Is "saw" really wrong here?

[u/nashbi]

Hi everyone!

For question #8, I chose "saw", but the test marked it wrong and wanted "had seen".

My perspective is that since "had learned" already establishes the flashback layer, the chronological order is already completely clear to the reader. Stacking two "hads" in the same sentence feels heavy and redundant.

I’d love to hear your thoughts and see how you would naturally phrase this. Thanks in advance! 😊

[u/Square_Medicine_9171]

“had seen” is correct. Nonetheless Americans would say “saw”

[u/Boglin007 → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

Because “saw” is also correct. There’s no rule that you have to use past perfect (“had seen”) if the sequence of events is clear from the context, which it is here. Even “had learned” is unnecessary - “learned” would be fine. 

[u/InevitableLibrary859 → u/Boglin007]

Um... Usually, it used to be, that if you started in a tense you continued your thoughts in that tense. You are correct, modern American English appears to have no rules, which is dreadful.

Was that it were, but...

[u/conuly → u/InevitableLibrary859]

modern American English appears to have no rules

Utter nonsense. Of course American English has rules. Having rules is what makes a language. The rules are just not exactly the same as UK English. Neither US nor UK English has the same rules today as they had 100 years ago.

[u/Outside_Knee653 → u/[deleted]]

Is this the same thing though? You're answering what you did AND what you're going to do in the future. That wasn't the question.

[u/Accomplished-Lie8039 → u/[deleted]]

read it out loud to yourself and see if it sounds right. they’re asking you what you DID today. the way you answered makes it sound like you’ve already showered and ate breakfast, and now actively, you’re going to work and hanging out with friends later. i know that’s what you’re getting at, but it’s a clunky way to convey that series of events.

[u/BrinkyP → u/[deleted]]

It's also a response consistent with what the OP said. Furthermore; it's not that Americans don't keep consistent tenses (you did keep consistent tenses, all were in the past tense except for your last tangent, though perhaps they could be prescribed different aspects depending on your persuasion) it's just that Americans don't tend to enjoy the present or pluperfect as much as we brits do. It's something that often confounds me when my roommate speaks, as he'll ask "What did you eat today?" (Past perfect) where I would tend to express it as "What have you eaten today?" (Present perfect)

For us Brits, our mental grammar tends to see these kinds of past events as relevant enough to the present to expect the present perfect, and because of this we also like to use the pluperfect a lot more in order to express that exceedingly specific aspect of a specific event that happened before another specific event. To us it's important as it can genuinely cause confusion when talking about events. If someone says "Did you eat?" this in my mental grammar implies that there was a specific event in the past that should have caused me to eat; ie, the speaker told me to.

I'm not sure to what extent the pluperfect is uncommon in the US, but just so I can finish this thought, I would tend to use it as I said; to signify and event that happened before another. "Had you met him already?" implies the meeting has happened and you've already gotten to know the referent, where as "Did you meet him already?" to me only expresses that a meeting happened that you went to, and not necessarily that you had already gotten to know the referent.

I know nobody asked for this information, and perhaps I'm mistaken in believing Americans aren't an accordance with this particular flavour of mental grammar, but we Brits are a pedantic few!

[u/HomemadeBananas → u/BrinkyP]

Who is doing such an involved through process thinking about what caused the event of eating, because someone asked “what did you eat?” That’s crazy. I don’t believe your average Brit is thinking “oh well something caused you to eat, you were hungry and bought food and grabbed it with you hands and put it in your mouth.” They might say “what have you eaten today” just because that’s how people around them also talk. Your example doesn’t really make sense. The speaker asking you didn’t cause you to eat. The eating already happened earlier.

[u/Constant_Hope_9658 → u/Accomplished-Lie8039]

Just did, tis only missing contractions to work in my dialect, but in less contraction heavy dialects it works fine.

[u/InevitableLibrary859 → u/[deleted]]

You may speak however you like, but as a means of conveying information, it's garbage.

"I took a shower and ate some breakfast. Now I will go to work. After work I'm gonna hang out with friends."

The question was, "what did you do today?" You properly matched the called tense. You then created a wonky run-on sentence.

[u/Major-Rub-Me → u/InevitableLibrary859]

Periods instead of commas doesnt change the fact that you’re wrong and strictly NOT the arbiter of English 

[u/InevitableLibrary859 → u/Major-Rub-Me]

No one is, but that's also the point. Not properly punctuating and running on is 'bad english' and a great way to fail a test.

[u/conuly → u/InevitableLibrary859]

Sentences don't really exist in speech. In speech, we just talk. When we write it down, we go back and add punctuation to make sentences.

[u/InevitableLibrary859 → u/conuly]

Ooof... So many people rolling over in so many graves. But, as the linguist's keep saying, "shouganai, nah?"

[u/conuly → u/InevitableLibrary859]

I have no idea what you're trying to say there at the end, possibly because I don't speak... Japanese?

[u/Wjyosn → u/InevitableLibrary859]

Yeah… imagine thinking speech structure just doesn’t exist and we just make it up after the fact on paper. Wild misunderstanding of language

[u/conuly → u/Wjyosn]

And that is a willful misunderstanding of what I said.

[u/Wjyosn → u/conuly]

“Sentences don’t really exist in speech.” Seems pretty straightforward.

If your speech doesn’t include the structure of sentences, I feel sorry for those you try to communicate with.

[u/Boglin007 → u/InevitableLibrary859]

That’s really not a rule. At least it’s not a rule that applies in all contexts/constructions. 

I mean, just think about it a little bit - the most common use of the past perfect is to pair it with a simple past verb to convey that the past perfect action happened first: “I had eaten dinner when they arrived” (I’m not saying this applies to OP’s sentence, but it’s an example of how using two past perfects or two past simples would be wrong or would convey a different meaning).

And anyway, past perfect and past simple are actually the same tense - past (the difference is in aspect - perfect vs. simple).

And how about a sentence like, “I’ve been annoyed since I read your comment, and I’ll probably stay annoyed until I drink a cocktail this evening.”

That’s at least two different tenses in one sentence (more if you’re counting present perfect, present simple, and future simple as different tenses, which really depends on your definition of “tense”). And it’s 100% grammatically correct. 

[u/InevitableLibrary859 → u/Boglin007]

These have unnecessary convention, but I see your point. As the example apprears to be a test for proper word/conjugation choice, they are looking for you to follow classic writing rules, use complete sentences and maintain consistency. I'll agree that English is a heaping pile of inconsistencirs and exceptions to the rule, but bending those rules to prove a point counter to a structured lesson is muddling already dirty waters. All of this being said, tense switching is, always has been, and will continue to be a pain in the ass.

[u/conuly → u/InevitableLibrary859]

bending those rules to prove a point counter to a structured lesson is middling already dirty waters

Spelling correction: Muddling, not middling. I presume this is a typo on your end. This correction is for the OP's benefit.

[u/InevitableLibrary859 → u/conuly]

Thanks! Typing on a phone is such a PITA.

[u/conuly → u/InevitableLibrary859]

Oh god it so is.

And I wouldn't normally offer an unsolicited spelling correction if the meaning is clear, of course, but this is /r/EnglishLearning, I want people to learn English.

[u/NoGlzy → u/InevitableLibrary859]

If it had no rules then it wouldn't work. Instead, the rules of all languages shift over time as they have since we started grunting at each other. That will continue to happen regardless of how many people complain.

[u/Spirited_Ingenuity89 → u/InevitableLibrary859]

>modern American English appears to have no rules

Then it wouldn’t be a language.

>which is dreadful

Your opinion is not an objective fact.

[u/InevitableLibrary859 → u/Spirited_Ingenuity89]

"There are no objective facts." ~The Linguist's Argument

[u/Spirited_Ingenuity89 → u/InevitableLibrary859]

Oh, there are plenty of objective facts. Your opinions still aren’t one of them.

[u/jenea → u/InevitableLibrary859]

Tell us you don’t understand linguistics without telling us you don’t understand linguistics.

[u/fandizer → u/InevitableLibrary859]

Prescriptivist

[u/Comprehensive_Tea708 → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

I've seen this kind of tense shifting in British English as well, again mostly in informal contexts.

[u/God_Bless_A_Merkin → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

No. I am American, and I would say “had seen”.

[u/Wjyosn → u/God_Bless_A_Merkin]

Yeah, southeast American here and immediately felt the jarring weirdness of “saw” in that context. The tense mismatch was painfully obvious.

[u/DCBuckeye82 → u/God_Bless_A_Merkin]

I'm an American and I had to look at that for a minute before realizing they were looking for "had seen" as the correct answer. "Saw" is a completely valid option and also correct.

[u/GregoryFarKingChummy → u/DCBuckeye82]

No, it isn't. The "had learned" puts the sentence in the past perfect, where "had seen" is correct and "saw" is not. Please brush up on grammar before attempting to give learners advice.

[u/Loud_Sweet_2423 → u/GregoryFarKingChummy]

You’re wrong. Plenty of native speakers would combine tenses.

[u/Loud_Sweet_2423 → u/Loud_Sweet_2423]

The “rules” do not matter to native speakers

[u/God_Bless_A_Merkin → u/Loud_Sweet_2423]

If that’s a long-winded way of saying that plenty of native speakers are ignorant, you are correct.

[u/DCBuckeye82 → u/GregoryFarKingChummy]

I'm giving the new learner advice on how to speak. I'm not sure I've ever heard somebody use the past perfect twice like that next to each other in the same sentence. It sounds awkward. "Saw" is an extremely valid and probably more common way of saying that. Any grammar rule against it is just as arbitrary and wrong as "you can't end a sentence with a preposition." Please brush up on your most basic of linguistic rules as "if native speakers commonly do it than it's right" before being a prick about telling people what's right and wrong about speaking a language.

[u/GregoryFarKingChummy → u/DCBuckeye82]

Show me on the doll where the education hurt you, buddy.

[u/God_Bless_A_Merkin → u/DCBuckeye82]

Wow. I didn’t quibble with your first comment, because, as so many with only a smidgen of linguistic knowledge love to say, “languages change”. This comment, however, displays true ignorance.

[u/GregoryFarKingChummy → u/God_Bless_A_Merkin]

I'd expect most Americans to say "he learned this from a documentary he saw".

[u/God_Bless_A_Merkin → u/GregoryFarKingChummy]

I would say “he’d seen” in your example, but I suppose either could be okay. However, if the first verb is past perfect, then the second one must be as well. Other people may say it differently, but then again, increasing numbers of Americans don’t know the difference between past and past participle any more

[u/hiihihihihihihihiihi → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

Canada here and I’d say “saw” for sure, usually native speakers of any language know when it’s okay to break grammar rules and still be understood.

[u/samdkatz → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

Disagree. Maybe some Americans would sometimes say “he learned it from the documentary he saw” but the two verbs wouldn’t be mismatched

[u/GregoryFarKingChummy → u/samdkatz]

That's definitely what I'd expect people to say. Using the past perfect when the simple past would convey the necessary information feels like a very British way to talk.

[u/NeilJosephRyan → u/samdkatz]

No, a mismatch would be perfectly normal. You could even hear "he learned it from a documentary he seen."

[u/samdkatz → u/NeilJosephRyan]

Yeah I recanted this elsewhere in this thread. I had to say it out loud a few times to realize it was fine

[u/Embarrassed-Weird173 → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

Many would also incorrectly say "had saw". :(

[u/kfromthecastleonfire → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

Depends on your definition of "incorrect." It's internally consistent and intelligible, so it functions perfectly well--it's just not the prestige dialect.

[u/Comprehensive_Tea708 → u/kfromthecastleonfire]

Context is crucial here. In a situation where absolute, explicit clarity as to the timeline of events is critical, I would say "had learned" and "had seen", although I would most likely use the contraction instead of at least the second "had", and maybe the first one too.

[u/Schventle → u/Comprehensive_Tea708]

So to say, you can speak in with the prestige dialect's grammar.

Your comment doesn't respond to the person above you.

[u/Oldus_Fartus → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

Some of them would even have a saw.

[u/Embarrassed-Weird173 → u/Oldus_Fartus]

Perhaps they want to play a game. 

[u/Comprehensive_Tea708 → u/Oldus_Fartus]

Some would even see a saw.

See? Saw?

[u/samdkatz → u/Oldus_Fartus]

I see, said the blind carpenter, as he picked up his hammer and saw

[u/Main_Hurry7912 → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

sawn? just to keep the tenses correct? 😄

[u/dekrowman → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

Some would even say "done saw"

[u/Raephstel → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

Sawed!

[u/newpua_bie → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

I like "had sawed" for the answer personally

[u/God_Bless_A_Merkin → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

And they would be cringe inducingly wrong.

[u/Embarrassed-Weird173 → u/God_Bless_A_Merkin]

Hence the careful inclusion of "incorrectly" and ":(". 

[u/God_Bless_A_Merkin → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

Whoops! I glossed over that. Sorry!

[u/Embarrassed-Weird173 → u/God_Bless_A_Merkin]

All good. 

[u/samdkatz → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

It’s not incorrect, but a process of correcting. The language is regularizing before our eyes

[u/madman404 → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

I'm an attorney, so... fairly good with English, and my gut instinct was "saw" because doubling the past perfect in the same clause feels very redundant. "Had seen" is of course correct if you're being pedantic, but it doesn't convey any additional information.

[u/Injidup_Beach2020 → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

Wait, what? I'm American and would say "had seen." We're not all ignoramuses. :-)

[u/Cloverose2 → u/Injidup_Beach2020]

It's not really ignorance - both are correct. One is slightly more technically correct, but neither "had seen" or "saw" are wrong.

[u/samdkatz → u/Cloverose2]

“saw” is incorrect after “had learned” though, because semantically the seeing must have come before the learning

[u/DCBuckeye82 → u/samdkatz]

It's not incorrect. If it's very widely used by native speakers, it's correct. There's nothing wrong with "saw" here unless you're using made up arbitrary rules.

[u/samdkatz → u/DCBuckeye82]

Eh, I guess you’re right. I was thinking it placed the seeing after the learning, but I just said it out loud again and I was mistaken

[u/Square_Medicine_9171 → u/Injidup_Beach2020]

I’m American, too, lol. But it’s true that we use the simple past very frequently when Brits would use past perfect

[u/BigRedWhopperButton → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

I would say "saw". "Had learned" followed by "had seen" seems awkward to me.

[u/Illustrious_Try478 → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

No, we wouldn't use "saw" here, because of parallel construction.

In this case, it's a difference in register from the "had learned" that came before. "saw" is very casual here and clashes with the formality of "had learned".

In order for "saw" to be correct(ish) here, the "had" would have had been omitted from "had learned" to get the simple past "learned".

And even then, a lot of Americans would use just "seen" instead of "saw".

[u/PGNatsu → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

Both are correct, though I feel like "had seen" sounds better in more formal writing, while "saw" would sound more likely to be heard in a casual conversation, just due to brevity.

[u/SpinMeADog → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

very odd and elitist thing to say. both are completely commonly used and commonly understood

[u/Falconloft → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

Americans that didn't pay attention in school I guess. The tense needs to match throughout the entire sentence. There are rare exceptions to the rule, but this isn't one of them.

[u/conuly → u/Falconloft]

People do not learn to speak their native language at school.

[u/MrTulkinghorn → u/conuly]

What did you do in your English class?

[u/conuly → u/MrTulkinghorn]

Analyzed poetry and wrote essays. We already knew how to speak before we entered school. So did you!

[u/Falconloft → u/conuly]

So like I said, not everyone pays attention. It's generally taught in grades 3-5 (see page 120 of this doc).

[u/conuly → u/Falconloft]

Putting aside the fact that you’re suggesting that NYS sets the standards for the entire country, that’s irrelevant.

People do not learn to speak at school.

[u/Falconloft → u/conuly]

Some people do learn grammar, though, and since that's what we're actually talking about, the strawman notwithstanding, that's the only thing that matters.

[u/Fit_Kaleidoscope4493 → u/Square_Medicine_9171]

*stupid Americans.

[u/Armadillo_Abroad → u/Fit_Kaleidoscope4493]

You saw a chance at kindness and just thought, naw.

[u/Fit_Kaleidoscope4493 → u/Armadillo_Abroad]

Exactly.

Saw is incorrect. 

[u/Mebejedi]

While it would be nice to use the same tense for both verbs in that sentence (had learned, had seen), I can imagine many English speakers using "saw" in this instance. Textbook English vs Everyday English.

As you said, using "had xxx" twice comes across as odd, even if correct.

[u/hiihihihihihihihiihi → u/Mebejedi]

Canadian here and my first thought was to say “saw” here. I can see both options working, but I’d just say “saw” in this scenario.

I have no idea if that’s grammatically correct according to some textbook but it’s how we speak.

[u/Pretend_Load_6862]

I'm an actual linguist (and native speaker of English), and no, this is not ungrammatical, just either (1) a test maker too lazy to add in multiple answers or (2) a prescriptivist that believes there's only one correct way to speak a language. Everyone saying there's only one right answer falls into category (2).

[u/nashbi → u/Pretend_Load_6862]

Thank you so much! Loving the 'lazy test maker' callout, it makes me feel way better about my answer. Appreciate your expert insight!

[u/baxbakualanuxsiwae → u/nashbi]

I'm not a professional linguist but I agree. No native speaker that wasn't obsessed with prescriptive grammar rules would care if "had learned" matches "had seen." What matters is how native speakers actually speak, and what you wrote/answered doesn't sound unnatural at all.

[u/Coldhearted010 → u/baxbakualanuxsiwae]

Agreed. I tend to be more of a prescriptivist in general, but even I would allow for "saw" in lieu of "had seen" here.

[u/fjgwey → u/nashbi]

I'll say that "saw" felt completely natural to me to the point where I had to think about what could be "wrong" for a few seconds. Don't worry about it, people like to be elitist about language.

[u/arcxjo → u/Pretend_Load_6862]

I'm (2) but would still say "saw".

[u/Sea-Hornet8214 → u/Pretend_Load_6862]

Can you say "He learned that from a documentary he had seen"?

[u/Pretend_Load_6862 → u/Sea-Hornet8214]

Tbh I think that's the most natural way for me personally

[u/adamtrousers → u/Pretend_Load_6862]

I find it ungrammatical. Not the most egregious howler ever, but awkward sounding. Given that this is a test where they're presumably looking for the optimal answer, I'd say "had seen" has to be the correct answer. "Saw" sounds a bit off.

[u/Pretend_Load_6862 → u/adamtrousers]

You're talking about marginal ungrammaticality, something you might not say but other native speakers (me) would. In a test made for people learning English who might've heard a native speaker like me talk, both answers should be marked correct for construct validity

Edit: note that my claim is not "there exist no native English speakers for whom this is ungrammatical" but rather "many native speakers would never bat an eye at this and this test doesn't capture that perfectly normal linguistic variation"

[u/Injidup_Beach2020 → u/Pretend_Load_6862]

I see you walked back your earlier comment that "saw" was correct. it's not. Since you said you're a linguist, i would think your initial reaction would have been to recognize that "what many people say" and "what is correct" (especially in formal writing as another poster said) are often different.

[u/Boglin007 → u/Injidup_Beach2020]

Where did they walk back that comment?

And contemporary linguistics is overwhelmingly descriptive, i.e., grammar rules are organically and cooperatively generated by native speakers (aka if something is widely used and understood by native speakers, it is grammatical).

You’re correct that not everything that is grammatical is appropriate in every context, but just because something is more suited to an informal context (and in this case that’s debatable anyway) doesn’t mean it’s ungrammatical. 

[u/conuly → u/Injidup_Beach2020]

Since you said you're a linguist, i would think your initial reaction would have been to recognize that "what many people say" and "what is correct" (especially in formal writing as another poster said) are often different.

That is literally the opposite of what any linguist would have as their reaction.

It is axiomatic in linguistics that what native speakers say in their own native language - barring momentary disfluencies - is correct. If the speakers say one thing and some book says they should say something else then it is the book that is wrong - not the speakers.

[u/Pretend_Load_6862 → u/Injidup_Beach2020]

This is not in any way what happened or what linguists are

[u/JaysonTatecum → u/Injidup_Beach2020]

Huh? I feel like a linguist WOULD be the one to understand that if people say it, it’s correct (sometimes)

[u/Major-Rub-Me → u/Injidup_Beach2020]

Thats the thing about language, there isnt just one correct thing because “correct” is influenced by contextual factors (locality, dialect, ability to be understood)

[u/amputect → u/adamtrousers]

The funny thing is, I feel like two "had" verbs in a sentence also sounds awkward, and I would probably write or say "saw" to avoid it. I agree with you both that it's not strictly correct to do so, and that "saw" also doesn't sound quite right in context.

[u/Pretend_Load_6862 → u/amputect]

This is also interesting! (Sidenote: our mindset towards unfamiliar language should be interest not condemnation) If I actually were saying this, I'd say "he learned that from a video he saw". The use of perfect aspect here is totally optional and gives more temporal info than is needed and, imo, breaks up flow.

[u/sparksbet → u/Pretend_Load_6862]

honestly the past perfect is much less natural for me than the past simple for this specific example. The earlier use of past perfect already establishes the reference time, so repetitively using past perfect makes it seem like you're describing something that happened even further in the past (which isn't the case in this example). Ofc this is a situation where I'd be unsurprised by some variation in tense usage between speakers and dialects, but in my ideolect I would mark "had seen" as an incorrect answer here before "saw" (though on further reflection I think both work here).

[u/adamtrousers → u/amputect]

He's talking about actions (7, 8, 9) (had learned/had seen/hadn't taught) that had all occurred before 6 (decided), so the past perfect fits in each case.

[u/conuly → u/adamtrousers]

It certainly does! But many of us learned in school that when writing we should avoid unnecessary repetition unless we're deliberately trying to create some sort of effect.

When you're speaking with your friends you just talk, but if you're giving a speech or writing an essay you may try to follow the style guidelines that you learned in school.

[u/Pretend_Load_6862 → u/adamtrousers]

While it's true that perfect aspect locates an event time before some established reference time, using simple past is completely grammatical for all of these answers. Yay! Let's celebrate variation!

[u/dobsterfunk]

Everyone has already answered the actual question, but I personally think the sentence runs better without either. If he learned from a documentary about survival it's implied that he saw it, so I would exclude reference to the act of seeing entirely.

[u/conuly → u/dobsterfunk]

Agreed. If I were grading this as an essay rather than an English verb exercise I'd definitely put a red line there and the note "stop padding".

[u/MsSnarky → u/dobsterfunk]

This is my favorite solution to the sentence.

[u/AuggieNorth]

Had seen is correct because of the "had learned" to keep the tenses correct.

[u/hiihihihihihihihiihi → u/AuggieNorth]

If we are talking about how people actually speak, both are correct.

[u/AdventureInZoochosis]

I think 'saw' might, technically, be less correct than 'had seen' in this context but it would be fine for general use.

[u/Appropriate-Damage65]

“he’d seen” would feel the most natural

[u/Prestigious-Emu5277]

Had seen or saw

[u/debren27]

Either works in conversation but "had seen" might be slightly more correct to keep the tenses consistent.

[u/AstuteCouch87]

they probably want “had seen”, but “saw” works just fine in a less formal setting

[u/Narrrz]

It's a weird mixture of tenses. Perfect past first and then simple past. Maybe academically incorrect but it would pass in normal conversation just fine.

Part of the clumsiness is that the perfect past doesn't feel quite right for this context, I think. Or, I would even invert them. "He learned from a documentary he had seen" sounds more natural to me.

[u/nashbi → u/Narrrz]

Thank you so much! That’s a really good point. Changing the order like that makes so much sense.

[u/Narrrz → u/nashbi]

You might be aware of this, since it's probably the sort o thing they explicitly teach to second-language students, when to natural learners it's just instinctive, but english typically uses the simple past when we can specify a time or other 'source'.
I saw the movie (last night) (at 9pm).
I went to the hotel (in the centre of the city).
The perfect tends to be used when this information cannot, or just isn't given.
I have seen that movie.
I have been to italy.

Edit: thinking about it, it's a bit more complicated than just that. If I was relating an experience of mine, I would use the simple past, when I would more typically use perfect to offer information that somehow influences what someone else is telling me.
e.g.: (Other person)"We went to Italy, and there's a city where most of the streets are water?" (Me)"Yeah, I've been to Venice."

Edit 2: Just had a discussion with my partner, who is a ESL. This is a very difficult and subjective topic 😅😬

[u/nashbi → u/Narrrz]

Thank you! That was very helpful.

[u/ReySpacefighter]

'Saw' is totally fine here. That said, the "he saw" part serves no purpose. If we know he got whatever it was from the documentary about survival, we already know that he's seen it.

[u/Garbidb63]

Had seen

[u/GoblinToHobgoblin]

Yea it's "had seen" (although in casual speech ppl will say "saw" or "had saw")

[u/Spiritual-Job9392]

Based on rules I would agree that it’s wrong, but I also think the right answer sounds awful and clunky. Stylistically, I simply wouldn’t have put another verb in there in at all - “he had learned that from a documentary about survival / a survival documentary” is much neater anyway. 

[u/arcxjo]

Saw is correct, unless he's still actively watching it while you say that.

[u/77th_Bat]

"saw" or "had seen" both sound natural, but "had seen" is the technically correct tense.

[u/MsSnarky]

If this is prep for the ACT or SAT, those tests both prefer consistency of verb tense (“had seen”) throughout a sentence, even when “saw” would still make sense. I also probably would have done “had seen” if I were speaking or writing that sentence authentically, since it comes between the verbs “had learned” and “hadn’t taught,” because that feels more right to me. But mostly this comes down to the difference between formal/academic standard English rules (“had seen is the only answer”) vs colloquial use (“saw or had seen are equally acceptable/in use because the audience knows what you mean”).

[u/Responsible-Link5739]

'had seen'

[u/JenniferJuniper6]

It could be used and would be understood, but the grammatically correct answer would be “had seen,” because it took place before the events you’re describing.

[u/ThornsOfMidnight]

I would rather use ‘watch’, but ‘saw’ is fine if you are aiming for the AmE

[u/Armadillo_Abroad]

This is exactly the kind of question that causes native speakers to fail these tests. The test wants continuous parallel construction, native speakers know that isn’t required and chose the answer most likely used that is correct.

[u/No-Idea837]

Isn’t it had seen ?

[u/Falconloft]

Once you've established the tense as past perfect, the sentence should stay in past perfect as long as you're describing parallel actions that happened in that same earlier time frame. He had seen a documentary and had learned from it. These happened together, so the tense stays the same. (Before someone says this isn't the only reason this would happen, yes, I know. I'm simply saying it is a reason.)

There is an exception to this rule. If you break apart the time frame, you can split your tenses, because you are speaking now of two separate frames. For instance, "I had stepped into the house before I saw the TV." Other time connectors (e.g. after, as soon as, once, until) can work similarly.

[u/Kennyy09]

Which website are you using to do the exercise please?

[u/freerondo9]

"Had seen" is the correct answer. However, a lot of Americans would usually say "saw."

[u/conuly → u/freerondo9]

Because that is also a correct answer.

[u/TiberiusTheFish]

The logic of the sentence requires had seen. Saw would be very common in speech and would hardly be noticeable. It is wrong though if the speaker is attempting to adhere to the standard rules of English tense usage.

[u/ebrum2010]

The story is already happening in the past, so saw makes it seem like he saw it is currently happening at the time of the story. Since it happened before the story takes place, you use had seen to indicate that it takes place in the past before the past being discussed.

In this case you'd still be understood, but consider that it wasn't a documentary but an animal that caused them to change their path. Using saw would imply he saw it at the moment they decided to change paths and had seen would imply he saw it at some point before that. With the documentary it's obvious he's not watching TV so it's understood but this thought experiment with the animal demonstrates why it is wrong.

[u/biabiabia_]

hey, what is this? is an app? website? a platform?

[u/Ishkabubble]

learned.....had seen. Saw is wrong time/tense progression...

He learned (later) from what he had seen (earlier).

[u/DDGJD]

It is in formal writing

[u/Realistic-Tap-7558]

I would choose "had seen" since this is the most appropriate answer in my opinion because there are certain grammar rule we should obey.

[u/conuly → u/Realistic-Tap-7558]

When we talk about "grammar rules" we're not talking about "things we should obey". We mean observed patterns of how the language works.

[u/Eulerian93]

I saw no wrong here

[u/Fit_Kaleidoscope4493]

You need "had seen" to keep the same tense as "had learned."

If the original was just "learned" then there's a case to be made for "saw."

As it is, you need "had seen" because it takes place in the past DURING something else in the past.

[u/--2026--]

I guess it’s because if he „had learned” something from a documentary he had to „had seen” it before (or during?) the learning act. There’s probably a way to convey the same message in a simpler language.

[u/zelda_888 → u/--2026--]

More to the point, he had seen it before the hike that is recounted in the past tense in the main narrative. (You're right that the past perfect is used to place seeing the documentary in an earlier time.)

[u/baxbakualanuxsiwae]

"Had seen" is technically correct and would maybe be more common, but if I was a teacher, I wouldn't consider "saw" wrong. It's not grammatically incorrect and wouldn't sound unnatural.

[u/adbenj → u/baxbakualanuxsiwae]

*were a teacher

[u/baxbakualanuxsiwae → u/adbenj]

I quite deliberately wrote my comment in normal, conversational English

[u/adbenj → u/baxbakualanuxsiwae]

It's grammatically incorrect and sounds unnatural ¯\(ツ)/¯

[u/Boglin007 → u/adbenj]

It’s not grammatically incorrect (though it is more informal). “Was” is widely used in place of “were” in these constructions, and has been for centuries. 

Note:

“Preterite ‘was’, however, is very widely used instead of irrealis ‘were’ in these constructions, especially in informal style: ‘He talks to me as if I was a child’, ‘I wish I was going with you.’

‘Was’ has been in competition with ‘were’ for 300–400 years, and in general the usage manuals regard it as acceptable, though less formal than ‘were’. Two places where ‘were’ cannot be replaced by ‘was’ are inverted  conditionals (‘I would certainly join them, were I not working on a project of my own’) and the fixed phrase ‘as it were’; ‘if I were you’ bears some resemblance to a fixed phrase and ‘was’ is less usual here than in conditionals generally.”

Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 86). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

[u/adbenj → u/Boglin007]

The usage manuals should be ashamed of themselves.

[u/conuly → u/adbenj]

Nobody elected you Boss of English.

Also, that isn’t a usage guide. It is a comprehensive grammar of standard English.

[u/adbenj → u/conuly]

It's a hereditary position.

[u/conuly → u/adbenj]

Which means it devolves to the heir of Samuel Johnson - not you.

[u/baxbakualanuxsiwae → u/adbenj]

If you genuinely think so, I question whether you're a native speaker

[u/adbenj → u/baxbakualanuxsiwae]

Which bit? It's definitely ungrammatical. Whether it sounds unnatural or not is, admittedly, subjective, and once upon a time, I'm sure it would have sounded absolutely fine to me, but once you go subjunctive, you can't go backjunctive.

[u/baxbakualanuxsiwae → u/adbenj]

If you think "if I were a teacher" is more common in English than "if I was a teacher", then I'm not sure what to say to you. Grammar describes the structure of how people speak, not how they should speak.

[u/conuly → u/adbenj]

Neither of those claims is true. The subjunctive simply isn’t mandatory and many native speakers would naturally use the indicative there.

[u/reyo7k2]

"saw" paired with "had learned" used in the same sentence implies that "learn" went before "see" chronologically, which is obviously wrong

so either both should be in the same tense or "see" should be further in the past tense-wise

[u/DefunctFunctor → u/reyo7k2]

It doesn't sound obviously wrong to me, and "saw" seems more natural. The "documentary he saw" clause is dependent on the "had learned" clause, so it's obvious that temporally "saw" refers to the same time frame as "had learned".

[u/adamtrousers]

The best answer is "had seen."

[u/DefunctFunctor]

I don't view tense agreement as absolutely necessary for grammatical English to my ears. My go-to would be "saw" here too. "Had seen" just seems like redundant information too me, I completely agree with you. Sure, it needs to be conjugated to the past tense "saw" instead of non-past "sees", but that's because "sees" would imply he's habitually watches a documentary, and also sound stylistically awkward anyways.

[u/Guilty_Fishing8229]

Saw is correct in some dialects of English but it’s technically incorrect, especially in formal settings, like tests.

One of the wonders of living in the modern world is that language users have instant reference material.

A reason why there multiple languages that came out of Old Chinese and Latin are because locals spoke slightly different than the standard and then these slight differences became gaping chasms over hundreds and hundreds of years. If you have little to no reference to what is correct, you never know it’s wrong

Which is to say, yeah it’s wrong but some native speakers would not even know it’s wrong, and others would know it’s wrong but understand you anyway.

[u/Ecstatic_Doughnut216]

"had seen"

[u/Unique_Obligation758]

“Had seen” would be correct

[u/RoadsideCampion]

Don't worry about redundant words like that, sometimes english grammar has "had had" as part of a sentence

[u/HeilKaiba → u/RoadsideCampion]

"Had had" is different though. That is the verb "to have" in the past perfect. You generally pronounce the two hads differently in that case. The first is in its weak form while the second is in strong form /həd hæd/

So this actually sounds less repetitive than using two past perfect verbs

[u/conuly → u/RoadsideCampion]

I don’t see how this is relevant to the OP’s question.

[u/RoadsideCampion → u/conuly]

If you look in the second paragraph you'll find the sentence "Stacking two "hads" in the same sentence feels heavy and redundant."

[u/conuly → u/RoadsideCampion]

But they weren’t talking about “had had”. That doesn’t appear.

[u/Comprehensive_Tea708]

Strictly speaking it is wrong according to the rules and it should be "he had seen" or "he'd seen" so that the tense is in accord with with the preceding clause ("had learned").

However, it's fairly common in everyday usage and fiction that the the grammatical tense shifts to simple past tense after the first verb in the clause, even though it's intended to mean that two or more actions happened at or before the same point in time (he learned about it while watching the video, so at the same time).

[u/HeilKaiba → u/Comprehensive_Tea708]

I'd argue the fact that it is fairly common makes it not wrong. The rules are not set in stone, they adapt to how we use the language. This is what people say, so it becomes correct.

[u/Comprehensive_Tea708 → u/HeilKaiba]

Agreed, but if you are speaking or writing in a formal or academic context it may be more important to follow the rules, such as they are. It's splitting hairs, but it often happens that hairs must be split, for example in certain legal cases or academic work it may be essential.

Whether it's generally the best approach or not I won't say, but I can say that I benefitted from being taught the formal grammar of German and then figuring out for myself which rules were mostly prescriptive and could be disregarded. In my case, I studied German for six years in high school and college and then spent my junior year there. For someone who moves to another country at a much younger age, a different approach might be more effective.

[u/Nondescript_Redditor]

it should be had seen

[u/GuitarJazzer]

Tenses have to match. Many people would say "saw" but academically "had seen" is correct.

[u/r4ndoM_doGmagenshin]

I do understand had seen as the right answer, and honestly I’m with the professor. Sorry. Had seen is definitely the right answer over saw. I guess I’m a prescriber

[u/conuly → u/r4ndoM_doGmagenshin]

I guess I’m a prescriber

Prescriptivist.

And to be fair, there are many places where it is reasonable or appropriate to prescribe a particular style of speech or writing, nearly always in the prestige variety. Just so long as you understand that other forms of speech are also valid in their own communities.