1. marcusl

    marcusl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0

    After he had done this, he did that

    Discussion in 'Word Mechanics' started by marcusl, Nov 7, 2009.

    Instead of writing:

    "After he had done this, he did that."

    Is it acceptable to go:

    "After he did this, he did that."

    That sentence sounds reasonable. However, I don't understand why. Since I'm claiming that he had already done "this", why isn't the "had" necessary? I could use some explanation for this. Thanks so much.
     
  2. mammamaia

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,150
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    can't answer it generally, like that... give us some real examples, in context, and we can give you valid advice...
     
  3. architectus

    architectus Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Ca
    If it's the same person why not, "After doing this, he did that"?

    Instead of

    After she took three long strides, the bat woman leaped into the air and flapped her massive wings.

    I don't see a problem with either one.


    After he pounded on the door for five minutes, he gave up.

    In most cases, if it is the same person in both clauses, I use the "After doing this, he did that" structure.
     
  4. Mister Micawber

    Mister Micawber Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Yokohama
    Yes, generally, if the order of past events is clear (as it is here made clear by 'after'), there is no call for the past perfect. Occasionally it is used for emphasis, and to make clear that the earlier event was completed before the onset of the subsequent event.
     
  5. Kas

    Kas New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    19
    Location:
    The ***hole of the world
    As I see it, "after" and "had" serve the same purpose in that sentence, (to explain "this" happened before "that") so the "had" is redundant and that's why you can omit it. You'd only have a problem (maybe) if you wrote:

    "He did this. He did that."

    That could be potentially confusing, but even then, events are generally assumed to be sequential unless we're told otherwise. In fact, I usually write that way. . .
     
  6. Wreybies

    Wreybies Thrice Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    23,826
    Likes Received:
    20,815
    Location:
    El Tembloroso Caribe
    Maia is correct in that you have given only a generic example of two different syntax constructions without the context that would validate or invalidate the use of either one or the other.
     
  7. mammamaia

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,150
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    grazie, wrey!... seems a waste of time to speculate, without context...

    but starting the sentence with 'after' isn't usually a good idea, in any circumstance, imo...
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice