1

Is there any difference between (1) and (2)?

(1) Almodovar's film was considered to be the most innovative.
(2) Almodovar's film was considered to have been the most innovative.


(1): means that the film is still considered the most innovative
(2): Implies that the film is no longer considered to be the most innovative.

This is what I think, and I wanted to confirm this idea.

2
  • 1
    Yes, what you think is correct Feb 18, 2023 at 11:59
  • Thank you @FumbleFingers Feb 18, 2023 at 15:52

1 Answer 1

1

No, that is incorrect. (I respectfully disagree with the comment above.)

Sentence 1 means that the film was consider to be the most innovative at that time. For example, a movie critic wrote in 2010 that Almodovar's film was the most innovative in 2010.

Sentence 2 uses the perfect aspect, implying an earlier time. This would usually mean that the film was consider to have been the most innovative at some earlier time. For example, a movie critic wrote in 2010 that Almodovar's film had been the most innovative in 1995 (but perhaps was no longer the most innovative in 2010).1

Because you say "was considered" (past tense), neither sentence implies anything about how Almodovar's film is currently considered.


1 People sometimes use the perfect aspect to indicate something that happened before the present (i.e., the time at which the sentence is spoken or written). In that case, sentence 2 would mean the same as sentence 1.

1
  • Yes, at that time* versus "up until that time".
    – Lambie
    Nov 16, 2023 at 16:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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