<p>From practice test 1 in the blue book, section 6:</p>
<p>The historian argued that (a)(we ought) to learn (b)(more about) the process by which individuals like Sam Houston (c)(were indentified by) others (d)(as leaders). (e)</p>
<p>Why is there no error? The historian is arguing in the past and the people identify the individuals before the the historian started his argument...so shouldn't that mean that the past perfect should be invoked?</p>
<p>like "by which individuals like Sam Houston had been identified by others as leaders".</p>
<p>These people were already considering these individuals leaders prior to this historians argument... so why would "were" and "argued" be grammatically correct? One event in the past preceded another event in the past so I would think that one would be in past and the other in past perfect.</p>
<p>Thanks, if someone can explain why i'm wrong.</p>
I’m saying that the “Historian argued” is the event in the past while the people identifying leaders is the event prior to that (past perfect). Does this not match your description?</p>
<p>ok. im not as crazy as silver or bandit when it comes to explanations (even though I got perfect MC)</p>
<p>but when u do use past perfect, you leave the event that happened before alone, and you invoke past perfect tense on the event that happens after. so even if you had past perfect, you would be using it on historian argued instead of what you said before.</p>
<p>however, we are considering these as seperate because :</p>
<p>it says that the historian argued THAT</p>
<p>so this is just what historian was saying, so it really is just an extension of “the historian argued.”</p>
<p>for example, you wouldn’t use past perfect on this sentence:</p>
<p>Jesse said that the romans used aqueducts.</p>
<p>not:</p>
<p>Jesse said that the romans had used aqueducts.</p>
<p>Maybe silver or crazy will jump in instead, but thats my explanation for now.</p>
<p>Yeah, it does seem to be backwards. If we are talking about 2 events that happened in the past, the one that happened first is in past perfect while the one that happened second is in simple past</p>
You have it backwards. “I ate a cake that had been made very well.” The cake was made very well before I ate it. It was in the state of having been made very well when I ate it. So the past event that occurs before another past event is in the past perfect. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be. You can talk about two past events without distinguishing them by the past perfect if the distinction isn’t necessary.
“that we ought to learn more about the process by which individuals like Sam Houston were identified by others as leaders” is tantamount to “that we should learn about the process by which WWI began.” WWI occurred in the past, and the statement “we should learn” is in the present because it is a general statement about the current state of things. Stating “we should…” is like stating a statistic: 50% of men snore (made up statistic). You could then say, “The newspaper reported [past] that 50% of men snore [present].” So the statistic represents not a single, concrete event (in which case it would have to be in the past tense), but a statement about the general state of things.</p>
<p>The newspaper reported that 50% of men snore.
The historian argued that we ought…</p>
<p>If you forget all the technical mumbo jumbo and just look at the sentence by ear (so to speak), you should not think there’s any error. Right? It’s only when you try to be technical that you see an error in that sentence. Or maybe I’m wrong and that sentence does sound weird to you.</p>
<p>Right it sounds better the way it is than with modification.</p>
<p>
When you say this, does that mean that either verb tense is correct in the sentence or is the past perfect completely out of context of the statement since its <present> <past> as you stated?</past></present></p>
<p>“by which individuals like Sam Houston were identified by others as leaders.”
“by which individuals like Sam Houston had been identified by others as leaders”.</p>
<p>Is “argued” unrelated to the complete statement made in this case as it is preceeding “that”?</p>
Yeah, the past perfect is out of context (i.e., it is unnecessary in context).
It is unrelated in that the only distinction that needs to be made is between present (knowing about the process, that we ought to know about it in the present) and past (the thing that we need to know took place in the past). I think that’s what you’re asking.
“He argued that we should learn about the past” is basically the construction of that sentence. The argument took place in the past, as well as the thing we ought to learn.</past></present></p>
<p>I believe the confusion comes from the fact that you are dealing with the tenses of three verbs that appear in three different clauses as if they all appear in a single clause. The three clauses are: 1. The historian argued (something described in a noun clause). 2.The something was: 'that we ought to learn more about the process by which 3. (a process that is described in an adjective clause that acts as the object of the preposition ‘by’ in 'by which (the relative pronoun ‘which’ relating the clause to ‘process’) individuals like Sam Houston were identified as leaders by others.</p>
<p>None of the individual events in the three clauses is being correlated in time to either of the other two (except by you as you wrestle with the problem). Thus you have three clauses and three tenses. As in: My sister said (past)that I should study (future) neurobiology if I like (present) psychology.</p>
<p>If the events of two clauses WERE intended to be related to each other, the tenses would correlate as in : By the time the ship sank, the crew had taken to the lifeboats.</p>
<p>If you understood the explanation in paragraph 1 above (TMI, perhaps), you can see that crazy is right. Sometimes the correlation of tenses in different clauses is necessary and sometimes it it not. The author’s intention determines which it is. Generally you should look for a necessary logical connection between the events of the clauses. I think in the original question, you can see there is not. The historian said…Sam Houston was identified…We should learn… And in the final example there was…Crew took to lifeboats…Ship sank</p>
<p>I can see in this case why it wouldn’t matter now. It could be present or past depending on the person or persons, etc which wouldn’t make it an error.</p>