a very confusing sentence concerning the third conditional of "if"

[Raymott]

The use of the first past perfect is not warranted. It's grammatical, but there's no reason for it. You need something happening after the past perfect to make it even worth considering.
"I hit him with the baseball bat because he had broken into our house after we had all gone to bed." You could use it there. I wouldn't, but at least you'd have some justification. Very often one sentence is not enough to warrant the use of the past perfect tense. The context is also important. For example:
A: "Why did you hit him with the baseball bat?"
B: "Because he had broken into our house." This is defensible, but simply supplying a sentence, "He had broken into our house" is useless in respect of deciding whether it should be in the past perfect. Your example is like this.

 

[man of manners]

It's not formal. It's a grammatically fine sentence, but it's hard to think of a context in which it would be natural.

I have seem a lot of examples like this and they are very common, indeed, which indicates that they are natural for many people. Do you find them somewhat odd or strange?

Remember to capitalize only proper nouns, titles, and the first word of a sentence.

Thanks for this.

 

[GoesStation]

I have seem a lot of examples like this and they are very common, indeed, which indicates that they are natural for many people. Do you find them somewhat odd or strange?

Please post some examples in a new thread when you find them. We can comment on them there.

It was hard to think of a natural context for the specific sentence you proposed. Similar sentences could be perfectly natural.

 

[man of manners]

The use of the first past perfect is not warranted. It's grammatical, but there's no reason for it. You need something happening after the past perfect to make it even worth considering.
"I hit him with the baseball bat because he had broken into our house after we had all gone to bed." You could use it there. I wouldn't, but at least you'd have some justification. Very often one sentence is not enough to warrant the use of the past perfect tense. The context is also important. For example:
A: "Why did you hit him with the baseball bat?"
B: "Because he had broken into our house." This is defensible, but simply supplying a sentence, "He had broken into our house" is meaningless in respect of deciding whether it should be in the past perfect. Your example is like this.

These are perfect notes, indeed.
Can I understand, in brief, that "putting two sentences, with a time conjunction such as "after", in the past perfect is only allowed in the existence of a third past action"? Is that acceptable or correct?

 

[man of manners]

Please post some examples in a new thread when you find them. We can comment on them there.
It was hard to think of a natural context for the specific sentence you proposed. Similar sentences could be perfectly natural.

Thanks for your reply.
I see that a lot of people are comfortable with this usage in both formal and informal contexts, which indicates they find it natural.
And I will post examples here so that we can discuss each of them. I wouldn't post them in a new thread to keep all the information concerning this question in one thread, not dispersed.

 

[Raymott]

I think I understand what you mean, but it would be better if you wrote examples.
No use of the past perfect is justified unless there is an action that happens after it which is not in the past perfect. This later action doesn't have to be in the same sentence.
If you have a sentence with seven clauses in the past perfect, you still need another clause in the simple past. Otherwise the most recent of the seven events should be in the simple past. There are no valid complete uses of the past perfect that don't contain a more recent action that is not written in the past perfect.

 

[man of manners]

I think I understand what you mean, but it would be better if you wrote examples.

I have had a couple of sentences that were very confusing to me.
1- Did you know that Jonathan had been punished because he had behaved badly?
2- She had missed the English lesson because she had been ill, so she phoned her friend and asked what homework they had been given.

No use of the past perfect is justified unless there is an action that happens after it which is not in the past perfect. This later action doesn't have to be in the same sentence.
If you have a sentence with seven clauses in the past perfect, you still need another clause in the simple past. Otherwise the most recent of the seven events should be in the simple past. There are no valid complete uses of the past perfect that don't contain a more recent action that is not written in the past perfect.

I completely agree. Thanks.

 

[man of manners]

The past perfect is not essential with 'had been punished' or 'had behaved. Common sense tells us that the behaving badly preceded the punishment for that bad behaviour. Equally, common sense tells us that the punishment preceded the question about knowledge of it.
However, the 'that Jonathan had been punished' clause may be seen as a form of indirect speeech, and the past perfect, a backshifted form of the present perfect and of the past simple, is grammatically correct. As the bad behaviour preceded the punishment, then the past perfect 'had behaved' is also grammatically correct.
We are often more flexible in the use of tenses in such sitiations than some course books and student grammars suggest.

I agree with this but do you agree with me on this, "putting two sentences, with a time conjunction such as "after", in the past perfect is only allowed in the existence of a third past action in the past simple"?
Also, why don't you tackle the second sentence?

 

[man of manners]

Probably not.

Why not?

a) I prefer to sort out one question at a time. in order to prevent a thread becoming hopelessly confused.
b) I do not have unlimited time to deal with your questions. In between the essential work of responding to questions here, I occasionally have to deal with luxuries such as eating, drinking and excreting.

OK, thanks for your precious time.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"putting two sentences, with a time conjunction such as "after", in the past perfect is only allowed in the existence of a third past action in the past simple"

There is no simple past in 'He had been single since his wife had died of cancer', where 'since' is a time conjunction.

 

[man of manners]

There is no simple past in 'He had been single since his wife had died of cancer', where 'since' is a time conjunction.

Do you mean that what I have said is right except with "since"?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I am afraid that a teacher will find another exception as soon as I say 'yes'.

 

[man of manners]

I am afraid that a teacher will find another exception as soon as I say 'yes'.

generally, do you find what I have said right?
I mean without taking exceptions into consideration.

 

[man of manners]

Also, can we substitute the ordinary past simple for the past perfect after "if"? Would the sentence be acceptable then?

 

[Matthew Wai]

"putting two sentences, with a time conjunction such as "after", in the past perfect is only allowed in the existence of a third past action in the past simple"

I think it is not so much 'allowed' as 'reasonable'.

Also, can we substitute the ordinary past simple for the past perfect after "if"? Would the sentence be acceptable then?

The if-clause will change from the third conditional to the second.

 

[Raymott]

I agree with this but do you agree with me on this, "putting two sentences, with a time conjunction such as "after", in the past perfect is only allowed in the existence of a third past action in the past simple"?

It would really be much, much simpler to answer your questions if you gave examples, as I've mentioned before. Then we wouldn't have to guess what you mean by "putting two sentences, with a time conjunction such as "after", in the past perfect'.

In your sentences in #58, here's my opinion:
1- "Did you know that Jonathan [STRIKE]had been[/STRIKE] was punished because he had behaved badly?" (No more recent relevant action.)
1- "Did you know that Jonathan had already been punished when you decided to suspend him?" (This makes sense.)

2- "[She missed the English lesson because she had been ill], so [she phoned her friend and asked what homework they had been given."]
While you have one clause in the simple past, this is only necessary, not sufficient to warrant all those past perfects. That is, a recent action in the simple past does not justify putting all the other clauses into the past perfect. As I've amended it, you have 2 x 2 clauses, and in each case, you have a simple past and a past perfect.

 

[man of manners]

It would really be much, much simpler to answer your questions if you gave examples, as I've mentioned before. Then we wouldn't have to guess what you mean by "putting two sentences, with a time conjunction such as "after", in the past perfect'.

I mean a sentence like this one:
He had played well after his trainer had encouraged him. Do you find it acceptable or natural? Also, can you give your opinion on these sentences, please? [tell the difference in meaning if you please.]

1-He had trained hard after his trainer had told him that he was a loser.
2-He had trained hard after his trainer told him that he had been a loser.

Now, don't worry. I am collecting examples from Google and I will put them here to discuss them.

In your sentences in #58, here's my opinion:
1- "Did you know that Jonathan [STRIKE]had been[/STRIKE] was punished because he had behaved badly?" (No more recent relevant action.)
1- "Did you know that Jonathan had already been punished when you decided to suspend him?" (This makes sense.)

I don't understand why you changed "had been" into "was" in the first example? [give further explanation, please] Natives has said it is right.

2- "[She missed the English lesson because she had been ill], so [she phoned her friend and asked what homework they had been given."]
While you have one clause in the simple past, this is only necessary, not sufficient to warrant all those past perfects. That is, a recent action in the simple past does not justify putting all the other clauses into the past perfect. As I've amended it, you have 2 x 2 clauses, and in each case, you have a simple past and a past perfect.

I tend to agree with your analysis, because it is somewhat logical, but I don't understand why you can't leave "had missed" and not change it into "missed" although it can be accepted as grammatically correct, can't it? [give further explanation, please]

 

[Raymott]

I mean a sentence like this one:
"He had played well after his trainer had encouraged him."
It's grammatical; it's possible in an expanded example which includes a more recent relevant event in the simple past, either in that sentence or a nearby sentence - as you've been told so many times. It's not a complete example of how to use the past perfect. I'd guess that if you put that in a paragraph, it would turn out to be wrong - because you haven't understood the proper use of the past perfect tense yet.
Have you actually studied when and how to use this tense, from a grammar book?

1-He had trained hard after his trainer had told him that he was a loser.
2-He had trained hard after his trainer told him that he had been a loser.
No, they are both wrong, as you've been told. You don't have an event in the simple past after the most recent action, which is "He had trained hard". So, he had trained hard - then what?

Now, don't worry. I am collecting examples from Google and I will put them here to discuss them. Make sure you give the context. Are you saying the above are from Google? If so, you should put a link to them so that it's more easy to check why they're wrong.

I don't understand why you changed "had been" into "was" in the first example? [give further explanation, please] Natives has said it is right.
I told you why. You don't have a more recent action in the simple past. It's not a complete example of how to use the past perfect. It's neither right nor wrong with "had been". But it is right with "was". You can find as many two-clause sentences both in the past perfect as you like. There's not enough information in those to say whether they are right or not.

I tend to agree with your analysis, because it is somewhat logical, but I don't understand why you can't leave "had missed" and not change it into "missed" although it can be accepted as grammatically correct, can't it? [give further explanation, please]

I changed it because you can't just keep adding clauses in the past perfect tense without any justification for doing it.

 

[man of manners]

Have you actually studied when and how to use this tense, from a grammar book?

Of course. I am not a beginner at English grammar, but there are some points that are very confusing to me as a non-native. Also, I find sentences with more than a past perfect so I get confused because I learned that there must be one sentence in the past perfect. That's why I keep asking you and asking my friend who is also a good teacher, but it's me who has doubt as to some confusing points like this one.

Make sure you give the context.

Don't worry. I took these examples, as screenshots, coloured with green for there to be enough context.

Are you saying the above are from Google? If so, you should put a link to them so that it's more easy to check why they're wrong.

No, they are from my imagination

I changed it because you can't just keep adding clauses in the past perfect tense without any justification for doing it.

I had thought using the past perfect a lot was random, but I know understand.

 

[Matthew Wai]

1- "Did you know that Jonathan [STRIKE]had been[/STRIKE] was punished

'Was punished' happened before the time 'Did you know' refers to. Why can't the past perfect be used?

2- "[She missed the English lesson because she had been ill]

When she missed the lesson, she was ill. 'Missed' and 'was ill' refer to the same time. Can I say 'She missed the lesson because she was ill'?