Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Past and present perfect

"Until now, few species have ever been removed from the list.
When they ...., it was usually because they had become extinct."
I have to use only one word.
I could fill the blank with "have"(with "been removed" implied*) and
"were" (changing the tense to a passive simple past with "removed"
implied), but
what with "had"?
It sounds wrong to me, but if I consider the grammatical correctness of
it I don't understand why(a past perfect could be there since the
sentence is in the past)...can someone help me?
* "implied" rende bene il nostro "sottinteso"?

 * "implied" rende bene il nostro "sottinteso"?
Spero di si`! Si dice anche "understood".
Antonio

 I have to use only one word.
"had" should be your word.
Kiuhnm

 "have been" sarebbe giusto.
Are you sure?
In the first sentence we have "until now" therefore we must use the 
present perfect, but why should the second sentence use the same tense 
of the first one? Owing to "had become", we should use "had" in order to 
indicate a point in the past.
Kiuhnm


Ops, were.
Kiuhnm

 indicate a point in the past.
Aridaje... "were", not "had".
Kiuhnm

Kiuhnm ha scritto:

"have" too, according to the answer key.

 indicate a point in the past.
The two sentences should make sense as a whole, but, that aside, the
choices made for the first sentence do not dictate the choices made
for the second sentence. Each should stand on its own merits (and
support the required context).
Looking back, I see that I settled on "were" in the end (if no recasting
is allowed). That does (to me) introduce a certain dissonance with the
first sentence, which is why I'd prefer a complete recast, changing that
"was" to "is" and "had" to "have".
Perhaps even better:
 "Until now, few species have ever been removed from the list.
  When have, it has usually been because they have become   
  extinct."
That keeps the second sentence firmly in the past, which is
where the removals (up to this point) have occurred.
It's still a lousy homework question :-)
Antonio

 is allowed).
I would agree with 'were':
"When they were [removed], it was usually because they had become
extinct."
As I see it, the first sentence refers to an action that occurred over
a prolonged period of time, so "have been removed" is appropriate. But
the second sentence refers to an action that occurred at a certain
time, so "were[ removed]" is appropriate.
Gene Ledbetter

 "have" too, according to the answer key.
Hmmm... not sure about that.
Ciao,
Enrico il Pentolaio.
-- 
Is it me or does it smell like up dog in here?

 Enrico il Pentolaio.
So says the book: "have/were"

Mario1987 ha scritto:

Sorry, "so the book says"

 Sorry, "so the book says"
Which book? Just curious...
Kiuhnm

 Which book? Just curious...
R.Side and G. Wellman
Grammar and vocabulary for Cambridge advanced and proficiency
I found a pdf of the old edition on Emule.
Here is the new edition:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grammar-Vocabulary-Cambridge-Advanced-Proficiency/dp/0582518210

 Hmmm... not sure about that.
Perché?

 Perché?
Di solito nelle subordinate introdotte da "when" ci va il simple past, 
che io sappia.
"Until now, few species have ever been removed from the list.
When they ...., it was usually because they had become extinct.
Ciao,


 che io sappia.
Beh, però dipende dalla frase, credo.
"She appreciates that objects exist in time and space and continue to exist
even when they have been removed from sight."
http://books.google.it/books?lr=&q=%22when+they+have+been+removed%22&sa=N&st
art=10

 art=10
Uhm... leggendo le prime due pagine di risultati, vedo che piuttosto 
spesso il "when" ha lo stesso valore di "una volta che" (once) o la 
sostituzione con "once" non stravolge il significato, e fin qui ci siamo.
Esempi:
- Their organization very speedily renews many parts, euch as the tail 
or toes, when they have been removed.
- When they have been removed after their first moulting, six meals may 
be given them, during the space of one day and night.
- The flow comes fr.ini between the pendulous flaps of skin, and ceases 
when they have been removed.
- birds have recognized certain objects seen along the road during their 
removal, but the same thing occurs when they have been removed in
covered cages
-  When they have been removed, the clay lies on the rock below
- The flow comes from between the pendulous flaps of skin, and ceases 
when they have been removed.
- (il tuo esempio)
- dal Il Baptist Magazine del 1817:
<< So have we seen professors apparently run well and their profession 
shine for a season; but when their circumstances and connexions have 
been changed, when their own interest has come in contact with their 
religion, when powerful temptations have been presented to their 
passions, or when they have been removed and placed in different 
society, we look for them as our brethren with whom we used to 
associate, but lo! they are no more as professing Christians their lamps 
are gone out!
(ho aggiunto un po' di punteggiature secondo i (miei) gusti 
contemporanei... google l'aveva tolta completamente)
Qui vediamo appunto che il tempo della proposizione principale è il 
presente, che mi pare l'aspetto più importante.
Esempio diverso:
- there have been many instances when they have been removed before any 
record could be made
Io qui ci avrei messo il simple past, ma mi tocca fidarmi degli autori, 
che dai loro cognomi (John Hunter, Margaret Cox) sembrano essere a tutti 
gli effetti di madrelingua inglese. C'è qualcuno che me la può spiegare?
Tornando finalmente alla frase di partenza, ci avrei messo il simple 
past senza troppe esitazioni perché la frase principale di quel periodo 
colloca il tutto nel passato ("it was usually because...").
Boh, sono graditi pareri anche di altri!
:-)


 even when they have been removed from sight."
Here, "when" means "after".
On the other hand, in the original sentence, "when" refers to a specific 
point in time, that is the moment the species were removed from the list.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in
news:47c492a1$0$17947$
4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it
: 

Actually, just to stir the pot a little, I think it refers to
specific pointS in time: the removals have not all occurred at
one single point in the past but at multiple points in the past,
as each species has become extinct.
Not that it changes anything substantial ...
I've forgotten the original sentence by now, but I still go
for "When they were, it was because they had become extinct".
(Except I'm sure that doesn't fit the one word requirement).
Antonio

 (Except I'm sure that doesn't fit the one word requirement).
The book accepts "were" and "have" (have been).
Kiuhnm

 colloca il tutto nel passato ("it was usually because...").
Possibile, però c'è anche il richiamo della prima frase, "Until now... ever
been...", che potrebbe indurre a mantenere il present perfect, IMHO.
