As far as I know, There is not so big a difference, but: #1 emphasizes the completion of the action because of the past perfect there. I mean the writer imples that" only after it had stopped bitng did s/he get out of it"
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
New2grammaruntil it had sounds like until after it ..., IMO. Waht do you think?What do you mean does 'until after' imply here, New2?
LiveinjapanIf the sentence is like 'I didn't do that until it had stopped...,' then it means 'just after it stopped it I did that,' where there may be no time lag, IMO.I beg to differ. To indicate there's probably no delay, you would need to say "I didn't do that until it stopped". Using 'had' makes the possibility of a delay higher.
LiveinjapanIf the sentence is like 'I didn't do that until it had stopped...,' then it means 'just after it stopped it I did that,' where there may be no time lag, IMO.Hi New2
LiveinjapanI should have said 'until it had stopped..' and 'until I stopped ...' are not much different in terms of a time lag.I see. So, you would use them interchangeably? I mean, the constructions "until...had" and "until ...past tense"? I guess
If you want to indicate a time lag, I think you could say 'I didn't do that before it stopped biting.'