1
   

prevented or had prevented

 
 
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 06:50 am
Which tense fits better the passage below? Why?

Suddenly the police showed up and caught Maria in a violent way; she made a sign trying to say something but the police officers ___________(prevented/ had prevented) her from doing it. She was taken to the patrol car.



Thanks a million for your help.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 602 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 10:00 am
I'd say the simple past ("prevented") is better than than past perfect ("had prevented") because the sentence is describing two events in the past ("she made a sign" and "police officers [prevented/had prevented] her from doing it") and the second one clearly happened after the first one. The past perfect would be used only if the second event happened before the first one, since that is the function of the past perfect (to describe an event that ended before a definable time). If anything, the first event could be put into the past perfect...

"She had made a sign trying to say something but the police officers prevented her from doing it."

...but the author has chosen not to do it, most likely because the sentence is trying to narrate the sequence of events in "real time" (i.e. to relate them as if they were unfolding, event-by-event, in the present). Either way, the simple past is preferable for the second event so I would go with "prevented."
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 01:18 pm
Quote:
but the author has chosen not to do it, most likely because the sentence is trying to narrate the sequence of events in "real time"


Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

All those tenses are rather confusing to think about.

In terms of language think of time as a 1D line with zero at the current time. Anything before that is past (negative), anything after is positive.

However, when you are having a conversation you can move the origin forward or backwards.

"Prevented" is for talking about events that are actually at the "origin" when the origin has been moved into the past.

"Had prevented" is for talking about events before the origin.

You should also think about changing "in a violent way" to "violently." They are both correct but this is a more common way of writing it and therefore sounds more fluid to native speakers.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Oct, 2006 01:57 pm
Yes, if the aim of the passage is simply to give an account of what happened, you're better off putting everything in the past tense (or "simple past"). The other forms of the past tense are useful if you want to give the account a more nuanced or more literary flair, but even then it's not necessary and can sometimes be tedious. In conversational English the simple tense is more than enough.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » prevented or had prevented
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 11:25:21