You should use past perfect to talk about something that happened before another action in the past. So in this case you better avoid using the past perfect as you are stating a fact (not speaking Japanese) rather than implying the order of two actions in the past. Your first sentence is fine.
An example in which you should use past perfect may be something ...
Well, he remembered something.
For instance, if I say "I remember what happened yesterday." The word "remember" is in the present, whereas the word "happened" is in the past tense. Similarly, you would say "Yesterday, I remembered what had happened two days ago."
Without additional context, all that can be assumed from this construction is that some reading occurred. There is not enough information to infer how much was read, and the construction does not imply completion of anything beyond "the act of reading".
This is not a matter of person, but rather one of mood. Your sentence is imperative, telling the reader what to do. The analogous third person "Let him/her/it/them start with the year 1688" makes no sense in this context.
In general, you should avoid the imperative mood in a history paper. You shouldn't be talking to your reader, you should be recounting ...
Yes, 'I have been working' implies you have been working for several companies simultaneously, while 'I have worked' would imply working for companies one after another without explicitly excluding simultaneously.
Ned: How old were you when you decided to become an astronaut?
Mr. Nash: I was 12 years old and I was in a physics class.
Indirect or Reported Speech:
Ned asked Nash how old he (Nash) had been when he had decided to become an astronaut.
Nash replied that he had been 12 years, and that he had been in a physics class.
The reported verbs are ...
If you had gone to the football game yesterday, you should have invited me to go with you.
As you say, this sounds weird. The only way I can read the should is obligation, which doesn't fit with the counterfactual If you have gone.
If you had gone to the football game yesterday, you would have invited me to go with you.
This is grammatically fine, ...
"I'm Xing" doesn't necessarily mean the future. For instance, if you say "I'm eating", it's the present tense.
It can be converted to the future tense by adding a timeframe, e.g. "I'm leaving at 6pm".
Putting "still" before the verb means that you had been doing something before, and you're still doing it now. So the speaker in your TV show had been ...
We can use the past tense of 'be' (was/were) and the perfect infinitive to talk about something which was planned but did not happen. We form the perfect infinitive with to have + the -ed form of a verb. The last part of this BBC Learning English page discusses the usage type you quoted.
I was to have spent three weeks in Russia, but my mother became sick....
i. I am writing this letter while the boys are at school. [To is time of encoding]
ii. You are now leaving West Berlin. [a written notice] [To is time of decoding]
CamGEL, p.126, example (4).
Yes, so-called deictic time is time where the present is the same time as the 'time of the utterance', the past is previous to it, and the future is the ...
Welcome to the site. Your post is a model of how to ask good questions!
As to the answer: The book is correct in that holidays generally need to be arranged, but packing typically does not - unless, for example, you decide on a time with your spouse or a friend to do so.
Arranged in the context of future events generally includes: a meeting time has been ...
This is a complex sentence having one main clause and one dependent clause. Main clause with a transitive object is "People say". The next clau is "That India Indians of Peru were the first people" which lacks a transitive verb. The last part of the sentence is an infinitive verb group phrase (not a clause).
We can make the passive voice of only those ...
Even though the telephone call from John has ended and so is in the past, it would seem from the sentence that he is still presently on his way. It is quite correct to say:
John called (past) and told (past) me he is (present) on his way.
Saying that he was on his way would be grammatically correct, but it would mean that his journey was over, or that ...
There is not a single, correct answer, because, when talking about events in the past, there can be conditions that continue into the present. The tense you use in this story can suggest different situations:
If they find out that he is still alive: This suggests he is still alive even now as this is being said.
If they find out that he was still alive: He ...
“She hadn't been used [past tense] to being treated like that [in the past]” Works but is not gramaticaly correct.
“She hadn't been used [past tense] to be treated like that [in the future.]”? Mixed tense, so again not good.
If you want to speak about the future then: "And she would not expect to be treaded like that in the future! may be better.
There are two main different types of to in English. One of these is the to we find in to-infinitive constructions (e.g. To err is human), the other is the directional preposition (e.g. I drove to the farm).
The English verb use(d) takes a to-infinitive as a Complement. The English adjective used takes a to preposition phrase as a Complement. ...
...used to being treated is like, used to + passive voice of 'treating'. In 2nd sentence,...used to be treated..., followed the passive form of 'to treat'.
It is more correct to say, One is used to being blamed... than 'one is used to be blamed...The relevance goes to 'ing' form in passive voice.