# after being found suspect



## ovgolovin

Reading this article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_ioffe?printable=true) I came across the following prhase:
Since the site went up, government contracts worth nearly seven million dollars have been annulled *after being found* suspect by Navalny and his army.

 I tried to guess what I should use instead of "after being found" that there was a subordinate clause, but my attempt fell through.
I thought up 3 variants:
1. Since the site went up, government contracts worth nearly seven million dollars have been annulled *after they had been found* suspect by Navalny and his army
 2. Since the site went up, government contracts worth nearly seven million dollars have been annulled *after they were found* suspect by Navalny and his army
 3. Since the site went up, government contracts worth nearly seven million dollars have been annulled *after they have been found* suspect by Navalny and his army

I guess that the 3d point is wrong since present perfect can't be used with the exact time in the past which is mentioned by using the word "after" (still, not sure about it).
Thinking about the 1st and the 2nd points, I choose the 2d one.
My logic goes this way:
In the first one past perfect is used since "contact have been annulled" is present perfect which describes the event in the past (the contracts were found suspect before that, so we use past perfect).
In the second point past simple is used since  "contact have been annulled" is present perfect, but the key word of this tense is "present". And as with it being present, we describe the event  (contracts being found suspect) which happened before this one (contracts being annuled) using past simple.

Where is my logic loose, where am I wrong in my thinking?
What tense is needed to be used here?
Any suggestions and ideas will be welcomed!

Thank you.


----------



## owlman5

I think #2 is your best option here, ovgolovin.  Using the simple past after the present perfect looks fine.


----------



## ovgolovin

owlman5 said:


> I think #2 is your best option here, ovgolovin.  Using the simple past after the present perfect looks fine.


Thanks!

 Can I ask you if the other two options sound OK to you?
 And why do you choose the simple past?


----------



## halfflah

Neither #1 nor #3 sound passable to me.

#3 is the worst, since having two "have been" sends up a big red flag in my head.
#1 is not _as_ bad, but only because I think I subconsciously edited the sentence to say "were annulled after they had been found".


----------



## owlman5

ovgolovin said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Can I ask you if the other two options sound OK to you?
> And why do you choose the simple past?


They don't sound OK to me.  
I chose the simple past because it makes sense in that sentence.  Using the word "after" with the simple past does a good job of placing that event in the past before the start of the time covered with the present perfect in the previous clause.


----------



## ovgolovin

halfflah said:


> Neither #1 nor #3 sound passable to me.
> 
> #3 is the worst, since having two "have been" sends up a big red flag in my head.
> #1 is not _as_ bad, but only because I think I subconsciously edited the sentence to say "were annulled after they had been found".



OK. So #1 forms a classical case of using past perfect after past simple at the back of your mind.

Thanks!


----------



## halfflah

ovgolovin said:


> OK. So #1 forms a classical case of using past perfect after past simple at the back of your mind.


Don't misunderstand though, #1 is still not passable.


----------



## ovgolovin

owlman5 said:


> They don't sound OK to me.
> I chose the simple past because it makes sense in that sentence.  Using the adverb "after" with the simple past does a good job of placing that event in the past before the start of the time covered with the present perfect in the previous clause.


 May I elaborate with my questions?
So you think it's OK to follow present perfect with past simple. So you look on "present perfect" as "present", don't you? Or you still think of "present perfect" as "past" but kind of special form of past that can be followed by past simple (not past perfect).
"Present perfect" is quite difficult tense to understand, that is why it raises so many questions!

Thanks!


----------



## ovgolovin

halfflah said:


> Don't misunderstand though, #1 is still not passable.


Got it!


----------



## owlman5

ovgolovin said:


> May I elaborate with my questions?
> So you think it's OK to follow present perfect with past simple. So you look on "present perfect" as "present", don't you? Or you still think of "present perfect" as "past" but kind of special form of past that can be followed by past simple (not past perfect).
> "Present perfect" is quite difficult tense to understand, that is why it raises so many questions!
> 
> Thanks!


My view of the present perfect is a traditional one that I learned from various books on grammar and long personal experience with English.  The present perfect is used to describe an action that began in the past and either continues into the present or affects the present in some way.


----------



## ovgolovin

halfflah said:


> Neither #1 nor #3 sound passable to me.
> #1 is not _as_ bad, but only because I think I subconsciously edited the sentence to say "were annulled after they had been found".


 I want to understand the last thing (quite elusive and difficult for me).
Why can't we write "have been annulled after they had been found".
"have been annulled" is present perfect which describes the event in the past. And it followed by "had been found" since it happed before that event in the past.

Why doesn't is sound wrong?

My guess that, if "present perfect" describes events in the past, you still look on it as PRESENT tense letting it only be followed by "past simple" (not "past perfect")


----------



## halfflah

ovgolovin said:


> My guess that, if "present perfect" describes events in the past, you still look on it as PRESENT tense letting it only be followed by "past simple" (not "past perfect")


You're on the right track.  The present perfect is a _mix_ of tense + aspect, and so it stands to reason that you would still look at it as present tense.


----------



## ovgolovin

halfflah said:


> You're on the right track.  The present perfect is a _mix_ of tense + aspect, and so it stands to reason that you would still look at it as present tense.


I got it!

And I have a question about two present perfect in a row.
You wrote:


> #3 is the worst, since having two "have been" sends up a big red flag in my head


Did you mean just two "have been" sound higgledy-piggledy, or it's two "present perfect"-s in a row which raise a big red flag in you head?


----------



## halfflah

ovgolovin said:


> Did you mean just two "have been" sound higgledy-piggledy, or it's two "present perfect"-s in a row which raise a big red flag in you head?


I think I should have said that the real problem here is actually the "after".  It's perfectly fine to say "have been annulled _*and*_ they have been found suspect", but impossible for "have been annulled after they have been found suspect" to work.

This is because the two tenses are the same, but the adverb "after" should elicit a change in tense as the actions would be occurring at different times.  Does that make sense? When I say it back to myself it only barely makes sense to me...


----------



## ovgolovin

halfflah said:


> I think I should have said that the real problem here is actually the "after".  It's perfectly fine to say "have been annulled _*and*_ they have been found suspect", but impossible for "have been annulled after they have been found suspect" to work.
> 
> This is because the two tenses are the same, but the adverb "after" should illicit a change in tense as the actions would be occurring at different times.  Does that make sense? When I say it back to myself it only barely makes sense to me...


I haven't found the verb "illicit" in the dictionary (only adjective), it must be some typo. 

May you give some comments on these examples.
Do they sound OK to you (they are about "after" and "present perfect"):


> Federal officials have reviewed other cases after local authorities have chosen not to prosecute police officers, and even after officers have been acquitted by juries, but they do not always bring charges.
> 
> As long as the rat is not separated from his group for long, he can be
> reintroduced after mating. I have reintroduced males after they have lived
> with females for over a month, but this can be difficult.


----------



## halfflah

Thank you for catching my slip-up!  Elicit vs illicit haha two very different words, but I'm in the wee hours of the morning here so please forgive 

As for your examples, in each case where there is an "after" and then a "present perfect", you have a change of subject.  In your original post, the government contracts were the subject of both "have been annulled" and "have been found".

In your new examples, *federal officials* have reviewed other cases after *local authorities* have chosen... etc.  The two different agents for these actions make it okay for them to be placed one after the other in the present perfect,


----------



## ovgolovin

Thank you everybody who has participated, especially for *halfflah*!
 Your answers were of much help


----------



## henrylee100

halfflah said:


> Thank you for catching my slip-up!  Elicit vs illicit haha two very different words, but I'm in the wee hours of the morning here so please forgive
> 
> 
> As for your examples, in each case where there is an "after" and then a "present perfect", you have a change of subject.  In your original post, the government contracts were the subject of both "have been annulled" and "have been found".
> 
> In your new examples, *federal officials* have reviewed other cases after *local authorities* have chosen... etc.  The two different agents for these actions make it okay for them to be placed one after the other in the present perfect,



so in other words, if I understand you correctly what you're saying is that if we take one of the sentences from the original question:

_Since the site went up, government contracts worth nearly seven million dollars have been annulled after they have been found suspect by Navalny and his army
_(the one that raises the red flag for you)

 and change the subject in the subordinate clause like this: 

_Since the site went up, government contracts worth nearly seven million dollars have been annulled after *Navalny and his army have found them suspect *
_
then the present perfect after 'after' will not longer be raising any 'red flags'?


----------



## halfflah

Uh oh.  I believe my deduction was off.

[ I have eaten dinner after John has washed his car. ]*
[ I have been eaten by Godzilla after he has come to Canada. ]*
[ I have been eaten by Godzilla after I have been found by him. ]* these are terrible examples, forgive me.

I have eaten dinner after my kitchen has exploded.... <--- passable, but only barely... if this is an experience you can claim to have had before

And the new addition of henrylee's post... Hm.  Weirdly enough, no it does not raise any red flags for me when you change the subject in the original #3.


----------



## ovgolovin

halfflah said:


> And the new addition of henrylee's post... Hm.  Weirdly enough, no it does not raise any red flags for me when you change the subject in the original #3.


But *Navalny and his army founded them suspect* before the *contracts were annulled*.
How come they booth can be in "present perfect"? (Since the site went up, government *contracts* worth nearly seven million dollars *have been annulled* *after Navalny* and his army *have found them suspect*)


----------



## halfflah

In a last ditch effort to feign some sort of credibility here, the ability to use "after" between two "present perfects" depends on the actual meaning of the sentence as a whole.
In the case of all the examples that work, the present perfect denotes a completed action, and not a continuous state.
Eg.  I have reintroduced males after they have lived with females for over a month.
Here, both present perfects express past experience of the subjects, and shows that the action has been completed.

Eg. Federal officials have reviewed other cases after local authorities have chosen not to prosecute police officers.
Here, again both present perfects express past experiences and actions that have been completed.  The key here is that there is nothing that says these actions endure.  The local authorities have chosen not to prosecute police officers in the past, but they do not necessarily continue to make the same choice all the time and at present.

As for "after Navalny and his army have found them suspect"... I really want to assume that I am just running on too little sleep here to sense the incorrectness of the sentence, but my intuition tells me that you can only put "after [present perfect]" if the present perfect refers to an action that has been completed.

In the first case "after they had been found suspect by blah blah blah", can there be an after?? That means that the action of being found suspect would be finished.  So they're no longer suspect.  But if they're no longer suspect, why have they been annulled?

When you change the sentence to "after Navalny and his army have found them suspect", you can observe that the verb "to find" here means "to decide on/make a declaration about".  So in this sense, if they have made a declaration about the contracts being suspect, then it can be considered a completed action and therefore works with "after".


----------



## ovgolovin

Thank you. Maybe not today but tomorrow or later you will hit on the idea why it is wrong.
Any ideas of other forum members about why it may be wrong are welcomed!


----------



## PaulQ

I propose a compromise. The simplified sentence is:

They have been annulled *after being found* suspect by them. Or even shorter - They have been annulled *as* suspect by them

I suspect *after they were found* and all variants are adverbial phrases, and the only form that is readily acceptable is *were*

The sentence relies upon the fact that "Navalny and his army *found *them suspect" - *found *is the same tense as *were

It does not mean *"Navalny and his army *had* *found *them suspect" as they might now have had another look at them and found them OK
*It does not mean *"Navalny and his army *have* *found *them suspect" as this implies this has just happened and the real report would be, "Navalny and his army *have* *found *them suspect and they *will be* annulled"


----------



## henrylee100

I don't know I personally see no red flags here (I'm not a native speaker though so that might be it), the conjunction 'after' already makes clear which action takes place first so I don't see why you can't use the same tense in both clauses:

_contracts are annulled after they are found suspect_ (in general, that's how things are usually done)
_the contracts were annulled after they were found suspect_ (just two actions in the past, first the contracts were found suspect and then they were annulled, I suspect one might have said 'the contracts were annulled after they had been found suspect' but I don't think that's necessary as the sequence of actions is already made clear by 'after')
And finally, if we're talking about what has happened between now and some point in time in the past:
since the special task force was established (or whatever) five contracts have been annulled after they've been found suspect (although I must admit if I was writing this without thinking, on instinct, I'd have probably used simple past, not sure why though)


----------



## henrylee100

halfflah said:


> When you change the sentence to "after Navalny and his army have found them suspect", you can observe that the verb "to find" here means "to decide on/make a declaration about".  So in this sense, if they have made a declaration about the contracts being suspect, then it can be considered a completed action and therefore works with "after".


Are you implying that the meaning of the verb 'find' changes if you change it from passive voice to active voice?
I.e.  'John have found the contracts suspect' has a different meaning than 'the contracts have been found suspect by John'? I've always kind of assumed that when you perform this sort of active->passive transformation on a sentence the basic meaning remains the same. 
btw what about:
'The contracts have been annulled after it has been decided that they were suspect'
does it sound ok to you?


----------



## halfflah

I'm inclined to agree with PaulQ but I can think of many instances where the word "after" can be correctly followed by a present perfect construction.

However, in response to henrylee100, my dialect does not permit your proposed sentences.  I have stated that I don't believe the sentence with "have been found/have found" to be correct, but just tried to provide some sort of explanation as to why I still seem to prefer one form over another.

I have (in the past, and not enduring until now) written essays after I have met with my professor to make sure my topic is okay.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a perfectly acceptable construct.


----------



## ovgolovin

> It does not mean "Navalny and his army *had found* them suspect" as they might now have had another look at them and found them OK


Why there can't be the same concerns with "past simple"?:
Navalny and his army *found* them suspect
because  they might now have had another look at them and found them OK.



> It does not mean "Navalny and his army *have found* them suspect" as this implies this has just happened and the real report would be, "Navalny and his army have found them suspect and they will be annulled"


But using present perfect in the first part of the phrase (contracts worth nearly seven million dollars have been annulled) doesn't imply that it just happened, it just shows the result they have achieved.


----------



## henrylee100

halfflah said:


> I'm inclined to agree with PaulQ but I can think of many instances where the word "after" can be correctly followed by a present perfect construction.
> 
> However, in response to henrylee100, my dialect does not permit your proposed sentences.  I have stated that I don't believe the sentence with "have been found/have found" to be correct, but just tried to provide some sort of explanation as to why I still seem to prefer one form over another.
> 
> I have (in the past, and not enduring until now) written essays after I have met with my professor to make sure my topic is okay.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a perfectly acceptable construct.


so your dialect doesn't permit a sentence like
_the contracts were annulled after they were found suspect by the authorities
_
_I have (in the past, and not enduring until now) written essays after I have met with my professor to make sure my topic is okay.
_If you say it's a perfectly acceptable construct then it's perfectly acceptable, what throws me off however is the fact that structurally/grammatically this 'perfectly acceptable construct' above is identical to 'contracts have been annulled after they have been found' so I'm really curious to know why it is that the sentence about essays sounds perfectly normal to you but the one about contracts doesn't


----------



## halfflah

henrylee100 said:


> so your dialect doesn't permit a sentence like
> _the contracts were annulled after they were found suspect by the authorities_


It does permit those, I meant the present perfect ones that you proposed, sorry for the confusion.

_


halfflah said:



			I have (in the past, and not enduring until now) written essays after I have met with my professor to make sure my topic is okay.
		
Click to expand...

_


henrylee100 said:


> If you say it's a perfectly acceptable construct then it's perfectly acceptable, what throws me off however is the fact that structurally/grammatically this 'perfectly acceptable construct' above is identical to 'contracts have been annulled after they have been found' so I'm really curious to know why it is that the sentence about essays sounds perfectly normal to you but the one about contracts doesn't


The difference is in the intended meaning.
In my sentence, "writing essays after I have met with my professor to make sure my topic is okay" is something I *have done and am finished doing (for now)*.
However, "being annulled after they have been found suspect" cannot be said to be something the contracts *have done*. Especially since the original meaning of the sentence is that the chronologically, the contracts were annulled after they were found suspect.  They can't be re-annulled again in the future, because the fact that they are now annulled is an enduring state, as is being found suspect (except in the case that the army looks back and decides they're OK).


----------



## henrylee100

ovgolovin
This is a most interesting discussion, thanks for starting it. It has to be said, though, that the only useful conclusion I've been able to draw so far is that when in doubt we should just keep it simple and go with the simple past tense.


----------



## halfflah

henrylee100 said:


> ovgolovin
> This is a most interesting discussion, thanks for starting it. It has to be said, though, that the only useful conclusion I've been able to draw so far is that when in doubt we should just keep it simple and go with the simple past tense.


Heh, sorry about that! It tends to be the case that one can feel/sense what is ungrammatical, but it is something really hard to explain... _Why_​ something is ungrammatical... It just is!


----------



## ovgolovin

henrylee100 said:


> ovgolovin
> This is a most interesting discussion, thanks for starting it. It has to be said, though, that the only useful conclusion I've been able to draw so far is that when in doubt we should just keep it simple and go with the simple past tense.


Thank you too for the kind words!
I got completely frustrated with it and exhausted, so I'm not even sure that I can make considerate answers (but I'll be reading; I still able to understand something (not 100% though)).


----------



## henrylee100

halfflah said:


> Heh, sorry about that! It tends to be the case that one can feel/sense what is ungrammatical, but it is something really hard to explain... _Why_​ something is ungrammatical... It just is!


well, yeah you're right about that one. Usually, though, there is some logic behind why some sentences feel right and others don't. 
From what you've written in this thread so far it would appear that the issue is not the use of present perfect after 'after' but rather the meaning of the phrase 'to be found suspect' Btw while we're at it what would be your take on/gut reaction to:
_since the site went up government contracts worth nearly seven million dollars have been found suspect and annulled._


----------



## henrylee100

and *halfflah, *thanks for tryingto explain these things to us. I can tell you you're doing much better than I probably would if we switched roles and you asked me to explain something about Russian grammar


----------



## halfflah

henrylee100 said:


> _since the site went up government contracts worth nearly seven million dollars have been found suspect and annulled._


You're right!  It just took me a long time to get to that answer too 

As for this sentence, it's perfectly grammatical.  But beware, the "and" here indicates chronological order as well as conjunction!


----------



## henrylee100

just came across a couple more examples of present perfect +after +present perfect in another forum (both are quotes from some sort of an article). Just wondering what you guys would make of them:

_"Yili Brand," a fruit bar yogurt and "Dutch Lady," a strawberry-flavored milk have been earlier taken out of stores after they have been found to contain melamine.

 In the past years, several recalls of commercial pet food have been made after they have been found to be substandard, even harmful, to the health of our dogs._


----------



## halfflah

henrylee100 said:


> _"Yili Brand," a fruit bar yogurt, and "Dutch Lady," a strawberry-flavored milk, have been earlier taken out of stores after they have been found to contain melamine.
> 
> In the past years, several recalls of commercial pet food have been made after they have been found to be substandard, even harmful, to the health of our dogs._


I have to give an immense apology to everyone I think.  Now that I've had some proper sleep, and had time away from the sentences, it seems that I was operating on an incorrect assumption about the grammatically of the initial examples...

Both these sentences are fine if you remove "earlier" from the first one.
I think I must have mixed up "awkwardness" with "incorrectness" >_< but it seems there isn't really a restriction on after + perfects, it just sounds awkward in a lot of cases where there is a more simple choice.


----------



## ovgolovin

halfflah said:


> I have to give an immense apology to everyone I think.  Now that I've had some proper sleep, and had time away from the sentences, it seems that I was operating on an incorrect assumption about the grammatically of the initial examples...
> 
> Both these sentences are fine if you remove "earlier" from the first one.
> I think I must have mixed up "awkwardness" with "incorrectness" >_< but it seems there isn't really a restriction on after + perfects, it just sounds awkward in a lot of cases where there is a more simple choice.



I talked to my teacher. He is a Briton.
He wrote that his preference was "past perfect" in all the examples we have had here.
 "Past simple" is also OK for him. His only concerns are that the first part of the sentences contain "present perfect" and the last part contains "past simple", so there may be some overlapping between the actions decried by that tenses.
And "present perfect" sounds wrong to him.

So "past perfect" is OK
"past simple" is passible
"present perfect" is incorrect for him.


----------



## henrylee100

ovgolovin, I posted a question about your original sentences (the ones about government contracts being annulled after being (or should it be 'having been' perhaps?) found suspect) in yet another forum, for good measure (see here http://www.lydbury.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5406&sid=f5e2293d8b5b91cea68c0ca8e73ac647). The only reply was from someone from Australia - he found the version with two present perfects 'a bit odd' (and my understanding is that being a bit odd is not the same thing as being wrong) and the versions with simple past and past perfect he found to be ok, however, unlike your Brit, Darryl, the Aussie from the other forum, said that the version with simple past (were found) would be 'the preferred choice' 

It looks like the question of which tense to use in a subordinate clause introduced by 'after' if you've got present perfect in the main clause is one of those gray areas that even native speakers are not entirely sure about and probably even try to avoid altogether when writing - note that the author of the article you took the original example from chose to write that _the contracts have been annulled *after being found suspect*_...rather than make a 'controversial' and somewhat arbitrary choice of a verb tense.


----------



## ovgolovin

Thaks!

I'm really touched that I'm not the only person who is interested in this problem!

The discussion showed to me again that it's no use being too concerned with tenses, because even natives sometimes are confused which one would be more correct. It's the same with my British teacher who very seldom corrects me in my misusing of tenses (he usually corrects collocations and articles).
I think that worries about using this or that tense rise in me because this was ingrained in me while I was beginning to learn English when the primary concern of our Soviet teachers was about tenses, when they tended to give us a lot of tables and materials on them and spent a heck of a lot of time on them.


----------



## henrylee100

ovgolovin
imho we should try and use the verb tenses correctly (as we should do the articles too), it's just that, the way I see it, in some contexts and situations the choice of the verb tense is not as clear-cut as one might prefer, plus oftentimes several tenses are possible in the same context, however, they will usually each convey a slightly different meaning.


----------



## ovgolovin

henrylee100 said:


> ovgolovin
> imho we should try and use the verb tenses correctly (as we should do the articles too), it's just that, the way I see it, in some contexts and situations the choice of the verb tense is not as clear-cut as one might prefer, plus oftentimes several tenses are possible in the same context, however, they will usually each convey a slightly different meaning.



Yeah, I just mean we shouldn't split hairs on tenses.


----------



## henrylee100

well we shouldn't unless it's fun plus splitting hairs and nitpicking can sometimes help get rid of various misconceptions


----------



## ovgolovin

henrylee100 said:


> well we shouldn't unless it's fun plus splitting hairs and nitpicking can sometimes help get rid of various misconceptions


Yeah, one definitely should do it if it's fun and it's actually what we have been doing in this thread for relatively quite a long time


----------

