Exactly, Herb.

  

IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTEXT, the first sentence is correct and the second sentence is not. 'He had walked five miles' cannot stand alone. As you require of me, not surprisingly, it needs context. The first sentence, with the simple past tense verb, does not need context. The second sentence does require context. It cannot stand alone.

 

Can the first sentence, with the simple past-tense verb, fit into a context that requires the verb to be changed to past perfect? Of course, of course, a thousand times of course.   

 

As Gerald Walton correctly put it, "He walked five miles" means that at some time in the past he walked five miles. "He had walked five miles" means that before some specific time in the past, he had walked five miles.

 

He goes on to say, What is your problem? Yesterday he walked five miles. By 4 o'clock yesterday, he had walked five miles.

 

The problem is that the second sentence, to be correct, demands an element of timing, which is not there. Standing alone, as the second sentence does, there is no timing, there is no context indicating timing, and hence there is an incorrect sentence, with the word 'had' in front of the past-tense verb of the first sentence.

 

This is the crux of the problem, Gerald. If  there is either (a) no context, as with the second sentence, or (b) context that does not compel the use of the past perfect, the use of 'had' + the verb is incorrect.

 

The compelling context can, needless to say, be contained in a sentence or be outside the sentence.

 

Everyone please stand aside while Herb considers this explanation.

 

.thanks.brad.28feb10.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.

STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote: