I request visitors to answer my thread above in the context of the thread posted by Mr.MikeNewYork (in one of the past threads - thanks to his explanation). I need a similar explanation as given by Mr. MikeNewYork wherever past perfect (present perfect) tense is used in the above passage.
Re: has or had
Originally Posted by jack
It has rained for two days. <--correct?
It had rained for two days. <--correct?
what is the difference between the two?
When would i use the first one and the second one? Are both of these sentences correct? Should i use "has" for both of them because of the unspeficied time and you would use had for specific time.
If i can use has for both of the sentences above, then what is the point of having the rules for had and has, like had is for used specific times?
The first (has) is present perfect. In this case, it refers to recent rains. The rain probably has stopped, but there are present consquences.
The grass is still wet. It has rained for two days.
If it has rained for two days and it is still raining, one would usually say "It has been raining for two days."
The second (had) is past perfect. This is used to describe an event that was completed before another time reference.
Last year I almost drowned when I fell into an old well. The well was full of water because it had rained for two days. [The rain occurred before the speaker fell].
It had rained on April 26.
It has rained on April 26. <-- is this incorrect? why? if the above two is correct, why isn't this one correct too?
The second is incorrect. We don't use present perfect with specific days/times. The reason is that it refers to an event that occurred in the past on a particular day. It is a simple statement of fact. We use past tense for that.
We can use the past perfect with a specific date if that date is before another event in the past.
Pope of the Dictionary.com Forum
Moderator of Delphi UsingEnglish Forum