0
Anonymous Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
There more definite way to make choice to use past perfect?
Hi. What do you think about I have said?
1. He met people who had been rebuked/was rebuked. -- I think the sentence with "had rebuked" makes the sequence clear and puts the definite mark on one action being completed before another event. Furthermore, I think it should be the choice for those who want to write sentences that have clear meaning, but that does not mean the sentence with "was rebuked" will be incorrect. I think the sequence is clear without the past perfect tense.
2. He met people who had done the work/did the work. -- I think the sentence with past perfect puts a definite mark on the conclusion of that event, more so than the sentence with past. That doesn't mean, I think, the sentence with a past tense is incorrect. I think the sequence is clear without the past perfect tense.
3. He met a person who had fallen from grace. -- I think this needs to be in past perfect (if I am not mistaken). The reason I can think of is that this sentential sitution demands clarity of the sequence and the use of the past perfect tense helps to do that.
What I have said is based on the reading of the sentences and contexts of the sentences that I can think of them to be. I think the choice between using a past perfect tense and not using it is hard and I make choices based on the reading of the sentence and whether a context exists to make the sequence clear or not. Should I keep doing what I have been doing to make choices of this kind?
1. He met people who had been rebuked/was rebuked. -- I think the sentence with "had rebuked" makes the sequence clear and puts the definite mark on one action being completed before another event. Furthermore, I think it should be the choice for those who want to write sentences that have clear meaning, but that does not mean the sentence with "was rebuked" will be incorrect. I think the sequence is clear without the past perfect tense.
2. He met people who had done the work/did the work. -- I think the sentence with past perfect puts a definite mark on the conclusion of that event, more so than the sentence with past. That doesn't mean, I think, the sentence with a past tense is incorrect. I think the sequence is clear without the past perfect tense.
3. He met a person who had fallen from grace. -- I think this needs to be in past perfect (if I am not mistaken). The reason I can think of is that this sentential sitution demands clarity of the sequence and the use of the past perfect tense helps to do that.
What I have said is based on the reading of the sentences and contexts of the sentences that I can think of them to be. I think the choice between using a past perfect tense and not using it is hard and I make choices based on the reading of the sentence and whether a context exists to make the sequence clear or not. Should I keep doing what I have been doing to make choices of this kind?
Top answer
Most of what you say seems reasonable. Generally speaking: "He met (the) people who <past perfect tense>" means that the actions described were completed by the time he met them. "He met (the) people who <past tense>" means that the actions described were a prevailing or habitual state of affairs at the time he met them.
- Most of what you say seems reasonable.
- Generally speaking: "He met (the) people who <past perfect tense>" means that the actions described were completed by the time he met them.
- "He met (the) people who <past tense>" means that the actions described were a prevailing or habitual state of affairs at the time he met them.
- However , if it's implied by the context (or may reasonably be assumed) that the actions had been completed, then that interpretation is often possible.
- It is usually better and clearer to use the past perfect, but native speakers may not bother, especially in conversation.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
5 Answers
0
Most of what you say seems reasonable. Generally speaking:
"He met (the) people who <past perfect tense>" means that the actions described were completed by the time he met them.
"He met (the) people who <past tense>" means that the actions described were a prevailing or habitual state of affairs at the time he met them. However, if it's implied by the context
"He met (the) people who <past perfect tense>" means that the actions described were completed by the time he met them.
"He met (the) people who <past tense>" means that the actions described were a prevailing or habitual state of affairs at the time he met them. However, if it's implied by the context
00
Hi. Thank you for your help.
Can you please tell me what elements in the sentence support your position (if I could call it that)?
"He met (the) people who <past tense>" means that the actions described were a prevailing or habitual state of affairs at the time he met them.
Can you please tell me what elements in the sentence support your position (if I could call it that)?
"He met (the) people who <past tense>" means that the actions described were a prevailing or habitual state of affairs at the time he met them.
00
AnonymousHe met people who had been rebuked/Both are fine. ("rebuked" is a very seldom used word, by the way, in my experience.)waswere rebuked.
Anonymous2. He met the people who had done the work/did the work.Both are fine.
00
Anonymous"He met the people who ran the office" -- Running the office was their job;
Can you please tell me what elements in the sentence support your position (if I could call it that)?
"He met (the) people who <past tense>" means that the actions described were a prevailing or habitual state of affairs at the time he met them.
00
Related Questions