Reply
Tue 11 Jun, 2019 08:20 am
U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un have met twice, in Hanoi in February and Singapore last June, seeming to build personal goodwill but failing to agree on a deal to lift U.S. sanctions in exchange for North Korea abandoning its nuclear and missile programs.
Shouldn't it be "had", as the meetings had already taken place?
Thanks.
@tanguatlay,
tanguatlay wrote:
U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un have met twice, in Hanoi in February and Singapore last June, seeming to build personal goodwill but failing to agree on a deal to lift U.S. sanctions in exchange for North Korea abandoning its nuclear and missile programs.
Shouldn't it be "had", as the meetings had already taken place?
Like many of your threads? You overthink these things far far too much.
Shouldn't it be "had", as the meetings had already taken place? No. They basically the same. The English language is far more flexible than what you perceive it to be.
@tanguatlay,
"Have" indicates continuing action or effect from the past, whereas "had" indicates completed action.
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
"Have" indicates continuing action or effect from the past, whereas "had" indicates completed action.
Thanks for defining the distinction.
Thanks to both of you.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un have met twice, in Hanoi in February and Singapore last June,...
From your replies, I infer I was wrong; 'have' is correct.
@tanguatlay,
"Have," in this context, is better.
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
"Have," in this context, is better.
Thanks, InfraBlue, for letting me know either verb works.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace