Problems with English? Questions? Vocabulary, grammar... Post here :)
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Stictly "once" means "one time". Thus it most commonly refers to past events but can be used for present and future as in "I'm telling you once" and "I will tell you only once".
"I had once told my boss" means that previously to the past time being discussed I had told my boss once (and only once).
"I once told my boss" means just that. It happened some time in the past. Dropping the "had" takes away the sense of a past time being discussed. I think "had" makes the pluperfect -- describing actions in the past before the past.
"I had told my boss" means that previously to the past time being discussed I had told my boss (an unspecified number of times).
As catkin says, the past perfect aspect (had done, had told, generally had + the past participle form of a verb) is used to stress that something happened before other reference point in the past.
Eg:
Quote:
Before I left the house, I had closed all the windows.
(First I closed the windows and then I left the house)
It also appears in indirect speech when the verb in the original (reported) sentence is in the present perfect aspect:
So I should conclude the following quote is *technically* correct !
Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it, but ideally you'd have to put it in some meaningful context, Otherwise, the version without 'had' would be preferrable.
Quote:
Marion resigned from her job (last week). She had once told me that she didn't get on well with her boss. (anytime BEFORE last week)
If you're in doubt I think it's better to use the simple past version (I said, I did, I wrote, etc) The past perfect aspect (had said, had done, had written) is used to emphasise that something happened before something else.
If you're in doubt I think it's better to use the simple past version (I said, I did, I wrote, etc) The past perfect aspect (had said, had done, had written) is used to emphasise that something happened before something else.
I would use the latter in a more casual conversation. "I don't fancy doing X", I think, is a bit more "formal", or something to that effect...I know I don't use it in normal conversation.
But yes, they do (more or less) convey the same thing.
If you're in doubt I think it's better to use the simple past version (I said, I did, I wrote, etc) The past perfect aspect (had said, had done, had written) is used to emphasise that something happened before something else.
Simple is always good but IMHO the past perfect is used to convey that something happened before something else.
Do the following statements convey *exactly* the same meaning ?
Which statement is used in what context ?
IMHO the "fancy" form is informal because it is unlikely to be exactly what is meant; "fancy" has a sense of imagination, capriciousness or romanticism.
The other form implies that X is preferred over something else so should only be used when there is an alternative; I prefer doing X to (doing) Y.
The first is perfectly acceptable, speaking colloquially; the latter sounds awkward to the native speaker.
I have been taught in schools that stranger is a synonym of unknown person. Is this correct ? If not, then what does stranger mean ?
Does the following statement mean that it is no longer a nice experience ? If yes, then how should I phrase this statement so that it conveys the opposite meaning ?
Quote:
Talking to you has been a nice experience till now
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.