0
Anonymous Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
When need more going back than past perfect
Hi,
Is it an inherent limitation of the English language that a person is left to figure out what to do next in terms of fixing (or rearranging?) his or her sentence pattern grammatically when confronted with what seems to be a situation in which a need to go back further than a past perfect seems to allow is there?
eg,
Except those days he had been in school, he had been in the work force for thirty or so years.
Is it an inherent limitation of the English language that a person is left to figure out what to do next in terms of fixing (or rearranging?) his or her sentence pattern grammatically when confronted with what seems to be a situation in which a need to go back further than a past perfect seems to allow is there?
eg,
Except those days he had been in school, he had been in the work force for thirty or so years.
Top answer
Hi Anon Why do you think you need to "go back further" in the "had been in school" part of the sentence? The meaning of the sentence seems to be that the time he spent in school happened during his thirty or so years in the workforce, not before. You can always use other words to clarify the order of past events.
- Hi Anon Why do you think you need to "go back further" in the "had been in school" part of the sentence?
- The meaning of the sentence seems to be that the time he spent in school happened during his thirty or so years in the workforce, not before.
- You can always use other words to clarify the order of past events.
- That's why the simple past tense is generally quite sufficient in both halves of a sentence containing the words "before" or "after", for example.
- Words such as those words make the order of events quite clear.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
Hi Anon
Why do you think you need to "go back further" in the "had been in school" part of the sentence? The meaning of the sentence seems to be that the time he spent in school happened during his thirty or so years in the workforce, not before.
You can always use other words to clarify the order of past events. That's why the simple past tense is generally quite sufficient i
Why do you think you need to "go back further" in the "had been in school" part of the sentence? The meaning of the sentence seems to be that the time he spent in school happened during his thirty or so years in the workforce, not before.
You can always use other words to clarify the order of past events. That's why the simple past tense is generally quite sufficient i
00
Somebody might say that in a very casual conversation, feeling his way along, constructing the sentence as he remember the facts.
I take it as, "Except that prior to those days he had been in school, he had [already] been in the work force for thirty or so years."
BTW, that first sentence should be in the Guiness Book of Records. The meaning is clear, and the grammar works, but
I take it as, "Except that prior to those days he had been in school, he had [already] been in the work force for thirty or so years."
BTW, that first sentence should be in the Guiness Book of Records. The meaning is clear, and the grammar works, but
00
You may remember the story of the guru who described the world as resting on four turtles, and then explained that the turtles were supported by a rock, and that rock by another rock, and that rock by another rock, and finally when pushed with further questions said it was rocks all the way down.
Once you get to the past perfect, it's rocks all the way down.
Once you get to the past perfect, it's rocks all the way down.
0
Related Questions