What is the difference between past perfect tense and past tense?
How did Thomas find
out about the accident? There is no credible proof for the previous events. He not seen them, but lived in their aftermath. He was also in it, who had no witness/evidence. God was in them, and he had been in the place and time, for even a year.
What is the difference between the sentences above and the ones below? Thomas was
not sure how it happened. There is no proof for preceding events, no specific way to prove them. He did not witness them, but lived in their aftermath.
How do you express yourself?
Often truncated sentences are done
out to get the meaning of important words and therefore informally or informally. Although these are used so far and not directly used for any particular reason, they are really considered informal. What may be the words that I can’t read from you: I feel that some of the word I have removed (from my sentences) aren’t actually correct? Sometimes truncation changes the meaning of the tense, too, with words like “had” being removed. Thomas was not sure how it happened.
I’ll go through them one by one.
What means “had”? If the past perfect tense is not used enough for a sentence to be in pointless. Since past perfect is somewhat implied and the specific tense doesn’t matter too much, the word can be removed.
No proof that the terror events had ever occurred.
Tell your own story. The word “had” is used to show past perfect, and is not necessarily needed since the tense can be deduced.
He not witnessed them-
Here, removing the “had” makes the sentence just plain nonsensical. The word “has” must be provided for “he not witnessed them” so their meaning can be easily understood. What’s a subtle change of tense between He did not witness them and “he had already happened”? Since the past perfect has already been implied, I would stick to “he had not witnessed them” for this one.
d-lived in their aftermath.
Where the word has been left out, it completely changes the meaning of the sentence. ‘But had lived’ means Thomas lived in the aftermath, but doesn’t any further (past. perfect) But lived is continuous. But that’s only part of the story. Why is history told in past tense? “At the time that this story took place, Thomas was still living in the aftermath”. While Thomas died in the aftermath of World War 2, Thomas felt it’s impossible to continue the story. Compare this to
“at the time that this story took place, Thomas had survived but doesn’t anymore.”
Unorthodox way of understanding the past perfect.
The past perfect gives your mind the ability to travel back in time.
We don’t really know how far we have come in in order to locate the car.
When the mind senses that a car was gone, and can’t be detected in the present, they go into a time lord’s dream, wondering whether it really happened.
The simple past, however, merely reports the fact of their ignorance about the matter.
How do KISS cars don’t get stolen?
From a view of the past physical and metaphysical, the past perfect presents temporal perspective or an essentially abstract form of knowledge of the past.
