Everything tasted pretty much the same.
In this sentence, does "pretty much the same" mean "in pretty much the same way"? In other word, can you explain that "in" and "way" was omitted ? Or is "the same" a complement of the sentence ?
Nobody believed him when he said he was innocent. Now, when he said he stole them, nobody believed him either.
Would you tell me why "say" in the first sentence is "said" ? I think "say" should be "had said".
And why is "steal" in the second sentence "stole" ? I think it should be "had stolen".
3) I can not make sense of the sentence below clearly. Would you paraphrase this sentence ?
It was too much of a coincidence to be a mere accident.
Re: some questions
Without more context, I assume that "Everything tasted pretty much the same" that the taste of everything was identical. I wouldn't use "in pretty much the same way" because that says to me that "everything" is doing the tasting. However, if you leave out the "in" in that phrase you are doing fine.
I would call "the same" a complement of the sentence in question.
It's a pretty common English expression.
- A: How are things?
B: The same. It's the same today as it was yesterday.
There is no reason that I can see to use past perfect there. The writer (or speaker) is commenting on something that happened in the past and was finished in the past. To use past perfect you have to establish a context for it.
- It was too much of a coincidence to be accidental.
- It was so much of a coincidence that I don't believe it was a coincidence.
Does that help?
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO