1

I've come across two examples of past-perfect in the textbook and was wondering if someone could please explain why the latter sentences still use 'had' and why it shouldn't be omitted:

1) When I arrived, Jack had cleaned the room and made dinner.

OK. Subject = Jack, Actions = had cleaned the room / had made dinner. Second 'had' omitted as the subject is the same and the compound verb shares the same auxiliary.

2) They had had accidents and they had been rescued. They had been afraid and they had escaped.

?? Why is the auxiliary 'had' still in the sentences? It's the same subject 'they' and they are both using the same auxiliary? Shouldn't it be 'they had had accidents and been rescued'?

If someone could please explain it to me - I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

  • 2
    (1) describes fairly mundane activities in an informal manner. (2) apparently refers to significant, dramatic events and so uses a more 'correct' style to emphasise the importance of what has happened – Kate Bunting Oct 13 '19 at 8:12
  • Jack had cleaned the room and he had made dinner is perfectly good grammar, as is they had had accidents and been rescued. You shouldn't obsess on why different authors use different styles when they're all grammatical. – Peter Shor Oct 13 '19 at 12:41
  • There is no should or shouldn't. Either is fine. It's a matter of style and personal choice. – Jason Bassford Oct 13 '19 at 14:42
  • @KateBunting: Thank you. If you post your comment as an answer, I will accept it :) – Amethyst11 Oct 14 '19 at 6:51
1

Both constructions, repeating had or not, are perfectly acceptable.

(1) describes fairly mundane activities in an informal manner.

(2) apparently refers to some significant, dramatic events. A more 'correct', formal style is used to emphasise the gravity of what has happened.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.