14

The technical term for the default aspect expressed by the English "past tense" is perfective—it expresses an action seen from the outside, as a whole. As you say, it implies that the action is "terminated", complete. That's why we never call this English verbform "imperfect". Imperfectivity is expressed in English with the progressive (continuous) ...


6

We use the past perfect (had left/had contracted/had stipulated) to specify that an event in the past happened before another event in the past, and yes, it would be hard to stipulate something after you die, so all these things had to take place, in some sense, before she died! However, when talking about inheritances and bequests, we often use the simple ...


6

When I was in Tokyo, I saw the movie three times. "was" simple past and "saw" simple past, puts both actions at the same time When I was in Tokyo, I had seen the movie three times. "was" simple past and "had seen" past perfect, possibly puts the movies before Tokyo, to remove ambiguity By the time I was in Tokyo, I had seen the movie three times. ...


6

As is often the case with aspectual distinctions in English (perfect or not; continuous or not) both are possible, depending on how the speaker is choosing to present the temporal structure of the events referred to. How long did it rain yesterday? is perfectly good if you are choosing to talk about yesterday's rain as a complete event. How long was ...


5

(2) She had entered the room and found him laid on the floor with the box in his right hand. You describe this as "the past perfect and the simple past", but in fact it will not be parsed this way. Found is both the simple past and the past participle of find, and in this case it will be understood as a past participle: both are governed by the perfect ...


5

As you say, what you would ordinarily say is This is the watch that I lost. If you are required by the imbecility of testwriters to use a perfect, it must be a past perfect. Because you now have the watch, you cannot say that you have lost it (except in a very unlikely 'experiential' sense of the perfect). Consequently, only the past perfect would be ...


5

The story is narrated in the past tense. To refer to a time in Elizabeth's past, earlier than the time of her writing of the letter, the narrator uses the past perfect. Elizabeth was determined to keep up their correspondence, but her determination was motivated by the relationship they had enjoyed in the past, not by the nature of the relationship at the ...


5

Past Perfect is mostly used to speak about an event in the past that happened before another event in the past. We use Past Perfect for something that started in the past and continued up to a given time in the past. When George died he and Anne had been married for nearly fifty years. We use Past Perfect when we are reporting our experience and ...


4

Because before is used it is clear that the explaining of the rules happened first, then the programme started. Because of this, past perfect is optional. In my opinion both sentences have the same meaning.


3

In situations like this the choice between past and past-perfect forms depends on where you want to focus your reader's attention. A cinematic analogy† may help: think of your time references as a sort of temporal 'camera', which can point at different points along the conventional left-to-right timeline: straight ahead for the present, to the right ...


3

Technically, if you considered only that sentence, either choice would be possible (It was Friday, the first day of our skiing holiday, and my friend Jason and I had been/were skiing down the mountain together.) It's just that in the text, were skiing is more logical (or arguably, just easier to imagine). In your exercise, the two were still skiing; they ...


3

The leaving happened before the coming in both sentences. When conjunctions such as before and after are used, the past perfect is not essential to establish the order of actions, but it is possible. Your two sentences mean approximately the same, but the first could convey more of the idea of 'he was no longer there'.


3

Strictly speaking you would backshift thus: John: “I am not enjoying my job very much.” → John said he was not enjoying his job very much. John: “I was not enjoying my job very much.” → John said he had not been enjoying his job very much. This is the use you should follow, particularly in formal writing, to avoid ...


3

Both examples are fine (the semantic difference is simply whether the "narrative time" is in the present or the past). But it's unnecessary to repeat the Past Perfect with she had last eaten in the first version, since it's contextually obvious she last ate/slept before the passage of the two days. As a rule, native speakers don't tend to use Past Perfect ...


3

The following three sentences mean different things. If you had come tomorrow, I might have been able to help you. This sentence is a counterfactual. It means that, because you came today instead of tomorrow, I can't help you. And there is no chance that I can help you if you come back tomorrow—you lost your chance for help by coming on the wrong day. Or ...


3

The past simple versions of all three sentences are grammatically correct, and are very clear. They sound natural to my (American) ear. (These versions use "went".) The past perfect versions of these three sentences are grammatically correct, but they are harder to understand. (These versions use "had gone".) The first sentence is clear, and sounds ...


3

The correct one is: Two years have passed since my cousin died. The past-perfect tense is usually combined only with simple past or other past-perfect clauses. Combining present perfect and past perfect in the same sentence requires creating an extremely complex sentence with many clauses and tense combinations. Edit: Because the OP requested an example, ...


3

It just depends, Alice. Usually the present perfect ("has been") is used in a general sense in the past whereas the simple past ("was") is used for a specific time in the past or less general time in the past. In your situation, we know that it was introduced in the last chapter, so it should be No. 2: The new method was introduced in the last ...


3

Your second sentence is a correct third conditional form as these forms are taught to English language learners. Your first sentence has a difference in nuance that is not necessarily grammatically incorrect but doesn't conform to how the forms are taught. While the result (having gotten the flu) is in the past and can't be changed, there's an implication ...


3

When words like "after" and "before" are used in a sentence the sequence of events is clear and past perfect is optional. So either past perfect or past simple is fine. If you change "after" to " when" it's different: Jenny put on a mask when I put on goggles = happening at the same time Jenny put on a mask when I had put on goggles = first I put on goggles,...


3

The talking happened before the arrival. What might be confusing to you is the fact that the arrived is in past perfect, while the talked is in the simple past. The fact there's a past perfect in the sentence means that the sentence is somehow based in the past. For instance, it's a narration and the events described are earlier than the point reached in ...


3

The past perfect is used for past-in-past; that is to say, things further back in time than the main time of the sentence. Thus, the report is saying that Trump vetoed a measure - simple past. Earlier than that, lawmakers passed the rejection resolution. Because the context is already past, you can use the past perfect to indicate something that was already ...


3

The difference is in how the speaker (writer) is choosing to structure the temporal relationships. In many contexts, there is more than one possible choice; sometimes some of the choices are ruled out by objective circumstances, or by other words the speaker is choosing to use. In this case, the choice of the present perfect (has introduced) would signify ...


3

Neither is correct. "I've lost" (I have lost) is the present perfect tense. It is not logically possible for you to simultaneously have lost and found your key, which makes the first example incorrect. Neither it is possible to lose your key in the present and then find it in the past, making the second example wrong. "Have lost" is a little different from,...


2

The second sentence describes an event in the past ("it was 8:30") and an earlier event related to that event; at that time (8:30) the fact that "my brother arrived" was already a past event. The usage of past perfect is a way of expressing the relative times. When you hear a sentence with past perfect you should get a subtle sense of that "already". (...


2

It is common to tell the story in novels in the past tense. When a story is narrated in the past tense, the past tense prose is equivalent to our present tense, as we follow the unfolding story. NOTE: In my previous revision, I tried to simplify the reason of the use of the past tense to "to depicts events in the story as something happened before the ...


2

The slight difference is in the "was" or "had" and the implication. If I say, "No one was killed," it's a clear message that no deaths occurred because of the event. It's stating that it did not happen. However, saying, "No one had been killed," can imply, depending on context, that we are speaking about that one instant and not for the instant after. To ...


2

The use of past perfect is the backshifting of the action taken before the time which the fragment is describing. It's backshifting of present perfect tense. I'll explain. Philip was under Hayward's influence prior to the Christmas Day. Under that influence, eventually, also prior to the Christmas Day, Philip's opinion (that the festivities were vulgar) ...


2

I think there's no point using the past perfect and the past perfect continuous in the sentence. You can rephrase it in the past simple as follows: Since the violin didn't fit his backpack, he carried (or was carrying) it on his shoulder the whole morning.


2

Simple past is the most appropriate tense here. This is because, in this case, you're just referring to something in the past: You sent your person. The office was closed. You don't need anything more complicated than that. Past perfect is used when we're referring to something that occurred before something else. For example, you might say, "Before my ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible