Is the sentence corrrect?

I think "had" is better, but I don't think "have" is wrong.

What do the purists think?

"I thought we had" is the common phrase.

Yesterday a terrorist escaped from the prison[1] where he was being[2] held[3] and a massive police hunt was mounted, but until[4] now[5] they have not caught the offender.

[1] No comma here!
[2] BrE preference
[3] Needs comma here!
[4] Until is preferable in BrE
[5] No comma here!

In my opinion "Yesterday a terrorist ecaped from prison" is better for the first part of that sentence. "Where he was held" is redundant - he could hardly have escaped from a prison other than the one in which he was being held, now could he?

And yes, the verb should be "had"

Right on, Contrex! Your corrections would be correct in American English, too.

One could argue that the adverbial phrase "until now" could be bracketed with commas, but that seems overly picky to me. If one can achieve clarity without punctuation, I say leave it out.

Re: Is the sentence corrrect?


Then why isn't 'wonder' wondered because of 'could have happened'?

It's wondrous that " till now, they have not caught the offender".

JTT,

Good morning. Your question points out why I like Contrex's version of this slice of narrative best.

To answer you specifically:

The letter writer's wondering is going on in the present; "could have happened" is in the past.

In narrative, there are often shades of past, retreating further and further back of the present. This is sometimes confusing. When I do the final draft of a short story, it's often a verb tense, rather than a word or a bit of syntax that is off. Sometimes, what verb form is correct is so close a call that my editor and I end up laughing at the hairsplitting nature of our discussion. However, there typically is one choice that is better than another, when one keeps both the rules and one's audience in mind. Within reason, audience trumps!

Usually, if you study the larger pattern of time-sequencing in a narrative, you can tell which verb tense that describes the action of a particular moment best fits the logic of the pattern. But not always!

JTT,

I take your point.

In the logic of this sentence, "had" is usually the form that indicates a condition preceding "could have happened."

HOWEVER, I can see how one may argue for "have," which suggests that the security has been in place for a long time. The only problem with "have" is that it tells the reader that the security system started sometime in the indefinite past. "Had" stresses the length of the security a little bit more emphatically--to my ear.

I also can see an argument for "have had," but it's unnecessarily complex. Generally, the more complex the tense system, the junkier it sounds. The simplest approach that still has clarity is my choice.

"Have" would be fine with me, by sufficient clarity, by grammar, and by ear.