Language Question for the Native Speakers of English :D

[N_N_R]

Today we had to deal with a translation at the new job and I was puzzled by the translation done and checked by two translators. I had never ever seen this or heard it. Is it possible that the following sentence exists in an official document such as a high-school diploma ?

[person's name] had studied [subject] in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005.


My question is: WHY do they use Past Perfect when they refer to a set period/moment of time (we have years mentioned). We don't have two moments/actions in the past.

I'd always use Past Simple (studied) instead of Past Perfect (had studied).

Do you guys have any explanation?

 

[firiki]

I'm not a native English speaker but here's a thought: a typo, maybe? S is next to D on the keyboard.

[N_N_R]

I'm not a native English speaker but here's a thought: a typo, maybe? S is next to D on the keyboard.

I thought of the same, too. But as I'm currently the most inexperienced, I'm not given much of a chance, hehe.

[firiki]

This is the only plausible reason I can think, supposing that we're talking about a diploma and not a narration.

[N_N_R]

I looked for translated / English/ diplomas and such, looked for some weird grammar rules I hadn't heard of, but couldn't find any explanation. So I resorted to asking the native speakers

It's actually "XX has completed.... " usually. But the person I argued with claims that since we have maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany years mentioned, it has to be Past Perfect. Which, wtf, I've never heard of such a rule whatsoever. And not only a rule, I haven't heard that at all ever.

It could be "has completed" if a year isn't mentioned. But since there's a year mentioned, I thought it should be Past Simple (completed/studied). But she says since there are many years mentioned, Past Perfect. wtf.

Anyway. I hope someone else writes, too

[Tomcat_81]

My 6th graders would also yell "Noooo. we have a proper date here! We want the simple past!!)
But you know, that's Bavarians 

[dks]

The had adds emphasis.

[firiki]

I was going to ask what the other translators though. I may very well be missing something but even with the mention of multiple years it doesn't make sense to me unless the person in question is deceased.

[N_N_R]

The had adds emphasis.

Are you sure about that? You've seen it? Used it and so on?

I mean, seriously. I'd trust you much more than someone I see for the first time, no matter how much experience they claim they have.

[dks]

Yes, but it is not something you would commonly use in a diploma. You would use it more when speaking or to emphasise the fact that someone did indeed study a subject on various occasions, in a document, like a legal document .

[N_N_R]

Yes, but it is not something you would commonly use in a diploma. You would use it more when speaking or to emphasise the fact that someone did indeed study a subject on various occasions, in a document, like a legal document .

Okay, thanks a lot  That helps a lot.



So I intend to keep this thread active.... as although sometimes I'm wrong (since I really have seen some language uses for the first time ever in my life), I did see lots of stupidities (on which everyone from the team agreed) in the past few days


 

[dks]

Be prepared for different answers from Canadians, Scots, English, Aussies, kiwis, Americans.....

[N_N_R]

I'll sort it out

Let's say, while my new colleagues are checking and testing me, I'll be checking and testing them here

[yud]

It is not from a diploma, my guess is it is a poor translation, "so and so studied bee keeping" is correct so far as I know.

[LoopCutter]

I was going to ask what the other translators though. I may very well be missing something but even with the mention of multiple years it doesn't make sense to me unless the person in question is deceased.

+1, thinking the same thing.

[jerseydevil]

Being from New Jersey, most people here would say that I'm not capable of speaking English.   For the record, Tony Soprano does not have an accent at all.

[gregozedobe]

In this context I would definitely use "studied" rather than "had studied". Even if there had been multiple subjects (and only one year).

"had studied" isn't jarringly incorrect, but seems old fashioned or needs something else in the statement to justify the had, otherwise it (the "had") seems superfluous/redundant (to me, but I'm an Australian, and we have our own way of doing things, and usually prefer simpler rather than more complex when we have a choice).

[jerseydevil]

I agree, with "had" or "has" it just doesn't flow right. "Studied" already implies that it had or has been done.

[powernoodle]

This is from a Yahoo answers, and it makes sense to me.  I write and proofread legal opinions (23 years), and agree that "I had studied" is correct in certain situations, depending on the context.  [But I don't always proofread my posts at MTO].   




" "I studied" refers to far back in the past and defines something specific. For example, "I studied that already."

"I've studied" basically explains that you have studied material over a long period of time.

"I had studied" defines a period of time when you studied something but are no longer studying it.

"I was studied" is kind of funny because it sounds like you personally were an experiment that was being studied by a scientist or checked out by someone interested in you :-)

"I was studying" refers to a break in time from past to present right at that moment. For instance, someone calls you and interrupts your concentration on homework and asks what you are doing, to this you would reply, "I was studying when you called"."

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110420172828AAFVlqA

[powernoodle]

Btw, this is an excellent question, and one that few American high school graduations could tackle. IMO.

[MWDP]

Generally you would use past perfect only if you had two or more points of reference to indicate what came first in the event sequence. Since you have precise dates (more or less since they're years), and they are finished events in the past that kept repeating, I would say that past simple is the only logical tense to be used here

[yud]

Btw, this is an excellent question, and one that few American high school graduations could tackle. IMO.

Proofread much? 

Sorry, had to point that out given this thread.  I have a masters and really am not a great writer, grammatically or spelling wise.

[Huntsman]

What is the document NNR?
You mention a high school diploma - So is this equivalent of a CV for school kids?

Anyway to me it should be the past simple as you say:
[person's name] had studied [subject] in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005.

'Had studied' to me implies they are dead - As Firiki pointed out
Or that they studied it and have forgotten it all

If I read that in a job applicants CV - Warning bells would sound in my head - It's almost saying:
'Don't expect me to remeber any of that crap'!!
..... Which is not what you want in a CV/diploma

So I disagree with DKS - I think it weakens the statement
Although as he said - 'Different English native speakers, different opinions'
BTW - For the record I speak the original English    ... Mwahah 

NB: This opinion is just native speaker analysis - rather than from any academic knowledge of correct tenses etc - I was a maths graduate.
And good defintions PN - Thank you

Nice debate NNR 
I am really glad people are still thinking about stuff like this 

[N_N_R]

Thanks everyone for the input!

I'm still likely to trust dks on this one though. I have  great understanding of the language, I have taught it to people for years, but I have never ever been subjected to legal terms and uses. So since the type of document is similar and two translators plus dks say it can be used in this context, I won't argue. I wouldn't argue when it comes to terminology in my native language either as I know none, lol.

The other day I heard "as at + date" for the first time too, but found on a forum it could be used.

[PWC]

Today we had to deal with a translation at the new job and I was puzzled by the translation done and checked by two translators. I had never ever seen this or heard it. Is it possible that the following sentence exists in an official document such as a high-school diploma ?

[person's name] had studied [subject] in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005.


My question is: WHY do they use Past Perfect when they refer to a set period/moment of time (we have years mentioned). We don't have two moments/actions in the past.

I'd always use Past Simple (studied) instead of Past Perfect (had studied).

Do you guys have any explanation?

 

Linguist here. I may be able to shed some light on the question. The past perfect construction tends to show up with prepositional phrases in English as in "he had studied 'with' the professor," so it may seem strange in this context. In the larger body of language use, however, this isn't really all that out of the ordinary.

Also, first post here, so hello everyone!

[Steinar]

Welcome, PWC! (Which field in linguistics, btw?)

[N_N_R]

Thanks a lot, pwc!

[dks]

Thanks everyone for the input!

I'm still likely to trust dks on this one though.

The other day I heard "as at + date" for the first time too, but found on a forum it could be used.

    seriously??     

My definition was mainly for the spoken form of it, placing emphasis on the word had (saying it in a quick, loud manner), rather than giving it the same emphasis as the word studied. In a legalistic document, again, emphasis should be placed on "had". If it is not possible to see if there is emphasis on it, or not, then there could be other options. The idea of emphasising that the studying was done in the past (not recently) could also hold true, if the a in had is read in an elongated manner (aa) emphasising that the studying occurred a long time ago. In spoken form you would expect some sort of hand motion too, indicating that this was along time ago.

As pointed out before, by various learned individuals, in this document, it adds very little.

I am a native speaker of the language of love 

[Whoey]

What is the document NNR?
You mention a high school diploma - So is this equivalent of a CV for school kids?

Anyway to me it should be the past simple as you say:
[person's name] had studied [subject] in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005.

'Had studied' to me implies they are dead - As Firiki pointed out
Or that they studied it and have forgotten it all

If I read that in a job applicants CV - Warning bells would sound in my head - It's almost saying:
'Don't expect me to remeber any of that crap'!!
..... Which is not what you want in a CV/diploma

So I disagree with DKS - I think it weakens the statement
Although as he said - 'Different English native speakers, different opinions'
BTW - For the record I speak the original English    ... Mwahah 

NB: This opinion is just native speaker analysis - rather than from any academic knowledge of correct tenses etc - I was a maths graduate.
And good defintions PN - Thank you

Nice debate NNR 
I am really glad people are still thinking about stuff like this 

You pretty much summed up my thoughts.

As a native English speaker myself I wouldn't trust my skills when it comes to grammar rules. Someone who studied the language and theory as a second language probably will be more likely to provide the correct answer, whereas most natives just do things that way because that's the way it's always been, not because they're following a rule.

My wife would be a good person to answer this, she's been studying English Philology and already has multiple C2 certificates as well as an Institute of Linguists Diploma in Translation. Her day job is an English teacher, preparing students for a multitude of official exams. Sadly she's studying for exams right now, so between that an work I don't want to aggro her with this topic right now.

BTW - For the record I speak the original English    ... Mwahah 

We watch a lot of Australian reality DIY shows, I'm not very sure Aussies can claim "original English" as a skill 

[Weasel]

I would like to give thoughts on this but I'm  dyslexic so my lnput would probly be worthless !