Past Perfect.

She sacked him before he'd had a chance to explain his behaviour.
(Zdanie z Quirka z full version).

Najpierw go wywaliła, nie dając mu szans na wyjasnienie, to

= She had sacked him before he had a chance to explain his behaviour ?


Dlaczego w tym zdaniu 1 Past Perfect opisuje czynność, która była w druga w sekwencji?

Główkuję i nie mogę tego ogarnąć. To specjalne użycie PP?
Dziękuję.

to ci powinno rozjasnic sprawe:

quote,
“The use of the past perfective in before-constructions requires special consideration. These four sentences seem to be equivalent in meaning:

[11] I saw him before he saw me.
[12] I had seen him before he saw me.
[13] I saw him before he had seen me.
[14] I had seen him before he had seen me.

Sentence [13] appears to be paradoxical in that the second in the succession of events is marked with the past perfective, contrary to what we have noted above in after- and when-clauses. The explanation (cf 15.27) is that the before-clause in [13], and perhaps also in [14], may be nonfactual; that is to say, the event in the before-clause may not have taken place ('He did not get a chance to see me, because I evaded him')
unquote

Teraz kumam już! Dzięki stary :)

Savagerhino, czy mozesz podac zrodlo, z ktorego zacytowales? Dziekuje.

'A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language' - Quirk Greenbaum Leech Svartvik - full version - to ta pozycja Sav, tak? Ja jestem na początku jeśli chodzi o tę "angielską Biblię".

tak, tylko raczej sie nie mowi 'full version' i tej ksiazce tylko "Quirk et al"

pierwsze zdanie z pierwszego paragrafu to opisuje :

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=F3D3A9F4B3F5F9FD2ED62DAAE730AE52.journals?fromPage=online&aid=1440428

nudna ksiazka, nic a nic o kobietach:)

Wiem, wiem ja tak zawsze potocznie mówię i nigdy nie mogę zapamiętać całego tytułu :), aby było jasne, że nie chodzi o tę cieniutką wersję.

>>>nudna ksiazka, nic a nic o kobietach:)

Heh :) Gdyby była o kobietach, to niewiele bym z niej pojął ;)

Long time ago, when I was learning English, Murphy's grammar was being referred to as THE BIBLE :-) A lot has changed I see. I must update my knowledge...

A long time ago? you mean when? Murphy's grammar is nothing on Quirk's. Michael Swan seems to be second in line to the bunch of best-known grammarians, another is Sav hehe, he very often shows us the ropes here.

No, it's different. Murphy’s grammar was written for L2 learners. ‘Quirk et al’ is used by academics who are making their socio-linguistic studies and doing their PhD programs.