2

I read this sentence:

After we had eaten lunch, we flew our kites.

I feel like this sentence has a weird structure, although it's grammatically correct.

I feel like saying this is better:

After we ate lunch, we flew our kites.

Also, it was part of an exam that the only correct answer, was the first sentence.

What do you think?

JOUA
  • 323
  • 1
  • 10
  • 5
    Either could be correct. – Peter Jun 14 '22 at 10:04
  • 2
    There's nothing weird about these. The first is more formal, especially in written English. One could argue the second is more colloquial. Neither is wrong though – Billy Kerr Jun 14 '22 at 10:26
  • 4
    @BillyKerr: I don't think it's anything to do with "more formal". The "informal" Past Perfect version is After we'd eaten* lunch,...* Which verb form to use is primarily just a stylistic choice - but regardless of whether the context is formal or informal, Past Perfect might be preferred to enhance the "narrative" aspect of the speaker's utterances (is it part of a longer description of some extended event, as opposed to simply reporting that single action?). – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '22 at 10:38
  • 3
    JOUA - What *I* think is that whatever exam claimed only one version is correct is a complete waste of time, so you probably wouldn't want to pass it anyway. Find some more competent teachers. – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '22 at 10:40
  • 1
    Actually, the verb *eaten / ate* is the main "formal" aspect of both examples. Informally, we're more likely to *have* lunch rather than *eat* it. See this chart showing how much more likerly we are to "informally" contract *we had had lunch* to *we'd had lunch*. – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '22 at 10:51
  • @FumbleFingers Exactly! It's unfortunately my country's international exam that I had to go through but I objected to how malformed the exam was as multiple choices could be correctly marked as the correct answer. Thanks for the additional info as well. – JOUA Jun 14 '22 at 10:57
  • @FumbleFingers - I think what some consider formal, and others may consider informal may depend on which variety of English the speaker is using. To my British ears the second example sounds colloquial, the first sounds more formal. But I agree with you generally that neither of these is wrong. Whoever wrote the question for that exam should probably be sacked. – Billy Kerr Jun 14 '22 at 11:21
  • You might say that the perfect is redundant because the anterior (past) meaning is conveyed by "after". – BillJ Jun 14 '22 at 11:47
  • @BillJ, interesting point. Yet they both sound acceptable. I've been trying to think of how there might be a difference in meaning. For some reason, the past perfect seems to convey a slightly greater sense of "completion" of the first item. The effect is very subtle, and I may well be imagining it. – cruthers Jun 14 '22 at 12:07
  • @cruthers: There is a potential subtle distinction, as alluded to in my previous comment. Basically, it's that using Past Perfect here establishes (or "reminds" us) that there's a "narrative reference time" *in the past* (when we were flying the kites) which the speaker is primarily interested in talking about (where the eating of lunch came *before* that reference time). The subtle effect is to draw the audience into casting themselves back into the time of kite-flying, which in principle might make for a better "story / narration". But it's only a "potential" distinction. – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '22 at 13:17
  • 3
    Does this answer your question? After/Because/etc. + simple past or past perfect? Also using "after" + Past Simple + Present Perfect and before/after + past or past perfect and Past perfect with "after", among others – FumbleFingers Jun 14 '22 at 13:24

1 Answers1

0

Either could be correct.

Which verb form to use is primarily just a stylistic choice - but regardless of whether the context is formal or informal, Past Perfect might be preferred to enhance the "narrative" aspect of the speaker's utterances (is it part of a longer description of some extended event, as opposed to simply reporting that single action?). Interestingly, in your specific context, the Simple Past version has in fact become by far the most common in recent decades - so if anything, that's the "better" choice.

You might say that the perfect is redundant because the anterior (past) meaning is conveyed by "after". Yet they both sound acceptable. I've been trying to think of how there might be a difference in meaning. For some reason, the past perfect seems to convey a slightly greater sense of "completion" of the first item. The effect is very subtle.

There is a potential subtle distinction, as alluded to in my previous comment. Basically, it's that using Past Perfect here establishes (or "reminds" us) that there's a "narrative reference time" in the past (when we were flying the kites) which the speaker is primarily interested in talking about (where the eating of lunch came before that reference time). The subtle effect is to draw the audience into casting themselves back into the time of kite-flying, which in principle might make for a better "story / narration". But it's only a "potential" distinction.

James K
  • 217,650
  • 16
  • 258
  • 452