hadn't understood what she said

[ademoglu]

Hi.

Verbs in subordinate clauses are often simpler in form than verbs in main clauses - for example present instead of future, simple past instead of would + infinitive, simple past instead of past perfect.

I hadn't understood what she said. (more natural than ... what she had said.)

Taken from 'Practical English Usage' (page 573)

I really cannot understand how the past perfect is used in that sentence. First she says something and than I may or may not uderstand that. That is, the first done is the part 'what she said.' Isn't it better to say 'I didnt understood what she had said.'?

In short, could you please tell me how it is possible?

 

[emsr2d2]

Hi.

Verbs in subordinate clauses are often simpler in form than verbs in main clauses - for example, present instead of future, simple past instead of would + infinitive, simple past instead of past perfect.

I hadn't understood what she said. (more natural than ... what she had said.)

Taken from 'Practical English Usage' (page 573)

I really cannot understand how the past perfect is used in that sentence. First she says something and [STRIKE]than[/STRIKE] that I [STRIKE]may[/STRIKE] might or [STRIKE]may[/STRIKE] might not understand. that. That is, [STRIKE]the first done is the part[/STRIKE] 'what she said' happens first. Isn't it better to say 'I didnt [STRIKE]understood[/STRIKE] understand what she had said (no full stop here)'?

In short, could you please tell me how it is possible?

Please note my corrections above.

There is no simple answer to your question! The verb form we choose depends on the context. Also, sometimes, more than one form is possible.

1. Why did you ask her to repeat the question?
Because I didn't understand what she said.

2. Why did you ask her to repeat the question?
Because I hadn't understood what she said.

3. Why did you ask her to repeat the question?
Because I hadn't understood what she had said.

I agree with the book's assertion that 2 is more natural than 3.

 

[jutfrank]

I agree with you, ademoglu. I don't think it's a good example.

I think the best answer to emsr2d2's question in post #2 is thus:

Why did you ask her to repeat the question?
Because I didn't understand what she had said.

 

[GoesStation]

I think the best answer to emsr2d2's question in post #2 is thus:

Why did you ask her to repeat the question?
Because I didn't understand what she had said.

I'd probably use the past simple there.

 

[jutfrank]

I'd probably use the past simple there.

Yes, I think most people would, including me. The past perfect just gives that extra little bit of sense.

 

[Alexey86]

I think I understand why exactly this sentence confuses ademoglu. Many English learners are taught that of two events, it is the earlier one that the past perfect could only refer to. But in this case the “I hadn’t understood”-event happened after the “she said”-event. That’s why ademogly asks how it’s possible. I can tell you the way I understand this. If we consider tha act of asking an effect (“Why did you ask her to repeat the question?”), then “I hadn't understood what she said” will be its cause and, therefore, we’ll be dealing not just with a sequence of events but with a causal relationship. And it is this that makes it possible to use the past perfect for the later event. If you make a time-shift, you’ll get “Why are you asking again? - I haven’t understood (yet) what she said.”

 

[jutfrank]

I think I understand why exactly this sentence confuses ademoglu. Many English learners are taught that of two events, it is the earlier one that the past perfect could only refer to. But in this case the “I hadn’t understood”-event happened after the “she said”-event. That’s why ademogly asks how it’s possible.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's right. It's a confusing example.

I can tell you the way I understand this. If we consider tha act of asking an effect (“Why did you ask her to repeat the question?”), then “I hadn't understood what she said” will be its cause and, therefore, we’ll be dealing not just with a sequence of events but with a causal relationship. And it is this that makes it possible to use the past perfect for the later event. If you make a time-shift, you’ll get “Why are you asking again? - I haven’t understood (yet) what she said.”

I interpret it to mean that the speaker hadn't understood at the moment of asking her to repeat the question. He/she is giving some background to asking. This background is effectively telling us why he/she had to ask.

I wouldn't call that a 'causal' relationship exactly. I'd prefer to call it 'explanatory', which is not quite the same thing.