0

I received this morning the records you sent two days ago

Today I received the records you sent or had sent last year. It took almost one year to arrive!

In the first sentence you don't need past perfect both action are almost simultaneous and the meaning is clear In the second sentence am I obliged to use past perfect or is the meaning clear enough without it. I think because of took it is better to use past perfect

  • It depends on what YOU mean: I received the record you sent last year. [no intervening event]. I received the records you had sent last year [implies something happened that is not mentioned between the receiving and the sending]. For example: I received the records you had sent last year [after the flood]. – Lambie Feb 6 '17 at 17:01
  • 2
    It would be inappropriate to use the perfect. The temporal expressions "today / this morning" + past tense convey the sequence of events. – BillJ Feb 6 '17 at 18:50
3

Because of the surrounding context, the past perfect is not necessary for either of your sentences, the order of events is clear. On the other hand, both sentences would still be correct if you did use the past perfect.

1

There is more than one way to draw attention to the fact that a long time elapsed between the sending and the receipt of the records. You can combine time phrases with the verb tenses:

I received only today the records you sent nearly a year ago.

Let's say you are remembering the sequence of events:

It was not until November that I received the records which had been sent nearly a year earlier, in January.

  • OP is specifically asking whether to use the past perfect or not, but you don't seem to have addressed this. You've just given two examples, one using simple past and the other using past perfect - but so far as I can see they could just as easily have both used the same tense (which could be either, though as usual I'd always suggest the KISS approach). – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica Feb 6 '17 at 19:28
  • @FumbleFingers: I like KISS as much as the next guy, but sometimes you want the tense and time-phrases to corroborate an idea, to mark it explicitly, even if such corroboration is not absolutely necessary. I've given such an example, where one might want to emphasize with the past perfect and the time phrases the sequence of events in the past. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Feb 6 '17 at 20:09
  • But you could have used past simple were sent in the second example because a year earlier indicate clearly the moment he sent the records – user5577 Feb 6 '17 at 20:36
  • @user5577. Do you understand what the word corroboration means? – Tᴚoɯɐuo Feb 7 '17 at 2:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.