Why in the past perfect?

Had been offered is in the past perfect tense. There is no past present tense. Had been offered states a fact about the reward: it had been offered. Would be offered is a conditional and it may refer to the future: the reward may not even have been offered yet.

CB

Thank you for the reply. Though it's still confusing, what you are saying is totally making sense.

Beneath a fuzzy Xeroxed photo of what appeared to be a chicken was a description of a missing African

grey parrot that had flown out of the store when a customer opened the door. It was noted that the bird

answered to the name of Cheeky and that a $750 reward was being offered for its return.

The offer was made prior to the event of 'the cust

There is the context of this, that could make both 'had been offered' OR my suggestion, 'was being offered' correct.

Would someone like to address that?

Let's look at

"a 750 reward would be offered for its return" is better.

This use of 'would' is very different from, for example, 'I would imagine he is some sort of civil service type'

W

mitsuwao23Would you explain why the underlined part is in the past perfect tense? I think "a &750 reward would be offered for its return" is better, or I'd even say, "correct."

Both 'had been' and would be' are correct. They say different things.

X the present moment

................v..............it was noted....................X...

mitsuwao23Hi all,

Would you explain why the underlined part is in the past present tense? I think "a &750 reward would be offered for its return" is better, or I'd even say, "correct."

Beneath a fuzzy Xeroxed photo of what appeared to be a chicken was a description of a missing African
grey parrot that had flown out of the store when a customer opene

Thank you CJ and all the anonymous for being so helpful. Now I understand clearly the difference between "a reward had been offered" and "a reward would be offered."[