came/had come

[Tan Elaine]

On the day of the speech there were massive protests and demonstrations all over Cambridge from that morning. The protesters and demonstrators came/had come from London led by London School of Economics students. The very narrow roads of Cambridge were a chock-a-block and the lecture hall was surrounded by them.

But, however, the Cambridge Student’s Union smuggled Lee Kuan Yew into the hall through a rear security door and he started his speech at the scheduled time.

Which verb in bold should I use?

Thanks in advance.

 

[johng]

On the day of the speech there were massive protests and demonstrations all over Cambridge from that morning. The protesters and demonstrators came/had come from London led by London School of Economics students. The very narrow roads of Cambridge were a chock-a-block and the lecture hall was surrounded by them.

But, however, the Cambridge Student’s Union smuggled Lee Kuan Yew into the hall through a rear security door and he started his speech at the scheduled time.

Which verb in bold should I use?

Thanks in advance.

Both tenses can be used here, but there is a difference in emphasis:
Using came emphasizes that the protesters came at the same time as the day of the speech. Using had come emphasizes that the protesters had come before the speech.

 

[2006]

Both tenses can be used here, but there is a difference in emphasis:
Using came emphasizes that the protesters came at the same time as the day of the speech. Using had come emphasizes that the protesters had come before the speech.

what???

 

[hejazei]

Both tenses can be used here, but there is a difference in emphasis:
Using came emphasizes that the protesters came at the same time as the day of the speech. Using had come emphasizes that the protesters had come before the speech.

Thanks a lot

 

[bhaisahab]

Both tenses can be used here, but there is a difference in emphasis:
Using came emphasizes that the protesters came at the same time as the day of the speech. Using had come emphasizes that the protesters had come before the speech.

Not at all. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[2006]

On the day of the speech there were massive protests and demonstrations all over Cambridge, from that morning. The protesters and demonstrators came/had come from London, led by London School of Economics students. The very narrow roads of Cambridge were [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] chock-a-block, and the lecture hall was surrounded by them.

But[STRIKE], however,[/STRIKE] the Cambridge Students' Union smuggled Lee Kuan Yew into the hall through a rear security door, and he started his speech at the scheduled time.

Which verb in bold should I use? You can use either one.

Thanks in advance.

2006

 

[johng]

Not at all. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

The past tense refers to a specific time in the past while the past perfect refers to a time in the past that comes before another. Perhaps I am exaggerating emphasis. It is true that either one can be used, but which one we use should make at least an iota of difference, shouldn't it?

 

[mamen]

On the day of the speech there were massive protests and demonstrations all over Cambridge from that morning. The protesters and demonstrators came/had come from London led by London School of Economics students. The very narrow roads of Cambridge were a chock-a-block and the lecture hall was surrounded by them.

But, however, the Cambridge Student’s Union smuggled Lee Kuan Yew into the hall through a rear security door and he started his speech at the scheduled time.

Which verb in bold should I use?

Thanks in advance.

Can we also use 'have come', here?

 

[2006]

The past tense refers to a specific time in the past while the past perfect refers to a time in the past that comes before another. only if you arbitrarily define/restrict their use that way
Perhaps I am exaggerating emphasis. It is true that either one can be used, but which one we use should make at least an iota of difference, shouldn't it? I don't think that is necessarily so. Just because there are two or more ways to say something doesn't mean that they have to have different meanings or emphases.

2006

 

[2006]

Can we also use 'have come', here?

No, "have come" refers to the present. The event in question is a past event.

 

[5jj]

johngerhaps I am exaggerating emphasis. It is true that either one can be used, but which one we use should make at least an iota of difference, shouldn't it?2006. I don't think that is necessarily so. Just because there are two or more ways to say something doesn't mean that they have to have different meanings or emphases.

I agree with johng. He was exaggerating emphasis, but there is a slight difference, as there invariably is when different forms are used. In practical terms the difference may not be significant, but this is not to say it doesn't exist.

 

[2006]

I agree with johng. He was exaggerating emphasis, but there is a slight difference, as there invariably is when different forms are used. In practical terms the difference may not be significant, but this is not to day it doesn't exist.

Well, then I have to call you on that. What is the difference between "came" and "had come" there?
And what is the difference between 'I will do that as soon as I return home.' and 'I am going to do that as soon as I return home.'?

 

[5jj]

Well, then I have to call you on that. What is the difference between "came" and "had come" there?
And what is the difference between 'I will do that as soon as I return home.' and 'I am going to do that as soon as I return home.'?

First, remember that I said, "In practical terms the difference may not be significant."

The idea of anteriority is stronger with the past perfect, that's all.

In situations where traditional rules say that the past perfect is/should be used, people sometimes use the past tense. There are several reasons for this, including:

1. The idea of anteriority is made clear elsewhere in the utterance:
We started eating after he (had) left.
2. The idea of anteriority is not particularly important:
The protesters and demonstrators came/had come from London led by London School of Economics students.

Note that in #2, the past perfect is not used if the speaker is referring to where the students lived rather than the place from which they had travelled. (And in that last sentence of mine, the past perfect had travelledis more likely than the past simple, IMO). Context is important.

I'll look at your second question if you start another thread, so that we don't get side-tracked here.

 

[2006]

First, remember that I said, "In practical terms the difference may not be significant." I think this is the key point. And you won't be surprised if I say that to me there is no difference. The meaning is the same; before the protestors started their journey to Cambridge, they were in London.

The idea of anteriority is stronger with the past perfect, that's all. To me, this is the perspective of a speaker of British English.
In situations where traditional rules say that the past perfect is/should be used, people sometimes use the past tense. There are several reasons for this, including:

1. The idea of anteriority is made clear elsewhere in the utterance:
We started eating after he (had) left.
2. The idea of anteriority is not particularly important:
The protesters and demonstrators came/had come from London led by London School of Economics students.

Note that in #2, the past perfect is not used if the speaker is referring to where the students lived rather than the place from which they had travelled. yes (And in that last sentence of mine, the past perfect had travelledis more likely than the past simple, IMO).Again, I would expect a a Briton to say that.
Context is important.The context of the OP is quite clear.

I'll look at your second question if you start another thread, so that we don't get side-tracked here. I won't do that. The second question fits in the topic of whether different constructions always have a different 'emphasis'.

2006

 

[5jj]

5jj: First, remember that I said, "In practical terms the difference may not be significant."
2006:I think this is the key point. And you won't be surprised if I say that to me there is no difference. The meaning is the same; before the protestors started their journey to Cambridge, they were in London.
I am not surprised, and I am not suggesting that you are wrong. I simply believe that if we use different constructions there is normally a different meaning however slight. At the moment of speaking, the brain puts into words what the eyes see. A fraction of a second later, a different choice might have been made. Almost certainly, in situations such as the one we are discussing, the speaker does not make a conscious choice. Serious writers might, because they have more time to reflect.

5jj:The idea of anteriority is stronger with the past perfect, that's all.
2006: To me, this is the perspective of a speaker of British English
5jj: Quite possibly. It might also be the viewpoint of a late middle-aged, conservatively-educated person who has spent too much time playing around with trivial points of English grammar:roll:.

5jj: Context is important.
2006:The context of the OP is quite clear.
5jj: Not 100%. It is possible that the reporter meant that the students were residents of London (or students from London universities). It is also possible that s/he known that students from other parts of the country had met in London and then come on to Cambridge. These possibilities could affect the choice of tense.

5jj: I'll look at your second question if you start another thread, so that we don't get side-tracked here.
2006: I won't do that. The second question fits in the topic of whether different constructions always have a different 'emphasis'.
5jj: Fine. I thought it was more about the choice of past simple or past perfect in the sentence we are discussing. Anyway, I have been accused in the past of leading discussions into sidetracks, so I choose not to discuss ways of expressing the future in this thread.

 

[Raymott]

Both tenses can be used here, but there is a difference in emphasis:
Using came emphasizes that the protesters came at the same time as the day of the speech. Using had come emphasizes that the protesters had come before the speech.

This is over-exaggerated, but there's a kernel of truth there.
If the original was changed slightly it could be uncertain who started the protest (and perhaps it still is). Did the locals in Cambridge start it, encouraging the Londoners to come down. Or had the Londoners already been there at the start? ("Were the Londoners already there at the start", for 2006). The use of "had come" makes it clear that they were there at the beginning.
And I know that 2006 understands that it's not just the British who make this distinction. In any case, it happened in Cambridge (England, not Mass.) and London, so why should it be expressed in a minority AmE dialect?

 

[2006]

This is over-exaggerated, but there's a kernel of truth there.
If the original was changed slightly it could be uncertain who started the protest (and perhaps it still is). Did the locals in Cambridge start it, encouraging the Londoners to come down. Or had the Londoners already been there at the start? ("Were the Londoners already there at the start", for 2006). The use of "had come" makes it clear that they were there at the beginning.
And I know that 2006 understands that it's not just the British who make this distinction. In any case, it happened in Cambridge (England, not Mass.) and London, so why should it be expressed in a minority AmE dialect?

I could respond in detail, but let's just say we have differences of opinion.
Of course Britons can say "had come"; anyone can, but that's not the issue.