Dear NT:

You wrote:
> Consider these two sentences:
> 1-Conversation as Wilde understood it from the Platonic dialogues was
> inhabited by conflict.
> 2-Conversation as Wilde understood it, from the Platonic dialogues, was
> inhabited by conflict.
>
> Which of these sentences implies necessarily that Wilde had only one
> vision of “conversation”, one “understanding” of what conversation was?
> Which implies that he could have more than one way of looking at it? Are
> either of the sentences ambiguous in this regard?
>
Your question seems irrelevant because the second one does not really make any sense the way it is punctuated. The first comma, if there is one, should go after “conversation.” I would probably always punctuate it that way because
“as…dialogues” appears to be an appositive.

The fact that the sentence includes “from the Platonic dialogues” after the modifying clause means that Wilde got this understanding from the Platonic dialogues. Whether or not he had another idea from another source is irrelevant in this sentence. If he did, then say so. There would be no reason to punctuate without commas as this is a clause in apposition. It would probably be clearer to say, “As Wilde understood it from the Platonic dialogues, conversation was inhabited by conflict.” With that, there is little ambiguity.

Dear N:
>
> You wrote:
> I have stopped eating meat for two weeks.
> I am not eating meat for two weeks.
>
> Can I use these sentences when the time is within the two-week period of not eating meat?
>
The first is present perfect. The action is complete with respect to the present. You have already been on your diet for two weeks. The answer to your question is no for #1.

The second could be spoken in the middle of the diet, though more commonly understood that the two weeks were yet to come. Progressive does suggest a continuing action, the adverbial qualifier throws it off a little. Context matters. The answer to your question is maybe for #2, but only in the right context.

Dear Tommy:

You wrote:

Dear Sir:

This is from Dragon Seed by Pearl S. Buck (page 18).

“Sell it,” she had said. “It will buy me a pair of earrings.”
“Do you want earrings?” he had asked her in surprise. “But your ears are not pierced.”
“I can pierce them,” she had said.
“I will buy you the earrings,” he had answered her, “but not with your own hair.”

Question 1: Why did the author use the past perfect form (she had said or he had asked)?

Question 2: How would the meaning change if the author used the simple past form (she said or he asked)?

Sincerely,
T

I am sorry that I cannot answer your question completely. I do not currently have a copy of Dragon Seed at my disposal (my family donated its copy to the local library).

The use of the past perfect depends on the context. The past perfect is used to indicate an action that took place or a condition that existed before the time used by the past tense. Probably the novel is describing an action in the past (most novels do), but this conversation took place before the main action being described. It could be part of a flashback, for example, or a reminiscence.

If the writer used the simple past tense, that would indicate that the conversation took place at or around the same time as the rest of the action being described.

Although I do not have the context available, I suspect a character is reminiscing–recalling how she got the earrings which she is now wearing or using. Her use of the earrings would be in the past tense, but her remembering about how she first got them would be in the past perfect since that action took place some time before the time being described in the story.

For a bit more on this, see the Grammar Slammer glossary on Perfect Tenses (also https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000361.htm) and Tense of Verbs (https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000378.htm).

You wrote:

I was trying to explain a “compound sentence” to my son, which referrs to two clauses.

Here’s your definition of a clause:

Clause
A clause is a group of words containing a subject and verb which forms part of a sentence. The first sentence on this page is made up of two clauses: the first clause from “A clause” to “verb,” the second from “which” to the end.

Perhaps the “which” is serving as a noun to form the second clause in this case? Otherwise, isn’t “clause” the subject of both of the parts, and thus the sentence is actually one clause and one phrase???
Thanks!
J & A
_____________________________________________________
“It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years.” -Thomas Andrew Lehrer

(I love Tom Lehrer!)

Actually “which” is the subject of the second clause. The pronoun “which” replaces “clause” while also doing the job of a relative pronoun. The second clause is part of the participial phrase beginning with “containing,” but the sentence does have two distinct clauses.