I came across this web site.
http://
Please see these sentences that are written around the center of this page.
a) From May 2004
• People who had spent 3 years or more in the UK between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1996 were excluded from donating blood
b) From November 2004
• People who have spent 1 year or more in the UK between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1996 were excluded from donating blood.
In the above sentences, the past perfect is used in the former one, and the present perfect is used
in the latter one. I think I understand the past perfect, but why is the present perfect tense used
in b) with the past tense (were excluded)? Shouldn’t “have spent 1 year” be “had spent one year”?
I think the writer of this sentence used the present perfect because
November 2004 regulation is still valid. If so, I think you should use present tense
such as “can’t donate blood” instead of “were exclude.”
I‘m wondering if you can use the present perfect
tense with the past tense as a main verb.
http://
Please see these sentences that are written around the center of this page.
a) From May 2004
• People who had spent 3 years or more in the UK between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1996 were excluded from donating blood
b) From November 2004
• People who have spent 1 year or more in the UK between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1996 were excluded from donating blood.
In the above sentences, the past perfect is used in the former one, and the present perfect is used
in the latter one. I think I understand the past perfect, but why is the present perfect tense used
in b) with the past tense (were excluded)? Shouldn’t “have spent 1 year” be “had spent one year”?
I think the writer of this sentence used the present perfect because
November 2004 regulation is still valid. If so, I think you should use present tense
such as “can’t donate blood” instead of “were exclude.”
I‘m wondering if you can use the present perfect
tense with the past tense as a main verb.
|
|
|
|
コメント(5)
The answer here, Daisy, is to do with the time that the section refers to.
In a) they are talking about a period up to May 2004 which, itself, was in the past. Therefore, we talk about May 2004 in the past and then the period before that in the past perfect. "By May 2004, people who had spent...."
In b) the period covers from November 2004 to, and including, the present - still valid, just as you say. This would need the present perfect in most cases. "People who have spent ..... are excluded from..."
I find the original sentence with its mismatched tenses very strange! The only explanation I could think of is that a word has been missed out, eg "1996 and/or were excluded". The subsequent paragraph on the website also includes "were excluded" and it still sounds strange. I suggest a typo!
My what interesting reading material you use, Daisy!
In a) they are talking about a period up to May 2004 which, itself, was in the past. Therefore, we talk about May 2004 in the past and then the period before that in the past perfect. "By May 2004, people who had spent...."
In b) the period covers from November 2004 to, and including, the present - still valid, just as you say. This would need the present perfect in most cases. "People who have spent ..... are excluded from..."
I find the original sentence with its mismatched tenses very strange! The only explanation I could think of is that a word has been missed out, eg "1996 and/or were excluded". The subsequent paragraph on the website also includes "were excluded" and it still sounds strange. I suggest a typo!
My what interesting reading material you use, Daisy!
I agree with both answers... either change have to had or were to are in b to make the tenses match, but either way the meaning still gets across. Most people who aren't English majors probably wouldn't even notice. Having said that, I wouldn't expect to see this kind of error in a major newspaper.
To be honest, I hear mistakes around me all day every day of this nature. I would expect mistakes to be made in the spoken language on the basis that language is reflecting the ongoing thought process in the speaker's mind and it would be unreasonable to expect everything to be cut and dried every time.
However, on a website, in formal writing, I would expect it to be correct.
The same rules apply to learners. There's a lot of leeway in spoken language and such tiny errors would be unremarkable.
However, on a website, in formal writing, I would expect it to be correct.
The same rules apply to learners. There's a lot of leeway in spoken language and such tiny errors would be unremarkable.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆NihonJack⇔日本ジャック☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
☆NihonJack⇔日本ジャック☆のメンバーはこんなコミュニティにも参加しています
人気コミュニティランキング
- 1位
- 浜田麻里セッション＠バンプ
- 199人
- 2位
- 30代〜40代から友達作り【友活】
- 35861人
- 3位
- 写真を撮るのが好き
- 209889人