A friend of mine asked me for advice about these English constructions, and I wasn’t sure. Native speakers to the rescue, please!
Which of the following to sentences is right and/or preferable?
Both sound idiomatic, although #1 is perhaps more technically correct. I find that past perfect can get grating if you have to use it for too many clauses in a row.
In this context I think they’re synonymous.
I agree that both are acceptable, though unlike Nathan I would say #2 is both more pleasant-sounding and more correct.
Perfect aspect describes things that have attained a particular state of being: “The sample had been prepared” describes the state the sample was in at the time, rather than a particular preparing action. So technically “seven days after the sample had been prepared” could mean “seven days after (a date on which the sample was in a prepared state [which was a further two days after the preparation occurred])”.
I really doubt any English speaker would read the sentence in a way so contrary to its obvious intent, though, so I think you’re on safe ground either way.
I much prefer the second one. The first one sounds… clunky.
I also prefer the second.
I actually prefer the first.
I’m with you.
I think I’d only use 1) if I were already speaking in the perfect tense, and wanted to parenthetically reference even earlier events.
Wouldn’t ‘seven days after preparing the sample’ be synonymous and more concise?
Only if the sample-preparer were also the subject of the main clause. As it currently stands, that would mean that the crystalline domains had themselves prepared the sample.
Both can be correct, but it depends. Unless there are some interesting contexual issues we don’t know about then I would say neither is correct.
Assuming we are just talking about 2 actions in the past, one coming before the other, then past perfect (had been) refers to the the action that happened first with past simple (grew) used for the second action.
So, I suggest:
“Seven days after the sample had been prepared, the crystalline domains grew even further.”
A good way (usually for native speakers) to test this is to turn the phrase around and see how it looks. So, “The crystalline domains grew even further seven days after the sample had been prepared.”
If you use “had grown” that means you’re making some reference to another action that happened AFTER the crystals growing. In your example no other action is refered to, so past simple fits best.
Hope that makes sense and helps.
I think part of the issue is that the meaning in either sentence is ambiguous. The problem isn’t necessarily the first tense; the problem is the “… had grown even further.” part. “Seven days after” is a specific time, whereas “… had grown …” suggests a time period. Did the crystals grow on the seventh day only, or did they grow over the whole week? Resolving this would solve the tense issue and avoid the overuse of the weak “had” or “was” and replaced it with something more specific:
The crystalline domains grew for seven days after the sample had been prepared. [I think that “was” doesn’t sound right here.]
Seven days after preparing the sample, its crystalline domains began to grow.
Or maybe you meant something like this:
The sample’s crystalline domains have grown substantially since the sample was prepared seven days ago. [This suggests you don’t know when they actually grew.]
When the time point is not specified, I think “had been” is preferred:
The sample’s crystalline domains had grown substantially since the sample had been prepared.
As an aside, The word “further” seems redundant.
Neil
Good point, Niel. That 3rd time reference I said was lacking IS “7 days after”, so my advice is off the mark. In that case he probably wants:
I think option 2 is certainly wrong though.
The preparation happens before the “7 days after”, so should be “had been” - a point in time in the past before another point in time in the past.
But as you mentioned, the process of growing also occured before a point in time in the past…so…past perfect all the way in my (revised) opinion.
Not to go off topic – but a better way to write this is to remove the passive voice altogether.
(first person)
Seven days after I prepared the sample, I noticed the crystalline domains had grown even further.
(Or, second person:)
Seven days after you had prepared the sample, you notice the crystalline domains have grown even further.
(Third person)
Seven days after Jim prepared the sample, he noticed the crystalline domains had grown even further.
The “was prepared” and “had been prepared” are passive voices, and they confuse the sentence somewhat, because there’s no observer to pinpoint the time of the preparation and the time of the later observation.
Neil’s point makes sense, too. I think removing the passive voice removes some of the ambiguity, though, because we know that the person that prepared the sample 7 days ago is also observing the growth.
(Edit)
However, if the passive voice is used because the observer doesn’t matter, or for the sake of a clinical log, than I would add an observer to the second part, to lock time into place:
Seven days after the sample was prepared, it was noted that the crystalline domains had grown even further.
I think conciseness is better than avoiding passive voice in this case.
It sounds like scientific writing, in which passive voice can be used extensively.
And “had grown even further” isn’t even passive voice, so there’s really no reason to stick “I noticed” or whatever in there. The sentence is about the crystalline domains, not about the observer. Don’t take the emphasis away from where it should be.
Now: Who wants to help design Crystalline Domains: The IF?
Unfortunately crystalline domains don’t seem to be as cool as their name would imply: they’re areas in a liquid crystal within which all the molecules have the same orientation.
Nah, I’m pretty sure they’re areas of high adventure in which the only limit is your imagination.
I usually find writing such a sentence in active voice first helps me get the tenses right, then I can just change it back to passive once I’ve found my tenses.
And I like #2, but context is everything.