0
Viceidol Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
When the teacher (had) arrived, they stopped talking.
Hello, everyone. One of my grammar books says both past perfect and simple past tense mean the same thing in the following example:
When the teacher had arrived, they stopped talking.=When the teacher arrived, they stopped talking.
But my another book says they don't mean the same thing. It gives two examples:
When he closed the door, I began to scream. The book says it means "I screamed before the door was completely closed."
When he had closed the door, I began to scream. The book says it means "I screamed after the door was completely closed."
(Both books are not written by native speakers)
May I ask which opinion of the two books is true? Please help me with this, thank you!
When the teacher had arrived, they stopped talking.=When the teacher arrived, they stopped talking.
But my another book says they don't mean the same thing. It gives two examples:
When he closed the door, I began to scream. The book says it means "I screamed before the door was completely closed."
When he had closed the door, I began to scream. The book says it means "I screamed after the door was completely closed."
(Both books are not written by native speakers)
May I ask which opinion of the two books is true? Please help me with this, thank you!
Top answer
It's interesting. To me it seems that both the authors are correct. In the example about talking children the tense doesn't matter much because it's evident anyway that the coming of the teacher was the reason for the children to stop thier chatter, which they apparently did just at the moment he came in.
- It's interesting.
- To me it seems that both the authors are correct.
- In the example about talking children the tense doesn't matter much because it's evident anyway that the coming of the teacher was the reason for the children to stop thier chatter, which they apparently did just at the moment he came in.
- However, in the second example the connection between the cause and consequence is not so eveident and, indeed, the past perfect tense makes it seem like the he/she began to cry after the door had completely closed.
- Maybe even not immediately after that, but, say, two minutes later.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
18 Answers
0
It's interesting. To me it seems that both the authors are correct.
In the example about talking children the tense doesn't matter much because it's evident anyway that the coming of the teacher was the reason for the children to stop thier chatter, which they apparently did just at the moment he came in.
However, in the second example the connection between the cause and conseq
In the example about talking children the tense doesn't matter much because it's evident anyway that the coming of the teacher was the reason for the children to stop thier chatter, which they apparently did just at the moment he came in.
However, in the second example the connection between the cause and conseq
00
Off topic:
You can't have my and another together. Don't say my another book. Say another book of mine.
You can't have my and another together. Don't say my another book. Say another book of mine.
00
CJ, I agree with you that it sounds weird which is why I always say my other book but it sounds like I only have 2 books. 
What do you
What do you00
my other book applies to the case where you have only two books. You are right about that.
Underlined forms are the most usual. Asterisked forms are ungrammatical.
my other book = *my the other book = ?the other book of mine
*my another book = *my an other book = another book of mine
my other books = *my the other books = ?the other books of mi
Underlined forms are the most usual. Asterisked forms are ungrammatical.
my other book = *my the other book = ?the other book of mine
*my another book = *my an other book = another book of mine
my other books = *my the other books = ?the other books of mi
00
0
??? What about 'my other books'? It's fine. I don't understand the question.
CJ
CJ
00
Sorry CJ. I got myself confused. Look at the following. It's weird that the first pair is not acceptable whereas the second pair is fine.
my other book = ?the other book of mine
my other books = other books of mine
my other book = ?the other book of mine
my other books = other books of mine
00
«It's weird that the first pair is not acceptable whereas the second pair is fine»
It's not the pair but the second pharese in it — "The other book of mine".
I believe the gist is in the definite article. "A book of mine" is OK, while "The book of mine" is not.
Double posessive works well only with indefinite nouns for some reason... Maybe because it's percevied mainly
It's not the pair but the second pharese in it — "The other book of mine".
I believe the gist is in the definite article. "A book of mine" is OK, while "The book of mine" is not.
Double posessive works well only with indefinite nouns for some reason... Maybe because it's percevied mainly
00
New2grammarIt's weird that the first pair is not acceptable whereas the second pair is fine.
my other book = ?the other book of mine
my other books = other books of mineThe first is definite; the second indefinite. Ant has the basic idea. See his post.
Let me repeat what I wrote. Note that your second equality is not something I claime
00
I thought when we speak of definite or indefinite, we talk about the definite and indefinite articles, the, an,a
my other book is definite
another book of mine is indefinite
I can stretch definition of definite-indefinite to cover the above. Anotehr book of mine can be any book of all the books that I own whereas my other book is specific in teh sense that it's t
my other book is definite
another book of mine is indefinite
I can stretch definition of definite-indefinite to cover the above. Anotehr book of mine can be any book of all the books that I own whereas my other book is specific in teh sense that it's t
0
Related Questions