Did this man leave?(from the meaning of the sentence)

[MOYEEA LEE]

Here is a paragraph,

Jack packaged everything in his room. And He had already prepared some gifts for his friends before he left. But suddenly he found he had lost his ticket, so now he is still here.

In this case, "before he left" doesn't mean the man now is not here. It just means that the action happened after the first action.

But If I say:

The murder had killed 4 people before he committed suicide.(This one means now the murder is dead now)

So , what is the difference?

How can I tell?
Thanks so much!

 

[GoesStation]

I think you mean the murderer; that is, the person who committed the murder.

You'd use the past perfect in your sentence if it's part of a narrative set in the past: The police rushed into the room only to find the murderer, dead by his own hand. He had killed four people before he committed suicide.

 

[MOYEEA LEE]

I think you mean the murderer; that is, the person who committed the murder.

You'd use the past perfect in your sentence if it's part of a narrative set in the past: The police rushed into the room only to find the murderer, dead by his own hand. He had killed four people before he committed suicide.

Thanks so much!

But what about the first one?

Can I use "before he left" in this way?

Thanks so much!

 

[GoesStation]

Thanks so much!

You don't have to keep repeating that. You can just click the "Thank" button to register gratitude.

But what about the first one?

Can I use "before he left" in this way?

I don't know what you're trying to say in the paragraph containing that phrase. It contains a mixture of tenses that don't work together.

 

[tedmc]

Yes, but you do not capitalize "he".
And it is "packed", not "packaged".

 

[ChinaDan]

Jack packaged everything in his room. And He had already prepared some gifts for his friends before he left. But suddenly he found he had lost his ticket, so now he is still here.

In this case, "before he left" doesn't mean the man now is not here. It just means that the action happened after the first action.

Your bold section doesn't really fit. It suggested to me that he has indeed already left. Then your next sentence is saying he is still there. (I went back to reread your passage to see if I'd missed something). If he is still there, there is no need for "...before he left".

 

[MOYEEA LEE]

Your bold section doesn't really fit. It suggested to me that he has indeed already left. Then your next sentence is saying he is still there. (I went back to reread your passage to see if I'd missed something). If he is still there, there is no need for "...before he left".

Thanks so much!

We can change conditional sentences to the back:
"If it rains, we won't go outside."("rains" means the future action, not happen yet)
But if I change this one to the past:
"They didn't know what to do then. If it rained, they won't go outside."("rained" means the past future action? Does this one work?)

Besides, someone told me that we can say "before she would be leaving" in this sentence, why can we use "would be doing something"

Thanks a lot!

 

[Matthew Wai]

"They didn't know what to do then. If it rained, they won't go outside."

I would use 'wouldn't' instead of 'won't' because the sentence refers to the past instead of the future.

 

[MOYEEA LEE]

I would use 'wouldn't' instead of 'won't' because the sentence refers to the past instead of the future.

Sorry, it is my fault. I typed it by mistake.

But if I say:

If it rained, they wouldn't go outside.

This one means it had already rained or past future?

Thanks a lot!

 

[emsr2d2]

Sorry, it is my fault. I typed it by mistake.

But if I say "If it rained, they wouldn't go outside", does [STRIKE]this one[/STRIKE] it [STRIKE]means[/STRIKE] mean it had already rained or past future? What do you mean by "past future"?

[STRIKE]Thanks a lot![/STRIKE] As you've been told, just click on the "Thank" button after we've been helpful.

See my corrections and comments above. After you explain what you mean by "past future", we can try to answer your question.

 

[MOYEEA LEE]

See my corrections and comments above. After you explain what you mean by "past future", we can try to answer your question.

The past future tense is like expressing something which would happen after a past action.

She said if it rained tomorrow, they wouldn't go outside.(tomorrow they wouldn't go outside")

But can I just say:

If it rained tomorrow, they wouldn't go outside.(Must I put something like "she thought" "she said" "she told"?)

 

[emsr2d2]

Your construction with "if" and "wouldn't" attracts the reported speech construction in this example.

Sarah said "If it rains tomorrow, we won't go outside".
Sarah said that if it rained the next day, they wouldn't go outside.

 

[MOYEEA LEE]

Your construction with "if" and "wouldn't" attracts the reported speech construction in this example.

Sarah said "If it rains tomorrow, we won't go outside".
Sarah said that if it rained the next day, they wouldn't go outside.

But can we just remove "Sarah said" and talk something in the past?

If it rained the next day, they wouldn't go outside.

Does this make sense?

 

[Matthew Wai]

If it rained, they wouldn't go outside.

This one means it had already rained or past future?

1. They were in a villa. If it rained, they wouldn't go outside.
2. They are in a villa. If it rained, they wouldn't go outside.

The conditional clauses in 1 and 2 refer to the past and the future respectively. We don't know whether it rained in 1. It is unlikely to rain in 2.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't agree that it's unlikely in #2.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think it is unlikely in 2 because it is the second conditional. That's what I learnt from grammar sites.

 

[Matthew Wai]

In 2, the speaker considers it not very likely to rain.

Is it OK to say so?

I responded after nine minutes.

 

[emsr2d2]

I still disagree that #2 suggests any likelihood or otherwise of it raining.