Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Telugu
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • India

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 440
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #1

    Had is killing me:(

    1. Once they had seen the report from the medical examiner, the i
    investigators (did not doubt whether the body recovered from the river was) the man who had attempted to escape from the state prison.

    A) did not doubt whether the body recovered from the river was
    B) had not doubted that the body recoverd from the river was
    C) had no doubt that the body recovered from the river was that of.

    2. His studies of ice-polished rocks in his Alphine homeland, far outside the range of present-day glaciers, led Louis Agassiz in 1837 to propose the concept of an age (in which great ice sheets had existed in now currently temperate areas)

    A) in which great ice sheets had existed in now currently temperate areas
    B) in which great ice sheets existed in what are now temperate areas

    C)when great ice sheets had existed in current temperate areas.

    For the first question I chose A.. the correct answer is C
    2nd one: I chose C, but the correct answer is B

    First question is the damned of the two question that confused me. As the title says, I might die before understanding the usages of 'HAD'

    Kindly explain me the above two questions.. eager to learn my mistakes:)
    Last edited by kiranlegend; 15-Aug-2008 at 10:45.

    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Telugu
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • India

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 440
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #2

    Re: Had is killing me:(

    One more..

    What if I say the first one as 'Once they saw the report from the medical examiner, the investigators did not doubt that the body recovered from the river was that of the man who had attempted to escape from the state prison'

    i replaced had seen with saw and had not with did not.. is it correct?

    In the orginal correct answer, what are past perfect verbs had seen and had no doubt doing? to which past action these two precede?

    also for second question i have the similar question.

    please explain..


    • Join Date: May 2008
    • Posts: 812
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #3

    Re: Had is killing me:(

    Quote Originally Posted by kiranlegend View Post
    1. Once they had seen the report from the medical examiner, the i
    investigators (did not doubt whether the body recovered from the river was) the man who had attempted to escape from the state prison.

    A) did not doubt whether the body recovered from the river was
    B) had not doubted that the body recoverd from the river was

    C) had no doubt that the body recovered from the river was that of.



    In this instance, think of had as meaning possessed or held.

    ... the investigators held no doubt... (it means the same as did not doubt)

    However had seen uses had as an aux verb and the word no longer means held or possessed - it forms the past perfect tense of to see.

    It shows that the investigator was in no doubt (past tense) once he had seen (past perfect) the report. It makes the chain of events clear. He saw the report and then was in no doubt.




    2. His studies of ice-polished rocks in his Alphine homeland, far outside the range of present-day glaciers, led Louis Agassiz in 1837 to propose the concept of an age (in which great ice sheets had existed in now currently temperate areas)

    A) in which great ice sheets had existed in now currently temperate areas
    B) in which great ice sheets existed in what are now temperate areas

    C)when great ice sheets had existed in current temperate areas.



    In this case, I think it is clear through the context in which order the events happened. The contrast of past tense (he proposed the concept) and past perfect (that ice sheets had existed) is not needed to explain the order of the events. It is obvious that the huge ice sheets existed before Agassiz's studies in 1837.

    So if you need to clearly mark that something happened before something else (both in the past) - use the past perfect, but if the context already makes this information clear, you don't necessarily need to.

    In 2006, a physicist claimed that the universe began 6,000,000,000 years ago. Two past tenses, order of events clear through context.

    I knocked on your door earlier but you had already left the house. Past tense and past perfect to clarify order of events.










    For the first question I chose A.. the correct answer is C
    2nd one: I chose C, but the correct answer is B

    First question is the damned of the two question that confused me. As the title says, I might die before understanding the usages of 'HAD'

    Kindly explain me the above two questions.. eager to learn my mistakes:)
    I am not a teacher.
    Last edited by colloquium; 15-Aug-2008 at 12:05.

    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Telugu
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • India

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 440
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #4

    Re: Had is killing me:(

    you have eligiblities to become my 'had' teacher:) still I have plethora of doubts on HAD:(

    If had is used as meaning posession, 'had' would be in simple past, aight?

    Let's continue this thread to make had at various situations as clearly discernable as possible.. :)

    4. In 1981 children in the United States spent an average
    of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing
    household chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six
    hours a week.

    A. chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours
    a week
    B. chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly
    six hours a week


    B is correct here.. what if i use grew instead of had grown?? which tense had grown is here?

    5. I thought that ancient peoples Had believed in many gods. -- here in this case Had need not be used because the sentence is clear in the events right? But then, again, to contradict myself there are doubts swirling in my mind.. why not had believed?

    Had is making my mind dead:(

    Please, please explain.. :)


    • Join Date: Nov 2007
    • Posts: 5,425
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #5

    Re: Had is killing me:(

    by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly
    six hours a week


    You start the sentence, 'by 1997'. One of the meanings of, (and the meaning implied in your sentence), is 'the end of a particular time period'.
    In effect:
    'by 1997' = 'at the end of the period of time from 1981 to 1997",...
    So - it is in the past, and it occurred over a period of time. The form we use for this is (in this sentence) 'had grown'.
    We are looking at an increasing number of hours doing chores that occurred gradually over that period of time.

    Another way of communicating this information would be:
    In 1981, children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing
    household chores.
    In 1982, this figure grew to two-and-three-quarter hours.
    In 1883, this figure grew............
    (till we get to your proposed sentence): In 1997, this figure grew to six hours a week."
    Using 'in', we indicate 'sometime within 1997, exactly when within the year is irrelevant; and whether or not it happened gradually over time as the year progressed is also irrelevant'. We are stating a fact; and this fact existed at a time in the past; and we give an indication how far back in the past by giving a 'year'.


    I thought that ancient peoples believed in many gods.

    She: "Monotheism was a wide-spread religious practice way back, pre-dating the history of the Bible."
    He: "I thought that ancient peoples believed in many gods."


    compare:
    I had thought that ancient peoples believed in many gods, but his new book on the subject has changed my whole understanding of ancient religions."

    Both forms are correct. Which form the speaker chooses to say is determined by their perspective, their outlook:
    in the first form, the speaker is comparing two facts - 'I once thought' and 'now I think/believe."
    In the second form, the speaker is stressing his personal experience, and his time frame -in effect, he is implying, 'for years and years, I had been thinking 'this belief/believing/thinking in one particular way'- boy was I wrong - and this all changed at the moment (in the past - earlier than when I am now speaking) when I read the book.

    Oh - and it's 'had' (not 'have') in the main clause, because (1) I am speaking now (2) I read the book at some time in the past (3) and my erroneous belief existed even further back in time than (2)
    Any help?
    Last edited by David L.; 15-Aug-2008 at 15:30.


    • Join Date: May 2008
    • Posts: 812
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #6

    Re: Had is killing me:(

    Quote Originally Posted by kiranlegend View Post
    you have eligiblities to become my 'had' teacher:) still I have plethora of doubts on HAD:(

    If had is used as meaning posession, 'had' would be in simple past, aight?

    Yes. Absolutely.

    Let's continue this thread to make had at various situations as clearly discernable as possible.. :)

    4. In 1981 children in the United States spent an average
    of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing
    household chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six
    hours a week.

    A. chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours
    a week
    B. chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly
    six hours a week


    B is correct here.. what if i use grew instead of had grown?? which tense had grown is here?

    Had grown is indicating that the growth was complete by 1997.

    The 1997 results showed that the figures had grown.

    1997 (a time in the past)

    The figures had grown (a growth which happened before 1997)

    By 1997 the figures grew is not correct.

    The figures grew until 1997 is possible.

    5. I thought that ancient peoples Had believed in many gods. -- here in this case Had need not be used because the sentence is clear in the events right? But then, again, to contradict myself there are doubts swirling in my mind.. why not had believed?

    The sentence is clear without the past perfect.

    I thought that ancient people believed in many gods.


    Had is making my mind dead:(

    Please, please explain.. :)
    The past perfect isn't easy. I have used it for many, many years - yet still struggle to coherently explain how it works.

    I'm not a teacher.

    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Telugu
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • India

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 440
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #7

    Re: Had is killing me:(

    1. Once they had seen the report from the medical examiner, the i
    investigators (did not doubt whether the body recovered from the river was) the man who had attempted to escape from the state prison.

    A) did not doubt whether the body recovered from the river was
    B) had not doubted that the body recoverd from the river was

    C) had no doubt that the body recovered from the river was that of.



    In this instance, think of had as meaning possessed or held.

    ... the investigators held no doubt... (it means the same as did not doubt)

    Had is used as meaning possession.. fine I got it! But If i say, I had a book. That means I don't have it right now.. what does that above sentence infer now? The investigators had no doubt.. rather let me put it in the other way.. if the sentence was written " The investigators had doubt.. " so that means they don't have doubt now, correct?

    similarly, The investigators had no doubt.. i think i am getting fuzzy.. I feel the negative quantifier before doubt behaves differently.. But not getting clear idea.. Any thoughts?

    also, is there any difference in the meaning of the sentences between the one that uses Possesive 'Had' with book ( I had a book) and the other one that uses possessive 'Had' with doubt?

    Seems like I am getting better at 'Had':D Kindly go on with your wonderful explanations:)
    Last edited by kiranlegend; 15-Aug-2008 at 16:17.


    • Join Date: May 2008
    • Posts: 812
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #8

    Re: Had is killing me:(

    Quote Originally Posted by kiranlegend View Post
    1. Once they had seen the report from the medical examiner, the i
    investigators (did not doubt whether the body recovered from the river was) the man who had attempted to escape from the state prison.

    A) did not doubt whether the body recovered from the river was
    B) had not doubted that the body recoverd from the river was

    C) had no doubt that the body recovered from the river was that of.



    In this instance, think of had as meaning possessed or held.

    ... the investigators held no doubt... (it means the same as did not doubt)

    Had is used as meaning possession.. fine I got it! But If i say, I had a book. That means I don't have it right now.. what does that above sentence infer now? The investigators had no doubt.. rather let me put it in the other way.. if the sentence was written " The investigators had doubt.. " so that means they don't have doubt now, correct?

    It's difficult to give conclusive answers without context, but generally yes.

    As you already know - had is the past simple of have and should be used accordingly.

    I had a fast car/girlfriend/great idea/big problem (but I don't have any of these things now).

    similarly, The investigators had no doubt.. i think i am getting fuzzy.. I feel the negative quantifier before doubt behaves differently.. But not getting clear idea.. Any thoughts?

    No doubt - without doubt

    I have no doubt - I am without doubt

    I had no doubt - I was without doubt

    It's as simple as it seems


    also, is there any difference in the meaning of the sentences between the one that uses Possesive 'Had' with book ( I had a book) and the other one that uses possessive 'Had' with doubt?

    Well, the difference is that a book is a concrete noun, whereas a doubt is an abstract noun. So yes, there is a difference, but they are both still fundamentally nouns.

    Seems like I am getting better at 'Had':D Kindly go on with your wonderful explanations:)
    ...

    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Student or Learner
      • Native Language:
      • Telugu
      • Home Country:
      • India
      • Current Location:
      • India

    • Join Date: Jun 2008
    • Posts: 440
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #9

    Re: Had is killing me:(

    colloquium, awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome!!!!!!!!:):):):):):)

    Had is loosing powers to kill me:D ( i sense something wrong with this sentence correct this sentence, pls)


    anyway, i still have one more question:D:

    I had no doubt - I was without doubt


    the investigators had no doubt is same as the investigators held no doubt... (it means the same as did not doubt) -- this sentence is also same as the investigators were without doubt, right?

    thanks!:)


    • Join Date: May 2008
    • Posts: 812
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #10

    Re: Had is killing me:(

    Quote Originally Posted by kiranlegend View Post
    colloquium, awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome awesome!!!!!!!!:):):):):):)

    Had is loosing powers to kill me:D ( i sense something wrong with this sentence correct this sentence, pls)

    You need to add the possesive pronoun its.

    Had is loosing its powers to kill me

    However I'm not totally sure that the sentence is correct even with such an addition. The notion of being killed by a word is difficult to articulate


    anyway, i still have one more question:D:

    I had no doubt - I was without doubt


    the investigators had no doubt is same as the investigators held no doubt... (it means the same as did not doubt) -- this sentence is also same as the investigators were without doubt, right?

    Yes, you've got it. They're all past tense versions of their infinitive (present tense) form (to have, to hold, to do, to be) and they all mean roughly the same thing.

    had no doubt - have no doubt

    held no doubt - hold no doubt

    did not doubt - do not doubt

    were without doubt - are without doubt


    thanks!:)
    .....

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Killing me softly with his song
    By Unregistered in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-Jan-2008, 13:50
  2. killing me softly with his song
    By Nefertiti in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-Nov-2007, 09:47
  3. Anyone... Please Proofread Critique Accepted =)
    By foxrider407 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-Jul-2006, 20:48
  4. death penalty - crime
    By Lenka in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 29-Apr-2006, 17:09
  5. "After", a conjunction or an adverb
    By spot in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28-Nov-2004, 16:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •