Hi Mike, thanks for your elaborate post.
mikemcgarry wrote:
First of all, I wouldn't say that, on the GMAT, indirect speech always requires the Past Perfect Tense. The GMAT is quite nuanced on this point. If another feature of the sentence ("several years earlier," etc.) makes clear the time reference, then the GMAT may choose to forgo entirely the Past Perfect. It really depends on the subtleties of a case-by-case basis.
My question was
slightly different. I did not intend to ask whether indirect speech
always requires the Past Perfect Tense. My question was the
other way round: Does the the Past Perfect Tense
always require an indirect speech. My answer is
no and hence the reason I re-articulated this sentence
removing the indirect speech
showed that, while still
retaining the
past perfect.
Quote:
Admittedly, sometimes the GMAT relies on other indicators, such as the year dates in this sentence, to indicate sequence,
That’s
exactly what’s happening here.
We have a
specific year (1929), which clearly
has to be in
simple past. Note that this
cannot be in Past Perfect, because Past Perfect (in fact,
all perfect tenses for that matter) are associated with
unspecified time. So, there is no confusion on the sequence of events, in the sentence that I have proposed:
i) PCB's were first manufactured in 1929 – Clearly this is the
oldest event (the usage of
first in this context makes it very clear)
ii) PCB's were used as coolants for electrical equipment in Europe and North America - clearly this could
not have happened before PCB’s were manufactured
iii) by 1970's, the compounds had entered the food chain – Usage of
past perfect is apt here, because it clearly indicates that this act of
entering the food chain occurred sometime in or before 1970's, but the time frame (of entering the food chain) goes back
only till 1929.
iv) by 1970's, the compounds were harmful to some animals – I think we have a common understanding on this one that the usage of
Simple past is
appropriate here.
Quote:
It's true that if the latter half stood as a sentence on its own, then the past perfect would be justified.
Grammatically, this latter half (
by 1970's, the compounds had entered…..) actually
is an Independent clause (as you would obviously know that
coordinating conjunctions and
semicolons connect two Independent clauses; here,
but, a coordinating conjunction is used).
However, if you are suggesting that the rest of the sentence should not have appeared at all, then the
sentence would have been:
By 1970's, the compounds had entered the food chain and were harmful to some animals.
The above sentence would mean that from
eternity in the past, till 1970’s, the compounds had entered the food chain. However, clearly the intent of the sentence is to not go back from 1970’s to
eternity, but to go back
only till
1929. The
first part of the sentence (by categorically mentioning
1929) serves as a
reference to clearly indicate that the time frame of reference is
not from
eternity to 1970’s", but from
1929 to 1970’s.
_________________
Ashish
MBA-ISB Hyderabad, GMAT-99th percentile
www.EducationAisle.com