Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
The MGMT SC has the following sentences - By 1945, the US [#permalink]
19 Sep 2010, 10:11
0% (00:00) correct
100% (00:09) wrong based on 1 sessions
HideShow timer Statictics
The MGMT SC has the following sentences -
By 1945, the US had been at war for several years.
Here we use past perfect, because we have a time reference - 1945. So no need for the simple past. There are however 2 phases 1. by 1945 - replaces simple past 2. the US had been at war for several years - this happened before 1945, so past perfect.. Ok so far so good.
The band U2 was just one of the many new groups on the rock music scene in the early 1980's, but less than ten years later, U2 had fully eclipsed its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music. Again 2 phases 1. 1980s - simple past, was is used 2. ten years later, 1970s - had eclipsed used for a closer event?
I don't understand this example, should the past perfect not always refer to an earlier event? What am I missing? _________________
The use of the word early in 'U2 had fully eclipsed its early rivals'.
The sentence could also be written as below. .........but less than ten years later, U2 has fully eclipsed its rivals in the pantheon of popular music. But here it does not specify the era of U2's rivals.
By saying 'U2 had fully eclipsed its early rivals' we are comparing U2 with the rivals the group had when they had started out.
Hope this helps. _________________
Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.
I don't think the "early" is what is causing us to use past perfect. Remove "early", would you change the sentence?
MGMT was trying to make a point that because we are referring to specific timelines, we can get away without using the simple past as in the 1945 example and was trying to highlight that we could actually reverse the use of simple past and past perfect in the second example, I don't understand how though... _________________
In order to nail this sentence, we have to understand that the first part of sentence and second part of sentences are sort of independent. Infact they are joined with a conjunction "BUT".
The first part of sentence(The band U2 was just one of the many new groups on the rock music scene in the early 1980's) has no timeline and infact says something going within a timeperiod rather than going before or after 1980’s. Therefore simple past is justified.
The second part of sentence creates a timeline “less than ten years later” first and then talks about event before that timeline justifying the need for present perfect in second part of second sentence/clause(U2 had fully eclipsed its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music).
The second part of this sentence is quite similar to: By 1945, the US had been at war for several years. where the use of perfect tense is just justified due to introduction of a timeline "By 1945". _________________
If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that! The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy. Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING. Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough. Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.