by the time we got to the cinema the film

Set in their own timeline, his 2007 film is a remake of John Carpenter’s original film, albeit with more of a gritty and gory texture that also gives a fuller picture of Michael Myers’ past. Your ex-partner wants to be in touch with you. My girlfriend's got a girlfriend now. He even admitted to using a fake Instagram account to talk to her. Flipboard. Today, I found out that my ex was having sex with other girls while we were in a "break" We broke up in good conditions, we were both super busy and barely had time for each other. 1 1. BY THE TIME. By the time (possibly before and up to X time) is prepostional phrase that is followed by a clause that (1) relates a time-frame, for viewing the progress or completion of the activity in the main clause; (2) includes an activity having duration and an end-point. FUTURE PROGRESSIVE. The sun will be setting by the time I get home. The film was released in the United States by Universal Pictures in a limited release on December 16, 2005, followed by a wide release on December 25. It garnered generally mixed reviews from critics and was a commercial failure, earning $38 million worldwide from a $45 million budget. [2] Contents 1 Plot 2 Cast Other quiz: Grammar Tina gave her ticket to the concert to John, ____ then sold it to Nick. A. who. B. that. C. which. D. whose Site De Rencontre Dans Le Var Gratuit. 1 1. By the time the police arrived, the two men had disappeared. 2. By the time the police had arrived, the two men had disappeared. According to the key to one of the exercises in English Grammar in Use, both are possible, but I really fail to see why. It makes no sense to me use the past perfect twice and therefore I would say 1. In fact, the author gives a few example sentences, and he never uses the past perfect twice in conjunction with “by the time” By the time she arrived, most of the other guests had left. By the time we got to the cinema, the film had already started. So, is 2 wrong? Thank you in advance. 2 I had a nice neat answer to this, which is that we often don't use the past perfect when it's logically possible to, and just use the simple past, as long as the time relationship is clear. However, looking at it again, you're right - why is the past perfect used there? It is quite correct; 2 sounds quite natural; but I can't justify the time sequence. It suggests I'm now speaking at 10 of a past time 9 and at that time the police had already arrived at 8 but before then the two men had disappeared at 7 But what is the 9 time point doing in this sequence? Then I thought about the present/future equivalent. The same sort of idiom is possible 1a. By the time the police arrive, the men will have escaped. 2a. By the time the police have arrived, the men will have escaped. Again, 1a is correct, though 2a is also idiomatic but not very logical. As the simple event 'arrive' is sufficient, why should we talk about the state 'have arrived'? 3 2a sounds better to me. The time is defined like this it is the time when we can say "the police have arrived". The time reference has changed, and the present is irrelevant. If you want to be very legalistic, you can say "When the police shall have arrived, the men shall have escaped". 4 Thank you entangledbank and se16teddy. However, looking at it again, you're right - why is the past perfect used there? It is quite correct; 2 sounds quite natural; but I can't justify the time sequence. That was my point indeed. In 'By the time the police arrived, the two men had disappeared' we have a time sequence that makes sense. - First wwo mean disappear. - Later the police arrive. This is just standard usage of the past perfect. However, the same doesn't hold true for 'By the time the police had arrived, the two men had disappeared.' 1a. By the time the police arrive, the men will have escaped. 2a. By the time the police have arrived, the men will have escaped. Again, 1a is correct, though 2a is also idiomatic but not very logical. As the simple event 'arrive' is sufficient, why should we talk about the state 'have arrived'? Actually, I don't find these all that problematic. They seem similar to, 'I'll give you my address when I find / have found somewhere to live.' Here the present simple and the present perfect have the same meaning. Do you agree that his is a similar case? Last edited Oct 9, 2012 5 Actually, I don't find these all that problematic. They seem similar to, 'I'll give you my address when I find / have found somewhere to live.' Here the present simple and the present perfect have the same meaning. Do you agree that his is a similar case? In the case of your original two sentences, I think that both are acceptable in AE and that the meaning is the same. I prefer the first variant. 1a. By the time the police arrive, the men will have escaped. 2a. By the time the police have arrived, the men will have escaped. Again I think that both are acceptable and that the meaning is the same. I have a slight preference for the first. In the case of your last sentence I'll give you my address when I find / have found somewhere to live., the two variants are the same for me. 6 Hi guys, I'll write here because the main topic is quite the same. My grammar book advanced grammar in used by Martin Hewings says that this sentence "I'll probably have finished breakfast by the time the children got up" is wrong. At first, I thought that it was incorrect because of the use of "got up".I would have written "I'll probably have finished breakfast by the time the children get up". Instead the key answer is" ... the children have got up." Do you think that my attempt could be correct as well? thank you 7 Your attempt sounds fine to me, Giuggiola, as does 'have got up', of course. It could be argued, however, that there is a slight nuance between the two 'have got up' may suggest that the children are already up and downstairs in the kitchen wanting their breakfast, whilst 'get up' could be understood to mean that the children are still in the process of getting up. A very fine line too fine to be of much importance, in my opinion. 8 Thank you london calling 9 I would use only "get up" here; "have got up" sounds very weird to me. 10 I would use only "get up" here; "have got up" sounds very weird to me. That's because it's BE, probably. We do use the perfect tenses more than you, generally speaking of course. 11 "By the time we had digested this information we seemed to have come a long way from our starting point of GM. But then we asked what if VRSA got into a genetically-modified crop? What would be a possible outcome?" Ronan Bennett The conspiracy to undermine the truth about our GM drama Personally I believe that digested simple past works better in the sentence than had digested past perfect. Have I understood correctly? Thank you 12 Not better, but maybe a possible alternative The use of "had" is the typical use to place some event further in the past than something else in the past. The sentence tells of events in a time sequence and is followed by another "But then ..." continuing the sequential placement of events in a storyline. By the way, there's no reason a VRSA gene getting into a GM crop is any more likely than it would into a "non-GM" crop, so the concern should be about VRSA and not GM, but that's a separate issue If it were done deliberately, we are then in a "James Bond evil antagonist and nucear weapons in space" type of plot EEk 13 Not better, but maybe a possible alternative The use of "had" is the typical use to place some event further in the past than something else in the past. The sentence tells of events in a time sequence and is followed by another "But then ..." continuing the sequential placement of events in a storyline. By the way, there's no reason a VRSA gene getting into a GM crop is any more likely than it would into a "non-GM" crop, so the concern should be about VRSA and not GM, but that's a separate issue If it were done deliberately, we are then in a "James Bond evil antagonist and nucear weapons in space" type of plot EEk I see, thank you so much for your explanation, JulianStuart 14 1. By the time the police arrived, the two men had disappeared. 2. By the time the police had arrived, the two men had disappeared. According to the key to one of the exercises in English Grammar in Use, both are possible, but I really fail to see why. It makes no sense to me use the past perfect twice and therefore I would say 1. In fact, the author gives a few example sentences, and he never uses the past perfect twice in conjunction with “by the time” By the time she arrived, most of the other guests had left. By the time we got to the cinema, the film had already started. So, is 2 wrong? Thank you in advance. Hi guys, first time here so expect some slip ups. I believe that When we use the past perfect the correct usage is to emphasise that a previous action had "Already" ocurred before another in the past. So we might say that it's the most previous past that exists. Therfore, when we use the first two examples with the police the only reason why 2 may sound right is because in our minds we are using n1, this is to say, by the time the police arrived they had already disappeared. so subconsciously we know the first verb should be past simple...i mean... if we use "already" as a mark and say; by the time the police already arrived they had already disappeared...we may only use 1 "already" optionally, as one action has to be before the other and that action is the past perfect where the "already" could be used. with the past simple "already" shouldn't be used here. Not with the simple past. So personally I deduct that the correct form can only be the 1st. Hope I haven't Complicated things further Thanks [ Grammar ]By the time we got to the cinema, the film startedB. had startedC. startingSelect your answer A B C D E Random Topics Each or EveryCome vs. GoPronoun vs. PronounsGrammar wishes and regrets3rd Person SingularConjunctions - ConnectorsPast Perfect & Past SimplePresent Continuous for FuturePast Simple and ContinuousOther quiz Grammar › ViewMy husband is considering ………………. the job. A. changing B. to change Ed and Ing Endings › ViewLittle Bob was ………………. when he saw the terrifiedB. terrifyingHow to use Read the question carefully, then select one of the answers button. Mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the correct one to complete each of the following sentences. The film ______ by the time we ______ to the cinema. A. had already started/got B. already started/ had gotten C. had already started/had gotten D. has already started/ got trả lời câu hỏi trước khi xem đáp án bên dưới Câu 1 Đáp án đúng AĐáp án A Vế sau rõ ràng là dùng thì quá khứ đơn diễn tả hành động đã xảy ra trong quá khứ Ta nhận thấy có By the time + 1 sự kiện xảy ra trong quá khứ => dùng thì quá khứ hoàn thành diễn tả một hành động xảy ra trước một hành động khác trong quá khứ CÂU HỎI KHÁC VỀ THÌ CỦA ĐỘNG TỪ My parents ______ tomorrow to stay with me for a few days Yesterday, I_____ for work late because I _____ to set my alarm He found a watch when he _____ in the street Has Paul come to terms with his examination results? By the end of this March he ______here for 20 years. This is the third time James ______ the volunteer program to the village My neighbor is a wildlife photographer. Over the years, she _______ many prizes I can’t believe that you ______ three pizzas already! I ______ them in fifteen minutes ago! I was tired when you saw me because I ____ for the exam I can’t believe that you _______ all the three exercises! You just started five minutes ago In my native dialect, have would be used instead of be, there. We tend to use present perfect when using verbs like finish, start, and so on as verbs in the usual way. Finished is generally recognised as being an adjective as well as the past participle of to finish, but we usually use it as a verb, too. There are dialects where it's normal to say something is finished rather than has finished, and that's perfectly grammatical by any standard - and we use the adjective for some things, like completing a task rather than a film or playing ending. Some authorities allow for the use of to be in forming a present perfect when using the passive voice and an intransitive verb, like the Christian greeting at Easter He is risen. By those standards, "the film will already be started" is a passive construction, and grammatical. This is more common in some dialects than others. In all the dialects that I have good familiarity with, "the film will already have started" is more idiomatic. The use of be would be sufficiently strange to many people, so that they might consider it wrong, even though some formal grammars would say it is not ungrammatical - and whether people think you're wrong is often more important than whether you are wrong by some reference standard. The Past Perfect or The Past Simple

by the time we got to the cinema the film