EngLearner
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2023
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Ukrainian
- Home Country
- Ukraine
- Current Location
- Ukraine
I wrote the following in an earlier thread:
In the version I wrote, there are no words like "the previous January in the night." Is the past perfect "had seized" mandatory, or can the simple past "seized" be used while still making it clear that the seizing and the doing both happened earlier, with the doing resulting from the seizing?
If I had written it like this:
In the version I wrote, there are no words like "the previous January in the night." Is the past perfect "had seized" mandatory, or can the simple past "seized" be used, and [is it]/[it's] still clear that the seizing and the doing both happened earlier, the doing resulting from the seizing?
Which word order should I have chosen?
In the version I wrote, there are no words like "the previous January in the night." Is the past perfect "had seized" mandatory, or can the simple past "seized" be used while still making it clear that the seizing and the doing both happened earlier, with the doing resulting from the seizing?
If I had written it like this:
In the version I wrote, there are no words like "the previous January in the night." Is the past perfect "had seized" mandatory, or can the simple past "seized" be used, and [is it]/[it's] still clear that the seizing and the doing both happened earlier, the doing resulting from the seizing?
Which word order should I have chosen?
