tense

[Pedroski]

I understand it so: she is promised to him, but he now has a medical problem, which may affect the forthcoming marriage.
My English is terrible, I'm sure you have a much better style of writing than I. You know I just like to look at the finnicky details, so I am sure your version is the better. Plus, I didn't want to rewrite the whole thing.

From the point of view of writing style, there are too many hes hers and things, but I'm sure, if I wrote Bengali, it would be stylistically much worse!

If I'm telling you, I might say: The doctor is saying that it might affect his married life. But not in a written report, then put: The doctor says that it might affect his married life.

I think, if they love each other, they should marry. But in Kolkata, that is perhaps the least consideration when marrying. Anyway, I want a piece of the wedding cake!

 

[e2e4]

/A learner/

All right but
the simple past can be used for the action that was happening for some time in the past and is over now.
But the simple past cannot be used for the same action happening in the past and been interrupted by another action. Isn't it too much for the simple past?

In addition, OK, if the two actions weren't going in parallel one started and finished before the other. Let me say just before the other.

In narrating I would use the simple past.
I took medicines for two and a half years after which I experienced side effects.

In such case I can use the past continuous tense as well if I want to emphasise that the action was happening for some time.
I was taking medicines for two and a half years after which I experienced side effects.


But in our case the first action is the cause for the second action.

My experiencing the side effects happened in the past. That is the fact.
The cause happened in the deep past. Could be just before the side effects.
And the side effects are the consequence.
I’d say, the past perfect tense perfectly matches here.

I had taken those medicines for two and a half years until I experienced side effects.
(I have taken these medicines for two and a half years (until) now.)

Look at this example
I had taken those medicines for two and a half years that I experienced some side effects.
(I have taken those medicines for two and a half years that I experience some side effects now.)

Would you also say
I took those medicines for two and a half years that I experienced some side effects.

 

[Raymott]

I understand it so: she is promised to him, but he now has a medical problem,
[...]

Well, I just went over the whole thread again, and I can't find this mystery fiancee. Maybe I'm selectively blind!

 

[Raymott]

/A learner/

All right but
the simple past can be used for the action that was happening for some time in the past and is over now.
But the simple past cannot be used for the same action happening in the past and been interrupted by another action. Isn't it too much for the simple past?
No, as I’ve already said and demonstrated a few times.
The simple past can be used for an action happening in the past and being interrupted by another action, if the appropriate adverbs or prepositions are used.
“I ran down the road until I got a cramp in my leg.”
"I laughed until I puked."
"I took those medicines for two and a half years until I experienced side effects.
"I took those medicines for two and a half years before I experienced side effects."
(And my other examples in post #18)

Again, these sentences are good. Of course you can write them in other ways, but that doesn't make a sentence wrong. Why do you call yourself a learner if you won't learn?

 

[e2e4]

Now I wonder whom had I told I wouldn't learn?:roll:

I every time learn something form the guy I communicate with.

All right, you use the simple past for the complicated things. I can't for I am not at that level in English.

Anyway, which of my sentences below are acceptable for you after we had a word about them

1. I was taking those medicines for two and a half years until I experienced side effects.

2. I had taken those medicines for two and a half years until I experienced side effects.

3. I had taken those medicines for two and a half years that I experienced some side effects.

Thank you

 

[Raymott]

Anyway, which of my sentences below are acceptable for you after we had a word about them

1. I was taking those medicines for two and a half years until I experienced side effects.

2. I had taken those medicines for two and a half years until I experienced side effects.

3. I had taken those medicines for two and a half years that I experienced some side effects.

Thank you

1 and 2 are OK, but there are two versions which are better, assuming there's no other context given:
4. I had been taking those medicines for two and a half years when/before I began to experience side effects.
5. I took those medicines for two and a half years until I experienced side effects. This is the original sentence, and arguably the best. I would express it as " ... until I began to experience side effects."

3 is ungrammatical.

 

[e2e4]

What about

I had been taking those medicines for two and a half years until I experienced side effects.

:roll: