hemanth28 wrote:Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier’s pension, joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve.

* 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become
* 22, was injured three times, while being discharged in 1783 because she had become
* 22, and was injured three times, and discharged in 1783, being
* 22, injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she was
* 22, having been injured three times and discharged in 1783, being

Can someone please explain in detail??

OA is A

rseeker2 wrote:She got injured three times -- this is one thing

She became too ill, got discharged -- these two need to come one after another, so the first action, i.e. falling ill -- gets the past perfect, while the latter (getting discharged) gets the simple past

goelmohit2002 wrote:

rseeker2 wrote:She got injured three times -- this is one thing

She became too ill, got discharged -- these two need to come one after another, so the first action, i.e. falling ill -- gets the past perfect, while the latter (getting discharged) gets the simple past

But what about the rest of the actions..."joined" and "injured" ? Doesn't the sentence structure tell that "had become ill" preceded both of them too ?

Please tell what I am missing here.

rahulg83 wrote:Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier’s pension, joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve.

I think here we have three main clauses, which are parallel

1st -> Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier’s pension, joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22,

2nd -> [SHE]was injured three times,

3rd- > [SHE]was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve

now for emphasizing which action happened first in the 3rd clause..we need had instead of was..

goelmohit2002 wrote:

rahulg83 wrote:Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier’s pension, joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22, was injured three times, and was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve.

I think here we have three main clauses, which are parallel

1st -> Dressed as a man and using the name Robert Shurtleff, Deborah Sampson, the first woman to draw a soldier’s pension, joined the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of 22,

2nd -> [SHE]was injured three times,

3rd- > [SHE]was discharged in 1783 because she had become too ill to serve

now for emphasizing which action happened first in the 3rd clause..we need had instead of was..

Thanks Rahul.

Does it mean that...

had rule applies to independent clauses.....and not on the sentence as a whole...

I hope I am clear in my doubt. If not then please tell....i will elaborate further.

goelmohit2002 wrote:Thanks DD.

Can you please tell how to figure out "had" action precede which all actions in the sentence?

Basically does it mean that if there are two independent clauses X and Y joined together in a sentence, then if "had" is present in X, then does it precede all the actions in clause X and has no connection with the actions of clause Y.

goelmohit2002 wrote:

goelmohit2002 wrote:Thanks DD.

Can you please tell how to figure out "had" action precede which all actions in the sentence?

Basically does it mean that if there are two independent clauses X and Y joined together in a sentence, then if "had" is present in X, then does it precede all the actions in clause X and has no connection with the actions of clause Y.

Experts kindly share your opinion about this!!!!

dumb.doofus wrote:

goelmohit2002 wrote:

goelmohit2002 wrote:Thanks DD.


There's no hard and fast rule buddy.. it's all relative to what you want to show in the sentence with respect to time. Use had when you want to show that one event occurred earlier than the other.

Hope this is helpful: https://gmattoughies.blocked/2009/0 ... rfect.html

I think rule of had is to differentiate between two events not three, because it is used only to order which happen first, and after first came second, if their is third, I am not aware about any linguistic construct ordering three events,

I ate breakfast and had brushed the teeth and *** gone for shit, yes thats a possibility but grammatical constructs are not their to help for shit, it may happen may not happen, let it be the way it is...

BTW, D is having some other issues as well... parallelism, joined, injured, and was discharged, here injured is not parallel to joined, because injured needs an agent/infinitive to work with it, have you ever heard injured in isolation? was injured is ok....