0

I've stumpled upon a peculiar usage of the Past Perfect Tense.

At the end of the WWII, the Cold War had begun. The world would lay divided between two superpowers.

This context seems suitable rather for the Past Simple Tense.

I would be thankful for any hints as to why this tense was used.

Have a good day, Damian

Taman
  • 1
  • You need to provide the context and a link if available. Context will tell you if there was a past action used as a point of reference. – fev Jun 15 '23 at 11:34
  • 3
    Hello, Taman. Please link to the source. The suspect use of 'lay' for 'lie' gives one to think the source material (or transmission) is of queryable quality. // Though I'd almost certainly (context often licenses unexpectedly) use 'By' instead of 'At', I'd use past perfect here as in the example. I think the past simple here doesn't immerse one in the situation as well (though your alternative is certainly fine on grammatical grounds). – Edwin Ashworth Jun 15 '23 at 11:35
  • The Cold War did not begin until WWII ended. So "At the end of the WWII, the Cold War had begun" cannot be true. Another hint of non-native speaker is using 'the' in "the WWII", whereas it would be more natural in, for example, "the second World War." – Weather Vane Jun 15 '23 at 11:40
  • 1
    Ah, historical context demanding a better example. // If someone is (probably unhelpfully as 1947 is the date usually accepted) arguing that the Cold War had its origins before the end of WWII, even the historic present (+ present perfect) ('We are at the end of WWII. The Cold War has begun.') is stylistically more immediate, less clinical/impersonal. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 15 '23 at 11:45
  • "At" seems less good than "by" but if you are emphasising that you're talking about the precise moment, it might feel better to say "at this point in time" rather than "by this time", to better set up your paragraph. – Stuart F Jun 15 '23 at 13:06
  • @WeatherVane: That's either your opinion or a matter of historical fact. What the OP's cited text says (as necessary entailment, not just possible implication) is that the Cold War had already started by the time WW2 ended. In terms of the use of English, it's not really relevant whether anyone agrees with the "truth value" of that "entailment", but I don't have a problem with it anyway. – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '23 at 13:22
  • @FumbleFingers it's not my opinion. I looked it up, and as Edwin mentioned, 1947 is usually quoted, although its roots may be been earlier. – Weather Vane Jun 15 '23 at 17:53
  • But as I said, the "truth value" of the text is irrelevant. We're interested here in what the cited text means - whether true *or* false. – FumbleFingers Jun 15 '23 at 19:05

1 Answers1

1

I think it was used because the author's English wasn't that good. Because normally, you'd write "WWII" and not "the WWII" (see this NGRAM), and you could just say "At the end of WWII, the Cold War began".

BUT as others have pointed out, you could justify the past perfect tense with some context.

For example, if the author believed that the Cold War actually began before the end of WWII, they could say: "The day the war ended, I was looking for a way to get from Moscow to Paris but I had no passport and at the end of WWII, the Cold War had already begun, so there was no way for me to go."

Then they could separate the long sentence into shorter ones for added drama and there you go, your original sentence is explained and justified :)

eltomito
  • 1,592