3

I see a sentence without further context:

John will prove to the world that Mahari was right.

I don't understand the meaning of that sentence. Why does it say Mahari was right, instead of Mahari is right?

My reasoning is that:

Mahari has been dead while John has this intention.

If Mahari is still alive, maybe the sentence would be:

John will prove to the world that Mahari is right.

What do you think and why?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

There is no need for Mahari to be dead as you say. The 'Was' there denotes the action of Mahari which happened at a time in the past, and some people thought that it was wrong.

Consider Mahari a Minister and some days before making a decision on some important issue in the country which made the opposition party think that it's wrong.

So, John will prove in the future that Mahari's action (in the past) was right.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    I think this answer is right. Although I would note that if he is dead, the past tense would be more appropriate.
    – user230
    Oct 17, 2013 at 6:20
  • Thanks VijayaRagavan. You give a clear explanation of my question. @snailboat : Thank you for your additional remarks.
    – eslsyc
    Oct 17, 2013 at 9:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .