[english help] whats the difference between...
-
"the clock has struck 12" and
"the clock had strike 12" and
"the clock had struck 12"
which one comes 1st on a time line? thanks. -
Past tense of strike is struckOriginally posted by twenty47:"the clock has struck 12" and
"the clock had strike 12" and
"the clock had stuck 12"
which one comes 1st on a time line? thanks.
So The clock has struck 12 should be the correct one.
-
IMO, it's 'stuck'. Since it's STUCK, it should've reached 12 earlier to be sonsidered as stuck.Originally posted by twenty47:"the clock has struck 12" and
"the clock had strike 12" and
"the clock had stuck 12"
which one comes 1st on a time line? thanks. -
thanks for your reply... but i dont think any of the 3 is wrong... they are just different forms, for example had strike is past perfect (i think so) etc.Originally posted by honeymouse:Past tense of strike is struck
So The clock has struck 12 should be the correct one. -
sorry. typoOriginally posted by aku1b0d0:IMO, it's 'stuck'. Since it's STUCK, it should've reached 12 earlier to be sonsidered as stuck. -
"the clock has struck 12" andOriginally posted by twenty47:thanks for your reply... but i dont think any of the 3 is wrong... they are just different forms, for example had strike is past perfect (i think so) etc.
"the clock had strike 12" and
"the clock had stuck 12"
Since after the word "has", it has to be followed by struck.
I can't see "the clock had12" can be correct.
As for the last one, you can say "the clock had stuck at 12" but not "the clock had stuck 12"
Struck (past tense of strike) and stuck (past tense of stick) have completely different meanings from each other.
-
1st sentence: has (present) + struck (past)
2nd: had (past) + strike (present)
3rd: had (past) + struck (past)
answer would probably be the 3rd sentence. -
Originally posted by honeymouse:"the clock has struck 12" and
"the clock had strike 12" and
"the clock had stuck 12"
Since after the word "has", it has to be followed by struck.
I can't see "the clock had12" can be correct.
As for the last one, you can say "the clock had stuck at 12" but not "the clock had stuck 12"
Struck (past tense of strike) and stuck (past tense of stick) have completely different meanings from each other. prst: stick past: stuck
prst:strike pst:struck -
Originally posted by honeymouse:"the clock has struck 12" and
"the clock had strike 12" and
"the clock had stuck 12"
Since after the word "has", it has to be followed by struck.
I can't see "the clock had12" can be correct.
As for the last one, you can say "the clock had stuck at 12" but not "the clock had stuck 12"
Struck (past tense of strike) and stuck (past tense of stick) have completely different meanings from each other. oo i see the confusion here. ok. the 3 sentences are not complete in anyway.. as in u can add something behind just to make it make sense.. for example.
the clock had strike 12 before i got home.
and btw, i apologies once again for the typo of struck in my 3rd line. it has been edited already. -
That's why there's actually no answer for this question..Originally posted by twenty47:oo i see the confusion here. ok. the 3 sentences are not complete in anyway.. as in u can add something behind just to make it make sense.. for example.
the clock had strike 12 before i got home. -
yes. all i want to know is which one is before which one on a time line and their formOriginally posted by aku1b0d0:That's why there's actually no answer for this question..
eg: has stuck > past tense
had strike> past perfect
had struck> i dont know -
I don't think you can say "had strike". It has to be "had struck" or "has struck". It's present perfect or past perfect tense.Originally posted by twenty47:oo i see the confusion here. ok. the 3 sentences are not complete in anyway.. as in u can add something behind just to make it make sense.. for example.
the clock had strike 12 before i got home.
and btw, i apologies once again for the typo of struck in my 3rd line. it has been edited already. -
on the timeline past perfect is earlier than present perfect
present perfect is used to describe a past event currently
past perfect is used to describe a past event in the past -
Yup. There's no 'had strike'.Originally posted by honeymouse:I don't think you can say "had strike". It has to be "had struck" or "has struck". It's present perfect or past perfect tense. -
In short,Originally posted by JerzZzzZ:Yup. There's no 'had strike'.
Present+past = o
past+past = o
past+present = X
But I'm not sure about this, though. I rarely speak English to my Malay friends. -
http://www.writingenglish.com/cverbs/come.htmOriginally posted by JerzZzzZ:Yup. There's no 'had strike'.
look at this site.... there is "had come" -
.......
-
anyone here has any other opinion?
-
That's because the past participle of "come" is still "come", whereas the past participle of "strike" is "struck", hence "had strike" is grammatically incorrect. "Had struck" is the correct past-perfect form.Originally posted by twenty47:
Hence, "had struck" comes earlier in the timeline than "has struck", which is the present-perfect tense, while "had strike" is invalid since it is grammatically incorrect. -
Thanks! thats the answer i am looking for.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:That's because the past participle of "come" is still "come", whereas the past participle of "strike" is "struck", hence "had strike" is grammatically incorrect. "Had struck" is the correct past-perfect form.
Hence, "had struck" comes earlier in the timeline than "has struck", which is the present-perfect tense, while "had strike" is invalid since it is grammatically incorrect.