tense

[rita_b]

Hello,

I had taken those medicines for 2 1/2 years, until I experienced side effects.


Can I also write "I took those medicines for 2 1/2 years, until I experienced side effects."

Which one is appropriate and Why

Regards,

Rita

[riquecohen]

Hello,

I had taken those medicines for 2 1/2 years, until I experienced side effects.


Can I also write "I took those medicines for 2 1/2 years, until I experienced side effects."

Which one is appropriate and Why

Regards,

Rita

The first sentence is grammatically correct, You´ve used the past perfect to indicate a time further in the past (when you took the medications) than the time in the more recent past when you experienced the side effects (and used the simple past.) The second sentence, while not correct, is the way many native speakers would put it (even relatively well-educated ones.)

[Raymott]

Hello,

I had taken those medicines for 2 1/2 years, until I experienced side effects.


Can I also write "I took those medicines for 2 1/2 years, until I experienced side effects."

Which one is appropriate and Why

Regards,

Rita

The second sentence is correct. It's also better; generally the past perfect is not used unless it's needed. "Until" is quite adequate to describe the time relationship between the tenses.
"I loved her until she left me."; "I slept until [it was] noon."

[rita_b]

Thanks, but now i am more confused becoz of the answer given by riquecohen. Please clarify.

Regards,

Rita

[Raymott]

Thanks, but now I am more confused because of the answer given by riquecohen. Please clarify.

Regards,

Rita

One thing happening before another is a necessary but not sufficient condition to mandate the use of the past perfect.
If A happens first, then B happens, you can say:
A happened, then B happened.
A happened before B. B happened after A.
B didn't happen until after A [had] happened.
None of these sentences need the past perfect. The past perfect is used in the last sentence if the speaker feels that the nuance is necessary - usually if A and B have some logical connection that needs stressing.
I think that riquecohen will modify his opinion once he's thought about it a bit more.

[riquecohen]

One thing happening before another is a necessary but not sufficient condition to mandate the use of the past perfect.
If A happens first, then B happens, you can say:
A happened, then B happened.
A happened before B. B happened after A.
B didn't happen until after A [had] happened.
None of these sentences need the past perfect. The past perfect is used in the last sentence if the speaker feels that the nuance is necessary - usually if A and B have some logical connection that needs stressing.
I think that riquecohen will modify his opinion once he's thought about it a bit more.

Thank you, Raymott. It appears that after all these years, I´m still learning. Therefore, the second sentence is correct.

[rita_b]

HI,

"The transplant was scheduled to happen way back in Nov’09 and that’s why I had approached all my friends , well wishers & relatives during Sept’09 for possible financial assistance as I was (& still am) unable to collect the fund for this huge expense. The response was good and I was overwhelmed with the love & affection bestowed on me by many friends. Unfortunately the donor absconded at the last moment and as may be you are aware that I’m following complete legal processes for getting the transplant done, I had to start again from the scratch."


Regards,


Rita



Is it necessary to use past perfect or simple past will do?

The second sentence is [/COLOR][/COLOR]correct. It's also better; generally the past perfect is not used unless it's needed. "Until" is quite adequate to describe the time relationship between the tenses.
"I loved her until she left me."; "I slept until [it was] noon."

[Raymott]

HI,

"The transplant was scheduled to happen way back in Nov’09 and that’s why I had approached all my friends , well wishers & relatives during Sept’09 for possible financial assistance as I was (& still am) unable to collect the fund for this huge expense. The response was good and I was overwhelmed with the love & affection bestowed on me by many friends. Unfortunately the donor absconded at the last moment and as may be you are aware that I’m following complete legal processes for getting the transplant done, I had to start again from the scratch."


Regards,


Rita

Is it necessary to use past perfect or simple past will do?

It's optional.
If a different tense was necessary every time you wanted to refer to more than one event in the past, the number of tenses needed would be infinite.

"The transplant was due in November, so I had asked my friends for money in October after I had had realised I was penniless in September because I had had had spent it all in August after I had had had had decided to go on a shopping spree."
We don't say this.

[rita_b]

1) The main gate cost should be reduced, if it is decorated with the artificial flowers. the florist has given me the cost for fresh flowers. ----here what i wanted to say is that ' there is a function in November 2010 and the florist has given me the rates for gate decoration.

My question : Can i say "has given" or he gave me the cost for fresh flowers is also correct? since the function is not happened yet.........present perfect is related from past to present instances.

Please help. i know i am you irritating with all these questions............but i really want to master this language.

Regards,

Rita

[Raymott]

1) The main gate cost should be reduced, if it is decorated with the artificial flowers. the florist has given me the cost for fresh flowers. ----here what i wanted to say is that ' there is a function in November 2010 and the florist has given me the rates for gate decoration.

My question : Can i say "has given" or he gave me the cost for fresh flowers is also correct? since the function is not happened yet.........present perfect is related from past to present instances.

Please help. i know i am you irritating with all these questions............but i really want to master this language.
No, you're not irritating me.

Yes, this is exactly the time you use a perfect tense.
There has to be some logical connection between the two events - which there is here. You know the cost will be lower, because the florist has already given you the price.
You know now, because something happened before and is completed at the index time. (They are not two unrelated events in the past.)
However, if you said, "The florist gave me the price, so I already know the cost will be lower" (all simple tenses), that's OK too, because you've explicitly explained the logical connection of one event to the other - with 'so'.

There are three perfect tenses, present perfect, past perfect, and future perfect. They all have this quality. You use them when you need to emphasize a connection between two events, not just that one happened before the other. But, there are other ways to say that one thing is dependent on another, so the perfect tenses are not always necessary.

I'll illustrate the past and future perfect with the adverbial phrase, "By the time ...", which does require a perfect tense, because it explicitly means that one thing will be completed before another happens.

Past:
"By the time he arrived, I had eaten lunch." (past perfect - right)
"By 2pm (past), I had eaten lunch."
* "By the time he arrived, I eat/ate lunch." Wrong.

Future:
"By the time he arrives, I will have eaten lunch." (future perfect - right)
"By 2pm (future), I will have eaten lunch."
* "By the time he arrives, I will eat/ate lunch." Wrong.

Present:
"He arrives now, and I have eaten lunch." (present perfect - right)
"It's 2pm, and I have eaten lunch."
* "He arrives now, and I ate lunch." Wrong.

I think I wrote something else about the perfect tenses, which I can't remember now. I'll try to find it.