simple past-present perfect

[ridvann]

I have seen a question about simple past ,and I want to ask a question too.
Does 'many years before' contain the same rule? I know that 'many years before' can be used with 'present perfect tense' ,but the simple past tense?

The idiom existed many years before the rock anthem. (It is correct)

But, if we will say in this way bellow?

-The idiom existed many years before.
or
-I saw that movie before. (I know that we can use it with present perfect tense)

Are they correct?

 

[emsr2d2]

I have seen a question about the simple past, and I want to ask a question too.
Does 'many years before' contain the same rule? I know that 'many years before' can be used with 'present perfect tense', but the simple past tense?

The idiom existed many years before the rock anthem. (It is correct)

But, if we will say in this way below?

-The idiom existed many years before.
or
-I saw that movie before. (I know that we can use it with present perfect tense)

Are they correct?

The idiom existed many years before ... needs to be followed by what it existed before.

I have seen this/that movie before = this is fine as a standalone sentence.

I saw that movie before I saw Jaws.

Please review your positioning of commas. They go immediately after a word, then there is a space, then the next word.

 

[bhaisahab]

The idiom existed many years before ... needs to be followed by what it existed before.

Sorry ems, I disagree.

 

[ridvann]

Oh...I have been so confused now. Can we use them as I wrote or not?

 

[bhaisahab]

Oh...I have been so confused now. Can we use them as I wrote or not?

"The idiom existed many years before." This is OK IMO.

 

[ridvann]

Thanks for answering ,but can't we use ''many years before'' with the simple past tense? Thanks a lot...

 

[5jj]

"The idiom existed many years before." This is OK IMO.

I don't feel that this can stand alone. I think it's acceptable here:

"R C Postule claims that the idiom was first recorded in a book published in 1743. (However) the idiom existed many years before.We have only to look at the 17th century folksong Woggling in the Grunge' to see..."

If it is not to be taken as meaning 'before now', there needs to be a time-reference point somewhere, in my opinion.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't feel that this can stand alone. I think it's acceptable here:

"R C Postule claims that the idiom was first recorded in a book published in 1743. (However) the idiom existed many years before.We have only to look at the 17th century folksong Woggling in the Grunge' to see..."

If it is not to be taken as meaning 'before now', there needs to be a time-reference point somewhere, in my opinion.

Thanks 5jj. That's pretty much what I meant - that it couldn't stand completely alone. The simple addition of "However" in your version makes it perfectly acceptable, in my opinion too.

 

[ridvann]

-"R C Postule claims that the idiom was first recorded in a book published in 1743. Actually, he tried to publish it too many times before .We have only to look at the 17th century folksong Woggling in the Grunge' to see..."

If we construct a sentence like that while mention about in past, I think we can use 'many times before' ,and it doesn't convey 'before now'. For this reason (in my opinion), we can use it with the simple past tense, but I would like you to help me and say please that I am wrong or not. Thanks...

 

[5jj]

-"R C Postule claims that the idiom was first recorded in a book published in 1743. Actually, he tried to publish it too many times before .We have only to look at the 17th century folksong Woggling in the Grunge' to see..."

If we construct a sentence like that while mentioning [STRIKE]about in[/STRIKE] the past, I think we can use 'many times before' ,and it doesn't convey 'before now'. For this reason (in my opinion), we can use it with the simple past tense, but I would like you to help me and say please [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] whether I am wrong or not. Thanks...

Of course it does not mean 'before now'. It means 'before 1743'. That was precisely the point I was making in a previous post: If it is not to be taken as meaning 'before now', there needs to be a time-reference point somewhere, in my opinion.

We do not need the 'too'.

 

[bhaisahab]

There are quite a few similar examples in the BNC.