Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[jennyxj]

1. "My accident was a strange and very close call. If I had landed differently, even by a millimeter in one direction, I wouldn't have been injured; if I had landed a millimetre the other way, *I wouldn't be here today*."

I thought I'd write this way: I wouldn't have been here today, because in the clause is the subjunctive in the past tense. But why not?

2. We in the International Department, favoured by our unique ties with various kinds of political parties in different countries, and based on our long-term studies on party politics and trends of thought, have carried out quite a deal of research work through setting up thematic research groups, dispatching study teams abroad and organizing international seminars, with an attempt to pool wisdom of other parties and draw on their useful ideas that may be of reference to the building of our own Party. Over the year, we managed _____________ nearly a hundred reports on a series of important subjects.

>A. to accomplish
>B. to have accomplished

3. Through these exchanges of visit, we were able_______several thousand political figures in various countries.
>C. to meet
>D. to have met

A young American adult feels most comfortable with "to accomlish" and "to meet," and he doesn't think B is incorrect and D correct. I'd choose B and C. But a Briton says A and D are correct answers! Which are on earth gramatically correct and why?

I'd appreciate your help.
_________________
Jenny from Xinjiang

[Eric Thompson]

Jennyxj, We have to assume that the accident occured a relatively long time ago, and the person's injury has already healed. In that case, one would use the past perfect tense (wouldn't have been injured). If the injury hadn't healed, one could use the present tense (wouldn't be injured [today]). But since, the person didn't die and is still alive and 'here', one should use present tense in the 2nd part of the sentence. It's kind of complicated. I hope this clears it up a bit for you. Ok?

[2006]

jennyxj

I would highly recommend the following 'rule' regarding perfect tense: don't use it unless you are convinced it is necessary! In other words, if you are in doubt, use simple past or present tense, as appropriate. You will make some mistakes following this rule, but you will make many more mistakes by using perfect tense too often.
The other advantage of this rule is that you will understand perfect tense much more easily by learning when you must use perfect tense rather than by learning when not to use it.

So:
1...'I wouldn't be here today." is correct. Adding "have been" is wrong.
2 and 3...A and C are correct.

If you don't agree, tell me why.

[jennyxj]

[jennyxj]

[2006]

I think you didn't understand my point; maybe it isn't easy to understand.

My point is that it is better for you to tell me why you want to use "have". Perfect tense is often used by English learners when it is not needed, and sometimes can actually change the meaning from what you want to mean. You don't need "have" in 2 and 3; native speakers don't use it because it is not needed.

[jennyxj]

[2006]

hi jennyxj

I am a little familiar with English teaching in China and I know that there are many bad English questions and many wrong 'answers' on the English tests in China. I also think that the teaching of perfect tense in China is not good.

Wo shi ge jia na da ren.

[buddhaheart]

I think you�ve a mixed conditional here: You�ve a Type III if-clause and a Type II conditional clause in �... if I had landed a millimeter the other way, I wouldn't be here today."

There�s nothing odd about this construction. Type II is about something that�s impossible, unreal, hypothetical or �contrary to fact�. It can refer to the present or the future. �I wouldn't be here today� is CORRECT. As a specific time �today� is mentioned here in the sentence, the perfect form �wouldn't have been� could not be used.

If you must insist on a Type III past perfect construction, you could change �I wouldn't be here today" to �I would have been dead."

In Part 2 of your question, the simple indefinite �to accomplish� would be sufficient. Again as a specific time is mentioned �Over the year� in the sentence, the simple past form of the main verb �managed� is adequate.

In Part 3 of your question, again the simple indefinite �to meet� would be sufficient. I suppose you could change �Through these exchanges of visit� to �After (or Since) these exchanges of visit� and turn � we were able to meet� into �we had been able to meet�.

[Lorikeet]

[2006]

I meant that I think perfect tense is not taught well in China. Students there seem to be taught to overuse perfect tense.

[jennyxj]

[jennyxj]