1)India won the toss and decided to bowl.

why not

2)India had won the toss and decided to bowl.

As the event of winning the toss occurred first.

migrated from english.stackexchange.com Jun 19 at 19:03

This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.

  • 2
    Hello, mannu. The events described by 'won the toss' and 'decided to bowl' are very close together in time, and in an obvious order to someone understanding the way these things are done (ie almost everyone). Using 'and' is a marker of sequentiality here; 'did X and Y' often means 'did X and then, almost at once, Y'. The past perfect is often used sparingly (or even avoided) when confusion about meaning doesn't arise. In fact, after 'India had won the toss and decided to bowl' you'd expect something like 'and now they were reaping the benefits' (ie A, A'; and then, some time later, B).... – Edwin Ashworth Jun 16 at 16:45
  • (No partisanship intended; I just hope it's a good match tonight. I live near Manchester, and it might just rain.... And the Aussies look like they're the form team) – Edwin Ashworth Jun 16 at 16:45
  • thanks Edwin Ashworth – mannu Jun 16 at 16:45
  • There is nothing wrong with "India had won the toss and decided to bowl." It's just that the "had" is unnecessary (the order of events is perfectly clear without it), and most of the time we don't put it in. – Peter Shor Jun 16 at 17:33

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.