|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MoneyMike
Joined: 03 Dec 2008
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:19 pm Post subject: Grammar question |
 |
|
Hey guys, I've got a grammar question for you. One of my co-workers asked me this today, and I don't have a solid enough understanding of grammar to give her a good answer. The question is about this sentence:
Nevertheless, I left them long before I had reached the heights they had planned for me, and by then I knew that not only did the job they had picked out no longer exist, neither did the company I would have directed nor even the country in which I was to have operated.
Quite a mouthful. Her question is why does the author use the past participle form for "had reached the heights" instead of just usual past tense of "reached the heights"? Also, if that part is changed to simple past, does the sentence then become grammatically incorrect?
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thegadfly
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indeed quite a mouthful, but the change you asked about does not make the sentence any less grammatically correct, but does change the nuance of meaning...as it stands, the sentence implies that at some point in the past, but after the time with "them," the speaker had indeed reached the "heights they had planned" -- just not whilst with "them." The simple past does not imply that the speaker reached those heights, though it does not preclude the possibility....
Not a great sentence, and still missing a few commas.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oldtrafford
Joined: 12 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gave me a headache just reading it. Is this the learning objective for kindy class on Monday morning!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MoneyMike
Joined: 03 Dec 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reise-ohne-Ende
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm gonna respectfully disagree with thegadfly.
"I left them long before I reached the heights they had planned for me."
"I left them long before I had reached the heights they had planned for me."
The second (i.e., original) sounds more natural to me because the present perfect is generally focused on the experience itself rather than the processes involved.
For example, "I ate bread" vs. "I have eaten bread." The first one is just a statement of fact, about either a one-time or habitual event, while the second one is explaining that the speaker has had the EXPERIENCE of eating bread. The focus is on the fact that the speaker knows what it is to eat bread - what it means existentially, lol. The individual action is less important than the result of that action.
So in your sentence, 'they' were not really interested in the actions the speaker needed to take in order to reach those heights. They were interested in the completion of those actions - his having reached those heights. It's a goal point or a result; therefore, the past perfect is more appropriate.
Also, I think the sentence is quite pretty and perfectly grammatically acceptable. ^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thegadfly
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reise-ohne-Ende wrote: |
I'm gonna respectfully disagree with thegadfly.
"I left them long before I reached the heights they had planned for me."
"I left them long before I had reached the heights they had planned for me."
The second (i.e., original) sounds more natural to me because the present perfect is generally focused on the experience itself rather than the processes involved.
For example, "I ate bread" vs. "I have eaten bread." The first one is just a statement of fact, about either a one-time or habitual event, while the second one is explaining that the speaker has had the EXPERIENCE of eating bread. The focus is on the fact that the speaker knows what it is to eat bread - what it means existentially, lol. The individual action is less important than the result of that action.
So in your sentence, 'they' were not really interested in the actions the speaker needed to take in order to reach those heights. They were interested in the completion of those actions - his having reached those heights. It's a goal point or a result; therefore, the past perfect is more appropriate.
Also, I think the sentence is quite pretty and perfectly grammatically acceptable. ^^ |
Hrm...I do not think we are disagreeing, so much as perhaps I was not clear in my meaning....
I agree that the original sounded more "natural," but I think we would also agree that a 53-word sentence is pretty UNnatural, unless you are strung out on meth...or everything is stuck together with dashes and ellipses...which is a pause, of sorts....
...and I also agree that the outcome of the action within the timeframe referenced is the focus of the original sentence...but the wording implies that the action may have occured at a later time -- by stating it had not been done at a specific but unspecified time suggests that it may have been done at a different, unspecified time, whereas the simple past suggests it hasn't been done at all....
Is this an exercise in drawing a maze of words? If not, then although it may indeed be mechanically correct, I think the sentence is a poorly-written one. There is no difference, structurally, between a corpse and a living person.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reise-ohne-Ende
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I like mazey sentences. They're pretty. ^^ Although I like your imagery too :3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
