members who < used/ had used > bellicose language

Lee dong hyun

Member
Korean
IT is my honor to ask this question to conssumate english teachers. Thanks in advance!!

I stumbled across an article on Maxine waters being aquitted by house vote over her controversial remark 'getting confrontional'

and i found out something awful in one of its sentence.

it reads '
In the immediate aftermath of the storming of Congress(refered to january riot), some Democrats had clamored to censure or even expel Republican members who used bellicose language in the days leading up to the assault, but those efforts went nowhere.

for my part, i think 'used' happened before 'Democrats had clamored', but why did the writer use 'used' in 'had used' stead?

for more context
House Democrats Defeat G.O.P. Attempt to Censure Maxine Waters
you could read the whole article here

the aformentioned sentence sits on the far bottom

you could find this question inane, But I am waiting for you guys precious lessons!!
 
  • Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    I think it is just a general reluctance to use the past perfect when the sequence of events is clear. Personally, I think it odd to use "had clamoured" and then not use "had used", but I suppose "had clamoured" is part of the main timeline, where we tend to be a lot more careful about using the past perfect than we are in subordinate clauses.
     

    Lee dong hyun

    Member
    Korean
    I think it is just a general reluctance to use the past perfect when the sequence of events is clear. Personally, I think it odd to use "had clamoured" and then not use "had used", but I suppose "had clamoured" is part of the main timeline, where we tend to be a lot more careful about using the past perfect than we are in subordinate clauses.
    Thank you uncle jack. if my memory serves , i guess i have been taught from you!! I guess i got it. Thank you and have a good day!!
     
    Top