- his shopping out with his boyfriend last night. This point of time reference is absent in Sentence 1.
But there are some other quirks, I think. I think Mr, M said something to the effect that that when the word 'after' or 'before' exists, then the point of time reference is set somewhat definitely and the past perfect tense need not be used. For example,
4. After she passed the age of twenty-six, she got (not 'had gotten') the key to a new car from her father.
5. Before she turned twenty-six, she got (not 'had gotten) the key to a new car from her father.
For Sentences 4 and 5, I think the existence of the words 'after' and 'before' makes it redundant, if not incorrect, for the past perfect to be used.
Now, I am going to give you one more sentence and hope you give me your opinion.
6. When she was twenty-six, she got (not 'had gotten') the key to a new car from her father.
I think, like the Sentences 5 and 6 with 'after' and 'before', when a person uses 'when'. the point of time reference is set and the use of past perfect is unnecessary. Right? For Sentences 4, 5, and 6, I said what I said but I do not understand totally. Can you help me to convince myself?
Top answer
Yes. You've got the point. It seems to me that you understand it.
- Yes.
- You've got the point.
- It seems to me that you understand it.
- Items in parentheses are optional, and usually omitted, especially after after .
- After ...
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
Yes. You've got the point. It seems to me that you understand it.
Items in parentheses are optional, and usually omitted, especially after after.
After ... (had) --ed ..., .....ed. The action in the after clause happened first.
Before ...ed, ... (had) --ed. The action in the main clause happened first.
When ...ed, ... e
Items in parentheses are optional, and usually omitted, especially after after.
After ... (had) --ed ..., .....ed. The action in the after clause happened first.
Before ...ed, ... (had) --ed. The action in the main clause happened first.
When ...ed, ... e
0
Related Questions