1

I've tried to track my parcel with the number given. But every time I enter the number, I receive this message "status not yet available".

I've tried to track my parcel with the number given. But every time I've entered the number, I have received this message "status not yet available".

I think the first one is better because I'm sure that the number given is not correct so I don't expect any change until I have a new number.

P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica
  • 9,678
  • 2
  • 29
  • 39
Yves Lefol
  • 7,469
  • 12
  • 49
  • 88
  • Both sentences are grammatical English, neither is better than the other, and you might hear either one from a native speaker. A majority would probably use the first example, because the perfect in all its forms is poorly taught in schools and is disappearing from common speech. – P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica Jun 20 '17 at 17:14
  • 1
    There is no need for the PP in your sentence. The PP is not disappearing from common speech at all. What an idea. – Lambie Jun 20 '17 at 17:16
  • @Lambie indeed! One would need quite a bit of research to back up that statement. Re: OP, I agree with the others that simple present is fine. I think if you were to use the PP at all, you would say "By the time / Once / After I've entered the number" and then more than likely use the simple present for the next verb. I think your suspicion is also right that the PP would be more justified if you needed to say something else happened that depended on your having received the message (which is probably why it feels okay to use the PP for the first verb but not the second). – Luke Sawczak Jun 20 '17 at 17:52
  • @P.E.Dant If a majority would probably use the first example, then the PP isn't disappearing from common speech, since it contains an instance of it. I agree that the first sentence is more typical. – BobRodes Jun 20 '17 at 17:52
  • I don't think either is wrong. "Every time I enter" implies that you expect that this state will continue. "Every time I've entered" implies that so far, the state has continued but you have some hope for that condition to end. Consider: "Every time I go to France, it rains" versus "Every time I've gone to France, it's rained". – Jim MacKenzie Jun 20 '17 at 17:55
  • @P. E. Dant: I'm doubtful that "the perfect in all its forms" has ever been particularly taught to native Anglophone children. Maybe you could say that about the subjunctive, which really is in decline in day-to-day speech, etc., and very probably isn't taught so assiduously as it once was. But knowing when and how to use Past Perfect as opposed to Simple Past is more like knowing how to conjugate HAVE or BE. These aren't things native speakers learn at school to any significant degree - they just pick them up from ordinary speech/language acquisition in their early years. – FumbleFingers Jun 20 '17 at 18:05
  • @FumbleFingers I certainly agree that I overreached on the teaching aspect of the problem; but I'm not the only one who has noticed a sort of "levelling" or "flattening" in use of the perfect. There are jeremiads on the subject as well as mild complaints, e.g. here and here. – P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica Jun 20 '17 at 18:25
  • @P.E. Dant What *is* disappearing is the past perfect in sentences like: If I HAD gone, I would have seen him. People go round saying: If I went, I would have seen him. That yes. – Lambie Jun 20 '17 at 18:46

1 Answers1

1

As has been pointed out in comments, the Past Perfect has already been used at the very start of the utterance (I've = I have tried). That's all that's needed to establish the temporal context.

Using it repeatedly thereafter is unnecessary and comes across as stylistically stilted, even though it's not actually "ungrammatical".

As ever, the standard principle is Don't use Past Perfect if you don't need it. And you don't, here.

P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica
  • 9,678
  • 2
  • 29
  • 39
FumbleFingers
  • 70,966
  • 4
  • 97
  • 196