BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

MGMT -Verb Tense- Confusion!

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pm
Thanked: 112 times
Followed by:13 members

MGMT -Verb Tense- Confusion!

by smackmartine » Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:30 pm
This is with reference to MGMT Sentence Correction(4th Edition) - Verb Tense lesson-Page 110.

I am finding a hard time understanding this structure of a sentence that uses Past perfect tense. Please clarify:

The band U2 WAS just one of the many new groups on the rock music scene in the early 1980's, but less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music.

Should n't we use "earlier" instead of "later" after "ten years", because the second part of the sentence talks about an earlier event?
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:13 pm
smackmartine wrote:This is with reference to MGMT Sentence Correction(4th Edition) - Verb Tense lesson-Page 110.

I am finding a hard time understanding this structure of a sentence that uses Past perfect tense. Please clarify:

The band U2 WAS just one of the many new groups on the rock music scene in the early 1980's, but less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music.

Should n't we use "earlier" instead of "later" after "ten years", because the second part of the sentence talks about an earlier event?
Hi surprisingly yesterday i revised this same lesson and this same example made me think for some time and i finally develop some understanding. I'm glad u invited me in this discussion, lets see to what extent m correct.

The band U2 WAS just one of the many new groups on the rock music scene in the early 1980's, but less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music.

U have no problem in the part in green, but have some issues with the blue part right.
Should n't we use "earlier" instead of "later" after "ten years", because the second part of the sentence talks about an earlier event?
if u notice, the complete thing is "less than ten years later"....in relation to the first part the timeline will be like this

-----------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------
<--in early 1980's <-------- less than 10 years later-------------> ten years later------>

Now, watch out this part carefully,

less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music.

here u are fixing a point on the year which comes ten years later and the use of less than signifies that u are talking about something that happened before that fixed year, so whatever happened before that fixed year takes past perfect and thats why had eclipsed.

This sentence is somewhat similar to that same example

By the end of 1990, i had become the petroleum minister in US.

If u relate "By the end of 1990" to "less than ten years later"....both are somewhere functioning in the same way...just read again m sure u will understand the concept for sure.

Hope this help!!!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:14 pm
Hi surprisingly yesterday i revised this same lesson and this same example made me think for some time and i finally develop some understanding. I'm glad u invited me in this discussion, lets see to what extent m correct.

The band U2 WAS just one of the many new groups on the rock music scene in the early 1980's, but less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music.

U have no problem in the part in green, but have some issues with the blue part right.
Should n't we use "earlier" instead of "later" after "ten years", because the second part of the sentence talks about an earlier event?
if u notice, the complete thing is "less than ten years later"....in relation to the first part, the complete timeline will look like this

-----------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------
<--in early 1980's <-------- less than 10 years later-------------> ten years later------>

Now, watch out this part carefully,

less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music.

here u are fixing a point on the year which comes ten years later and the use of less than signifies that u are talking about something that happened before that fixed year, so whatever happened before that fixed year takes past perfect and thats why had eclipsed.

This sentence is somewhat similar to that same example: MADE UP

By the end of 1990, i had become the petroleum minister in US.

If u relate "By the end of 1990" to "less than ten years later"....both are somewhere functioning in the same way...just read again m sure u will understand the concept for sure.

Hope this help!!!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pm
Thanked: 112 times
Followed by:13 members

by smackmartine » Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:31 pm
Atul,

The time line you made is amazing.Very impressive indeed. I totally get it now. Thanks for your prompt reply.
Last edited by smackmartine on Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: India
Thanked: 375 times
Followed by:53 members

by Frankenstein » Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:39 pm
smackmartine wrote: The band U2 WAS just one of the many new groups on the rock music scene in the early 1980's, but less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music.

Should n't we use "earlier" instead of "later" after "ten years", because the second part of the sentence talks about an earlier event?
Hi,
Good work guys! Agree with the points Atul has mentioned.
I would like to add just one more thing. usage of 'earlier' changes the meaning significantly. 10 years earlier will be 10 years earlier than 1980's say, 1970s. But, the band is itself new in 1980's, so it can't dominate 10 years before its inception. So, this statement doesn't make sense in that way.
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Sun Jun 12, 2011 10:47 pm
smackmartine wrote:Atual,

The time line you made is amazing.Very impressive indeed. I totally get it now. Thanks for your prompt reply.
M glad it helped brother...by the way, u made a typo error..my name is Atul...not Atual!!!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pm
Thanked: 112 times
Followed by:13 members

by smackmartine » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:11 am
atulmangal wrote:
smackmartine wrote:Atual,

The time line you made is amazing.Very impressive indeed. I totally get it now. Thanks for your prompt reply.
M glad it helped brother...by the way, u made a typo error..my name is Atul...not Atual!!!
Sorry about that :) I will edit it right away.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Wed Jun 22, 2011 3:22 am
The band U2 WAS just one of the many new groups on the rock music scene in the early 1980's, but less than ten years later, U2 HAD fully ECLIPSED its early rivals in the pantheon of popular music.
the basic deal here is that the two clauses work separately with regard to tenses, because they are written from the point of view of different timeframes.

the first clause is from the timeframe of the early '80's; the second is from a different, later timeframe. if that clause appeared as a standalone sentence, it would be something like this:
by 1992 the band had eclipsed its rivals.
this is a standard usage of "had VERBed" -- to describe some thing that had transpired by some point in the past and that was still highly relevant at that point -- so that is what's going on here. the fact that it's joined to the first clause doesn't really make a difference.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1