In 1860, the Philological Society launched its effort

[sahandsepehrnia]

You guys are great. I wish you made a class specialized for those already at the mid-700 level looking to score 750+.

[jnelson0612]

We have three wonderful "Quest for 750" workshops in sentence correction, general quant, and data sufficiency. Check them out!

[kvitkod]

Dear Manhattan team, I cannot find below workshop. Please help!

We have three wonderful "Quest for 750" workshops in sentence correction, general quant, and data sufficiency. Check them out!

[tim]

http://www.manhattangmat.com/gmat-prepa ... ne-day.cfm

[neal.n.kumar]

Hi Stacy,

Just to clarify, the two following are grammatically correct:

1. ..."although the project took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford dictionary had been born."

2. ..."although the project would take more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford dictionary was born."

So, the real issue here is that we need to distinguish time in the past and by using all past tense (answer choice B), we can't distinguish between what came first?

Thanks!

NNK

[jnelson0612]

Hi Stacy,

Just to clarify, the two following are grammatically correct:

1. ..."although the project took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford dictionary had been born."

2. ..."although the project would take more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford dictionary was born."

So, the real issue here is that we need to distinguish time in the past and by using all past tense (answer choice B), we can't distinguish between what came first?

Thanks!
NNK

Hi Neal,
I'm not Stacey, but I think that everything you have posted is correct. :-)

[ali1]

The SC guide states that we should only use Perfect tenses only when necessary. If the sequence of events are obvious, then the past perfect is not necessary. By this logic, I chose B thinking that the sequence of events was obvious--the project had to be completed before the dictionary could be "born".

But I guess the sequence is not so obvious. Does the GMAT commonly have these types of Q's where we would be pegged for choosing the past perfect tense when the sequence of events is obvious?

[tim]

you're absolutely right about the use of past perfect. that's why the correct answer doesn't use past perfect..

[shankgupt]

This is a complicated one.

Re: born vs. complete, "born" is being used as a metaphor (of course, since a dictionary can't literally be born :) ). In this case "born" means it was started. Logically, the start needs to occur before the completion.

Answer B changes the first verb from "would take" to the simple past "took." When using past tense, we default to the simple tense unless a reason exists to use one of the more complex tenses (in which case we are required to use the more complex tense). In this case, two simple past tenses in the same sentence indicate that the two events took place essentially simultaneously, but that is not the case. First, the book was "born" and then, some 60 years later, it was completed. This kind of situation requires the past perfect tense (used to indicate which of two past events that took place at different times occurred first and which occurred second).

For the "future" issue, there are actually two different circumstances here. The first half of the sentence (before the semi-colon) is set in the past tense. The second half is written from the point of view of the timeframe of the first half. At the point that it was launched, it was also born - these mean the same thing - but it was not yet completed. From the viewpoint of the time it was launched (in the past), the completion is sometime in the future.

Answer E puts the "birth" in the future and the completion in the past, which is illogical. Answer D correctly puts the "birth" in the past (simultaneous with launch) and the completion in the future from the point of view of the "birth."

Make sense?

Hi Stacey,

I perfectly agree with your explanation that we should use *complicated tenses* when the order of actions is not clear and has to be made clear. In rest all cases, you should restrict to use Simple Tenses.

Don't you think that presence of *60 years* itself makes the sequence of the actions and the time frame of the actions clear and they should use only simple tenses and thus I feel B is correct.

Can you please throw some light on the above?

Thanks,
Shankey

[jlucero]

The problem with (B) is that with two past tense verbs, it implies that both events ended at the same time- after 60 years the project was both completed and born at the same time.

It took 10 years to write, but I finished my novel in 2000. (in 2000 I finished my novel and I had finished 10 years of writing)

(D) gives "was born" as the past tense event and the "would take 60 years to complete" comes after the time when the dictionary was born.

It would take 10 years to publish, but in 2000, I finished my novel. (finished in 2000, published in 2010)

[gmatwork]

After reading all the posts, I am still confused about what tense are we actually using in (D)

As per my understanding we are using two simple past tenses in (d)

'Would take' and " was born"

Are we using two simple past tenses rather than using past + past perfect combination, because the sequence of events is clear - first 'born' and then action of completion?

The first part of the sentence before semicolon is specifying a time point for the events that occurred in the second part of the sentence after the semicolon; past perfect in unnecessary for this sentence because sequence of events is clear in this sentence.

[tim]

the "was" is simple past tense. the "would" indicates a predicted future relative to that past time point. as Ron often says, i don't know the exact term for this tense, but the term is not nearly as important as knowing what that construction does..

[thanghnvn]

I fail this question

when ever we see 2 tense in 2 verbs (see the tense split), ask ourself is the 2 verbs happen at the same time or different time to use the same tense or different tenses.

that is a takeaway. do you thing that tip helps. ?

the problem for non native is that we can understand the explanation here but can not solve the new problems. pls help in this point.

[jnelson0612]

I fail this question

when ever we see 2 tense in 2 verbs (see the tense split), ask ourself is the 2 verbs happen at the same time or different time to use the same tense or different tenses.

that is a takeaway. do you thing that tip helps. ?

the problem for non native is that we can understand the explanation here but can not solve the new problems. pls help in this point.

Yes, verb tenses are going to be hard for non-native students. I would give this area some study . . . identify the simple past, present, and future tenses. Also work to identify past perfect and present perfect tenses and learn when it is appropriate to use them.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi -- after reading the thread above, I still have a question.

I can see why "would take" and "was" is needed to differentiate two events at different times.

That being said, the option that uses "took more than 60 years" and "dictionary was born". Doesn't the 60 years in itself indicate a different time/event? Is that not enough?