[Grammar] Past Perfect

[Purasana]

The following sentece is taken from an Entrance examination.
Students are required to pick up the right word from the three words.

I lost the pen I ( bought / have bought / had bought ) the day before.

The correct answer is "had bought ". but one of my students said that "bought " should be also correct.

How can I expalin to my student.
I think the sentence " I lost the pen I bought the day before" sounds also all right.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Welcome to UsingEnglish.com, Purasana!

I think "the day before" can serve as a time marker, so the simple past can be used.

Not a teacher

 

[MikeNewYork]

I agree with Matthew and your student. We often use the past perfect to establish the time sequence of two past events. However, there can be other words in a sentence that establish that sequence. In your sentence "before" does that. Therefore the past perfect is not needed, but the past perfect is still correct. The simple past is also correct.

 

[Matthew Wai]

there can be other words in a sentence that establish that sequence.

Those words are before, after, ago, back, earlier, later, until, then, already or a date.
Is it correct?

Not a teacher.

 

[MikeNewYork]

That is a good list to start with.

 

[Raymott]

I don't think you need 'before' at all to establish the time sequence, assuming that you can't lose a pen until you've bought it.
"I lost the pen I bought" would, in most cases establish a sufficient time line. In this case, 'before' is a grammatical red herring. In "I lost the pen before I lost the umbrella", "before" is necessary. In some contexts, "I'd lost the pen before I lost the umbrella" would be more appropriate.

 

[Barb_D]

I agree about "before" on its own, but the full phrase "the day before" provides additional information. Perhaps the writer wanted to emphasize the short period of time he owned the pen.

 

[Raymott]

Of course. I'm not saying it's a pointless phrase. I'm saying it's not necessary to the absolute time line - though it does quantify it, it has no influence on the order. It doesn't determine whether 'bought' or 'had bought' is needed - which is what the previous four posts were discussing.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Similarly, is nothing needed to establish the time sequence in "I retaliated against Peter who killed my friend" because the killing must have happened before the retaliation?

 

[bhaisahab]

That sentence is ambiguous, Matthew. You might have retaliated for something Peter had done earlier, and then he killed your friend.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"I retaliated against Peter because he killed my friend."
Is it unambiguous now?

 

[Raymott]

It seems unambiguous, and would be in most contexts. But it's often possible to think of contexts where the sentence could mean something a bit different. That's why context is crucial. Sentences don't appear out of the blue like they do on this forum.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Matthew, the addition of "because" renders the sentence unambiguous. NES will understand the meaning.