Could anyone help me with the following sentence?
"He had not written a line since he arrived".
As I understand first he had arrived and then he didn't write anything. I think that "He had not written" is a posterior action. Could you explain why it's not possible to write the following way?
He didn't write a line since he had arrived.
Recherche parmi différents professeurs en Anglais…
Réponses · 8
2
the past is hidden somewhere earlier this sentence.
For example:
Yesterday I saw Mike near the office again. He had not written a line since he arrived.
so actually we have
he hadn't written before I saw him.
and
[arrive] and [not write] are consequent actions
2
Hi,
Good question. In your original sentence, “He had not written a line since he arrived,” the action of arriving comes first (in simple past), and the lack of writing continues afterward.
We use “had not written” (past perfect) to show the longer or earlier time frame, and “arrived” (simple past) as the reference point.
Your version, “He didn’t write a line since he had arrived,” is not wrong, but it’s less common and sounds awkward. The original version is clearer and more natural.
1
"He had not written a line since he arrived" is correct because:
"arrived" = simple past (the reference point).
"had not written" = past perfect (shows inaction from that point onward).
Your version — "He didn't write a line since he had arrived" — is awkward and uncommon. Normally, "since" is followed by simple past, not past perfect.
1
Two completed actions in the past require the past perfect.
"Had I known about the party, I would have gone."
0
Ce contenu enfreint nos lignes directrices de la communauté.
Vous n'avez pas encore trouvé vos réponses ?
Écrivez vos questions et profitez de l'aide des locuteurs natifs !
Ne manquez pas cette occasion d'apprendre une langue depuis chez vous. Découvrez notre sélection de professeurs de langues expérimentés et inscrivez-vous dès maintenant à votre premier cours !
Commencez à apprendre aujourd'hui
