Why the shift to past perfective when the whole sentence is in the present?

Question

I was looking at Collins' definition of double-cross:
If someone you trust double-crosses you, they do something which harms you instead of doing something they had promised to do.
So we have double-crosses and harms in present simple, but then the last choice of tense and aspect is had promised in past perfective. Can someone explain to me why it cannot be present perfective? What is the point of reference in time for this past perfective?

Elliot · Answer

I find this definition sketchy at best. It assumes, as one might say, facts not in evidence.
The point they are making however is that Now one does what harms you instead of what they in the past had promised you they would do. The present is the expectation and betrayal while the past contains the promise.
An adequate definition would be that you were betrayed by someone or their promise. Double or secondary promises and betrayals are not required.
P.S. I have Never heard the term "past perfective", nor has my spell checker. Only Past Perfect.

Why the shift to past perfective when the whole sentence is in the present?

One Answer

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question