0

Restorers have returned the Leaning Tower of Pisa to its former glory after an eight-year restoration project in which they cleaned and partially straightened it.

Workers were using chisels and hi-tech laser technology to scrub grime from the more than 24,000 blocks of stone on the 183ft tall tower.

that was the solution given to that exercise but

Could we use have cleaned and have straightened if the restorers have returned, it shows that the restoration has been finished very recently and could it be the same with "workers have been using "instead of "workers were using" https://www.grammar-quizzes.com/presperf1b.html

6
  • Hi user5577, in my opinion, using either "cleaned"/"straightened" or "have cleaned"/"have straightened" in the first sentence is fine and implies that the work is complete (but doesn't tell you whether it was finished very recently or finished a long time ago). If you use "have straightened" it should be split either side of the "partially" to flow well - e.g. "....restoration project in which they have cleaned and have partially straightened it". For the second sentence, I believe it's better to say "Workers used chisels..." rather than "were using", – Paul Jan 29 '20 at 12:54
  • 1
    as it makes the verb tense consistent with the first sentence. "Were using" still implies past action, but to me it implies that there is a conjunction or extra information that is missing. For example ("Workers were using chisels and hi-tech laser technology to scrub grime from the more than 24,000 blocks of stone, but eventually switched to sandblasting due to schedule constraints"). Just for clarity, the "have returned" in the first part of the first sentence is talking about the building, not the workers, – Paul Jan 29 '20 at 12:56
  • so there is nothing in either of the sentences that tells us that the works have returned to the site recently (or at all) - apologies if this was already clear! – Paul Jan 29 '20 at 12:59
  • There's a "tense clash" between your first and second sentences, because for #1 the "narrative reference time" is now, time of utterance (after the restoration has been completed), whereas for #2 the narrative reference time is in the past (during the restoration process). That's not necessarily a "syntactic error", but imho it's clumsy and confusing for the reader. – FumbleFingers Jan 29 '20 at 14:01
  • does if I change have been using in have used still a tense of clash between the first and second sentences – user5577 Jan 29 '20 at 17:00
0

As far as I know, one uses the present perfect to emphasise actions that would otherwise be described in the simple present. According to the material given, the upgrading works are complete. This means that any description of the works will be in the past tense.

When the material says “were using”, it is really just emphasizing that they “used chisels and hi-tech laser...” to do whatever was necessary. If you said “have been using”, it would sound like the upgrading was still work in progress and thus incomplete.

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.