Enigma wrote:Say if you wrote this sentence, would you not decide to use the past perfect because you want to show the temporal relationship between the two attached clause?I had no money, because I had lost my wallet.
Yes, I certainly agree there.
Enigma wrote:Say if you wrote this sentence, would you not decide to use the past perfect because you want to show the temporal relationship between the two attached clause?I had no money, because I had lost my wallet.

I had no money, because I had lost my wallet.

This past perfect is also required because of the past simple in the main clause. In this case, we're indicating that one action preceded another by using the two different tenses (sequence of tense).
would you not decide to use the past perfect because you want to show the temporal relationship between the two attached clause?

And we bear in mind that languages change over time, so there may no longer be a hard and fast rule governing our choices.saparris wrote:...within the parameters of expressing what we mean, there may be several options that are within the rules. Thus, we examine the sense of the sentence first, then apply the best tenses--within a set of grammatically correct options--to say best what we mean.

I assume these are examples of what you mean by how the greater context influences the tense of the main clause?
And we bear in mind that languages change over time, so there may no longer be a hard and fast rule governing our choices.

Slava wrote:A question that came to me today: are we discussing written or spoken English here? In several of the example sentences, especially where I said I'd use "do," the tone of voice and intonation will play a role in how the sentence is understood.
A drawn out "Weelll, if I dooo accept...," to me conveys the same meaning as the written tenses.
Just a thought.

Good point. Written English.

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests