|
|
A concept of time
Typo:
<<My reply: You mean "...know a little English..."? Am I correct? >> It should have been: ".....known a little English....." In short, I think we are referring to the same study: "studied a little English" in the example from Englishpage.com
Ex1: "There HAD BEEN an accident when I telephoned the police"?
Ex2: When there HAD BEEN an accident I telephoned the police. Ex3: I HAD STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S. Ex4: When I HAD STUDIED a little English, I came to the U.S. Considering the examples 1 and 2 (in my numeration), they are both wrong. The guy witnessed an accident and called the police. In this case Past Perfect is incorrect. «When the accident happened, I telephoned the police» - seems to me the most natural version. «I telephoned the police when the accident happened» - is OK too. Past Perfect may be used here only in order to emphasize that the speaker called the police after he had seen the accident, not before. But that is not the case in the considered example. But that is applicable to: «I found Anton's keys only after He had left. So, I couldn't give them back yesterday » - here the sequence of actions is important, and Past Perfect is used. Compare to: «After he signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off.» - in this sentence there is no necessity to emphasize the precedence of one action to another, and Past Simple is used.» As to the examples ## 3 and 4, #3 is correct, but #4 is not. And they have a slightly different meanings. The example #3 emphasizes that the speaker already had a little knowledge of English when he came to the US. The 4th example says that the speaker left for the US after he studied a little English (and decided it was time to visit an English-speaking country). The correct version would be: «When I STUDIED a little English, I came to the U.S.» I am not sure about the correctness of 'to study a little English', and I don't know how to express it correctly. That is why I was avoiding the use of this construction.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Ex1: "There HAD BEEN an accident when I telephoned the police"? Ex2: When there HAD BEEN an accident I telephoned the police. Considering the examples 1 and 2 (in my numeration), they are both wrong.>> My reply: I just want to point out what we shall put in the subordinate clause: Ex: I telephoned the police. There had been a car accident. == Past Perfect alone can tell the order of the happenings. But if we want to merge them into one, which one shall be put in the subordinate clause? This is the point. In my opinion, the one in Past Perfect shall be. WHEN is a neutral subordinator, and sometimes it doesn't sound natural. If you want it to sound more natural, we may use AFTER: ExA: After there HAD BEEN an accident I telephoned the police. == Is this not natural? I don't think so. If this is natural, which I think so, is it regarded as "wrong" if we use WHEN: Ex2: When there HAD BEEN an accident I telephoned the police. == The one you denied above. On the other hand, AFTER may sound not natural if it is put otherwise: Ex: There HAD BEEN an accident after I telephoned the police. == We have put the wrong part in the subordinate clause. --------------------- You wrote: «When the accident happened, I telephoned the police» - seems to me the most natural version. I agree this is natural, but it is out of the explanation of Past Perfect. To me, it means you saw the process of the accident, so you called the police. But with Past Perfect, it means the accident happened for a while. You came there and saw it, so you telephoned the police: Ex2: When there HAD BEEN an accident, I telephoned the police. == The one you denied above. To me, it is possible. It just sounds more natural if we use AFTER, as in ExA above.
«But if we want to merge them into one, which one shall be put in the subordinate clause? This is the point. In my opinion, the one in Past Perfect shall be.»
Ex.: «I had already done it when he came». Which is the subordinate clause here? «ExA: After there HAD BEEN an accident I telephoned the police. == Is this not natural? I don't think so. If this is natural, which I think so, is it regarded as "wrong" if we use WHEN: Ex2: When there HAD BEEN an accident I telephoned the police. == The one you denied above.» The "After" version may be correct and may be not depending on whether the sequence of actions is important or it is not emphasized. In the considered example the latter is the case: the sequence of actions is evident without Past Perfect. So, I'd say it like this: «After/When the accident happend, I called the police.» I am not sure your "When" version is fully equivalent to the "After" version. You may ask the people at this forum about your examples. I think they'll say the examples are weird, if not incorrect. If to follow your reasoning, the sentence «After he signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off.» can be converted to: «After he HAD signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off.» without loss of meaning. I think, you are not right. «On the other hand, AFTER may sound not natural if it is put otherwise: Ex: There HAD BEEN an accident after I telephoned the police. == We have put the wrong part in the subordinate clause.» Here you changed the meaning. In the new (incorrect) sentence the accident happens after the call to the police, while it is the opther way round in your initial examples... «I agree this is natural, but it is out of the explanation of Past Perfect. To me, it means you saw the process of the accident, so you called the police... But with Past Perfect, it means the accident happened for a while. You came there and saw it, so you telephoned the police:» Ok. I can correct my sentence to assume the meaning you ment, keeping it in Past Simple: «After the accident happened, I telephoned the police.» Or do you find it still not expressing the situation you proposed? I think, it is at least not better than your variant. To describe it correctly I would write: «When I went into the street I saw that a Volvo had run into a KAMAZ. I called to the police immediately.» To me, only this can clearly express that the speaker didn't see the accident happen.
Ant_222 wrote:
<<Ex.: I had already done it when he came. Which is the subordinate clause here?>> My reply: "when he came" is the subordinate clause. To know more about subordinate clause, you may search "subordinate clause" in searching engines. Or you may start by this one: http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000010.htm By the way, in your example above, "I had already done it" is the main clause. Some also call a sentence a clause, but I only call it a main clause when it is in contrast with a subordinate clause. A main clause can stand alone (as a sentence) without the subordinate clause. A subordinate clause does not usually stand alone without its main clause. ----------------- You wrote: <<If to follow your reasoning, the sentence «After he signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off.» can be converted to: «After he HAD signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off.» without loss of meaning. I think, you are NOT RIGHT.>> My reply: I didn't say the tenses are convertible. I only said here After can be converted to When. But may you tell any difference, either in time or in meaning? Ex1: After he signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off. Ex2: After he HAD signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off. I will stick to it until I get the tense(s) RIGHT.
1. << Ex1: After he signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off.
Ex2: After he HAD signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off. >> After signing the letter, he asked the secretary to send it. Adding "off" creates a tautology. I prefer eg1. 2. There HAD BEEN an accident, so I telephoned the police. There was an accident, so I telephoned the police. 3. I had already done it, by the time he arrived.
<< Ex3: I HAD STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S. >>
Which is it? I HAD STUDIED a little English while coming to the U.S. Or I HAD STUDIED a little English before coming to the U.S.
<<I prefer eg1. >>
But may you tell any difference, either in time or in meaning?
I wrote:
<<But may you tell any difference, either in time or in meaning? Ex1: After he signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it. Ex2: After he HAD signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it. I will stick to it until I get the tense(s) RIGHT. >> If I am allowed, I want to know the difference, rather than merely your choice. From your explanation I may know whether your choice is correct or not.
Geoff_One wrote:
<< Ex3: I HAD STUDIED a little English when I came to the U.S. Which is it? I HAD STUDIED a little English while coming to the U.S. Or I HAD STUDIED a little English before coming to the U.S.>> My reply: This is what I meant. Ex3 is the example I took from englishpage.com. As I pointed out, because they have put WHEN into a wrong place, they leave us the vagueness. I therefore suggested we should put it right: Ex3: When I HAD STUDIED a little English, I came to the U.S. I further argued that After can replace When here: Ex3b: After I HAD STUDIED a little English, I came to the U.S. But I didn't say the tense (HAD STUDIED) can also be replaced by Simple Past STUDIED. I challenged if one can see the difference: <<But may you tell any difference, either in time or in meaning? Ex1: After he signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it. Ex2: After he HAD signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it. I will stick to it until I get the tense(s) RIGHT. >>
I wrote:
«Ex.: I had already done it when he came. Which is the subordinate clause here?» I knew it is the second clause. But how does this accord with your words: «In my opinion, the one in Past Perfect shall be [in the subordinate clause - Ant_222]»? «I didn't say the tenses are convertible. I only said here After can be converted to When.» So, do you think this convertion changes the meaning or not? «But may you tell any difference, either in time or in meaning? Ex1: After he signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off. Ex2: After he HAD signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off. I will stick to it until I get the tense(s) RIGHT.» I have wriiten about it above. Yes, there is a difference. Not that the second example is incorrect, but in some situations the first is much more suitable than the second, and in other situations the second is better. I recommend that you reread my previous explanation and ask questions about it. Of course, both the sentences report the same sequence of actions. But the first example reports two cosequent action, as in a narration. The second sentence not just reports two actions but also emphasizes that one action happened befor the other. It may be used when the sequence of actions is in question. The second may be rewritten in the following way: «ONLY after he HAD signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off.» — said the barrister in order to prove the letter wasn't sent unsigned. That can not be done with the first sentence due to the difference in the meanings. Geoff_One wrote: «Adding "off" creates a tautology.» How? To «send off» is a an entry in my dictionary. And here is an example from it: «Have you sent the boxes off yet?» Is it a tautology too? If it is, then, please, explain how this happens.
I asked:
<<But may you tell any difference, either in time or in meaning? Ex1: After he signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off. Ex2: After he HAD signed the letter, he asked the secretary to send it off. I will stick to it until I get the tense(s) RIGHT.>> Ant_222 wrote: <<I have wriiten about it above. Yes, there is a difference. Not that the second example is incorrect, but in some situations the first is much more suitable than the second, and in other situations the second is better>> My reply: What kind of explanation is this? WHAT ARE THE SITUATIONS? I know this answer is the best one for young, innocent, kind of stupid English beginners: "According to the situations, when we should use Simple Past, we use Simple Past. When we should use Past Perfect, we use Past Perfect." Without explaining what the situations are, you think you have already given a bit of the answer at all?
«My reply: What kind of explanation is this? WHAT ARE THE SITUATIONS?
I know this answer is the best one for young, innocent, kind of stupid English beginners: "According to the situations, when we should use Simple Past, we use Simple Past...» I have written what are the two kinds of situations. Now I repeat it for the third time: I. Past Simple variant. This is when the sequence of actions is evident and out of question. II. Past Perfect variant. Such situations happen when the sequence of actions is important. And I have said this above and have given examples for each of the situations. Why did you write that I hadn't described what situations I meant?
<<This is when the sequence of actions is evident and out of question.>>
What and where is the example? |