What's the difference between "had (verb)" vs the past-tense verb?
For example, "had worked there," vs "worked there." My native language does not have past tense. So I have hard time understanding how "I had worked there" vs "I worked there" vs "I used to work there" are different?
- alan PLv 77 months ago
If you use had you are looking at the past from a view point in the past. Compared "I worked here from 1980 to 2000" with "In 1990 I had worked here for 10 years." If you say "used to" you are emphasizing that what you did in the past has now stopped.
- Dv8sLv 77 months ago
All are correct and mean exactly the same thing. I never realized how many ways there are to say the same thing in English. Crazy
- oldprofLv 77 months ago
With the auxiliary verb (e.g., had) that action (the verb) becomes more definite. It indicates that the action is definitely over. It's in the past.
Without the auxiliary verb the action is less definite. In fact one might even say "I worked there and still do." On the other hand, "I had worked there and still do" is totally inconsistent time wise.
"I used to work there" is pretty much the same meaning as "I had worked there." It's definitely in the past and over.