4 ms·
>It simply means something that took place prior to a moment in the past True, but that implies that there exists such a moment with particular significance. O
by jere 14y ago
>It simply means something that took place prior to a moment in the past
True, but that implies that there exists such a moment with particular significance. Otherwise, you wouldn't use that tense. In other words, it leaves you thinking Bill Gates donated 36 billion dollars before X, where X is his death, an alien invasion, the collapse of the dollar, etc.
I don't know if there is a rule of thumb as to what tense to use, but "had donated" in this context feels plain wrong. That kind of dissonance is captured perfectly by this Mitch Hedberg quote:
>I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.
- dfxm12 14y agoLike I said, "had donated" is ambiguous, however, inferring that this must mean Bill Gates either died or gave the donated money back is more than a bit of a stretch.
- raverbashing 14y agoWell, yes, it's a bitch of a stretch because of our context, still the phrase is ambiguous, so it's better with 'has' The phrase certainly can be fixed if it refers to some event like 'Bill Gates had donated 36 billion before he left Microsoft'