0
LouiST Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Why do we use here past perfect??
Hi
Today, scientists agree (agree) that the world's temperature has risen (rise) over the past 50 years, but they disagree (disagree) about the causes. They say (say) that for 1000 or 2000 years before 1850, when records began (begin), the temperature .......... (be) more or less stable. Short warm or cold periods ........ (be) normal that time, but the climate always ............. (return) to the same level.
The solution is:
They say (say) that for 1000 or 2000 years before 1850, when records (1)began (begin), the temperature (2)was (be) more or less stable. Short warm or cold periods (3)were (be) normal that time, but the climate (4)had always returned (return) to the same level.
(1)began - past simple, it took place in 1850
(2)was - why do we use here the past simple? I wrote "the temperature had been....." because you talk about 2000 years BEFORE 1850, when records began. So it's a past action before another past action. Why not past perfect?
(3)were - same here, why past simple? I wrote 'had been'
(4)had returned - I only understand it if the past perfect would be correct, otherwise I would have used 'returned'.
Can somebody explain this to me?
Thanks
LS
Today, scientists agree (agree) that the world's temperature has risen (rise) over the past 50 years, but they disagree (disagree) about the causes. They say (say) that for 1000 or 2000 years before 1850, when records began (begin), the temperature .......... (be) more or less stable. Short warm or cold periods ........ (be) normal that time, but the climate always ............. (return) to the same level.
The solution is:
They say (say) that for 1000 or 2000 years before 1850, when records (1)began (begin), the temperature (2)was (be) more or less stable. Short warm or cold periods (3)were (be) normal that time, but the climate (4)had always returned (return) to the same level.
(1)began - past simple, it took place in 1850
(2)was - why do we use here the past simple? I wrote "the temperature had been....." because you talk about 2000 years BEFORE 1850, when records began. So it's a past action before another past action. Why not past perfect?
(3)were - same here, why past simple? I wrote 'had been'
(4)had returned - I only understand it if the past perfect would be correct, otherwise I would have used 'returned'.
Can somebody explain this to me?
Thanks
LS
Top answer
louiST (1)began - past simple, it took place in 1850 Actually, either is possible. Which one the author uses depends on how he is envisioning the situation. For example, if he is envisioning the whole sweep of history from ancient times to 1850 the he will likely write "begin" because he sees it as an event that is taking place in the present time of 1850.
- louiST (1)began - past simple, it took place in 1850 Actually, either is possible.
- Which one the author uses depends on how he is envisioning the situation.
- For example, if he is envisioning the whole sweep of history from ancient times to 1850 the he will likely write "begin" because he sees it as an event that is taking place in the present time of 1850.
- " louiST (2)was - why do we use here the past simple?
- " because you talk about 2000 years BEFORE 1850, when records began.
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
louiST(1)began - past simple, it took place in 1850Actually, either is possible. Which one the author uses depends on how he is envisioning the situation. For example, if he is envisioning the whole sweep of history from ancient times to 1850 the he will likely write "begin" because he sees it as an event that is taking place in the present time of 1850. On t
0
Related Questions