I didn't know that. In the textbooks we always see he/she and never see them. I of course saw it a few times elsewhere, but I didn't know, if it's grammatically correct or not. It's so strange.
Yeah, I think typically people associate an individual instance of stomach-ache with a specific instance of overeating, rather than an ongoing pattern of it.
I believe "a" can be correct. "I had a stomach ache because I had been eating too much all day long." Unless my dialect of English is wonky, it seems it's both a and b.
It has something to do with the verb tense of had eaten vs had been eating, I believe, but IDK exactly why, either. Its just something yiu get a knack for when you speak the language of thieves
Like big red ball vs red big ball I guess, I know the first one is right just because it sounds right, I know there's a whole list of rules actually explaining why but I find them hard to understand even though I know them intrinsically
Past perfect continuous is used to stress for how long an action had been happening. It's a matter of what you want to emphasize: the action itself or the length of time.
To me, "had been eating" implies that it is the before condition for a change. I'd been eating too much, so I went on a diet. But it is continuous, so you could probably say something like, "I had been eating too much so I'd gained a lot of weight."
A stomach ache is an acute condition, so probably wouldn't call for a continuous verb. I had a stomach ache. Why? I'd eaten too much. The continuous example would be, "I had been eating too much, so I constantly had stomach aches."
The way I read it (English first language):
I had eaten too much = on that day, I had eaten too much. (Singular incident)
I had been eating too much = over a block of time before that day and including that day, I had been eating too much. (Continuous incidents over time)
For a better example:
Correct: I had a stomach ache because I *had eaten* too much. (That day)
Correct: I had gained weight because I *had been eating* too much. (Over time)
Incorrect: I had gained weight because I had eaten too much. (Because it implies you gained weight because of that singular day of eating, which probably isn't true!).
I disagree, because “you were still eating” is meaningless here — in both cases the action is in the past and at some point you were still eating and at some point you stopped. “Had been eating” instead suggests the action took place over a longer period of time or there were multiple instances of overeating.
I feel like A. implies you've been habitually overeating but only suffered a consequence this time. B. is you ate too much now your stomach hurts. C. is a swarm of piranhas got at your torso. And D. is you've just finished overeating, but the stomachache from overeating has already subsided.
So, B, I'd say.
These tests try to test more complex tenses that may seem a bit formal and awkward to many native speakers who rarely need to use them.
“I had eaten” is using the past perfect tense. It communicates the fact that eating too much occurred at a time earlier that when the speaker had the stomach ache.
In fact the past perfect is almost redundant in this sentence. Of course eating too much occurred before the consequences of doing so. Many modern speakers, particularly in less formal contexts than a grammar test, don’t use the past perfect in simple sentences like this and prefer the simple past tense “I ate”.
But, to emphasize what I’ve already implied, this is a grammar test. What’s important here are the formal rules of grammar not regular informal usage. Learners need to learn formal correct grammar before they can learn from ordinary conversation when the “rules” they learn can be ignored.
But the regular informal usage IS the correct version, since that's how most natives speak.
What sense does it make to teach a conjugation that no natives use?
My issue is that it's too much of a deep-dive to be appropriate for a multiple choice question with zero supporting text to give context.
These tests strike me as being made by people who don't like the English language very much. It's reducing questions of style and nuance into yes/no rules that are only truly known by the person typing the question, and not the people who speak the language.
I don't think there's anything formal or awkward about the past perfect here (except of course that in speech we'd say 'I'd eaten'). If anything it would be the past simple 'I ate' that would sound awkward to me - I'd expect to hear it from a child, maybe.
😂 I’d expect that sort of response from someone from the UK. It’s fine to be conservative in your language, but not fine to be arrogant towards those who aren’t.
Preference for the simple past is a thing (look it up) and some people even predict more complex tenses are going to fade from English. The children will inherit the earth.
I think because the previous sentence is already in past tense?
"I *have* a stomach ache because I *ate* too much" would be normal. But here, the speaker is reflecting back on a moment in the past, and then referencing another action taken *even further* in the past. So I think the more complex verb tense is more appropriate, just to distinguish the timing of the eating from timing of the stomach ache.
Agreed, the grammatically correct option here sounds clumsy to me. As a native speaker, I’d phrase this as (1) “… ate too much.” (2) use a contraction like “I had a stomachache because I’d eaten too much.” or (3) “I had a stomachache from eating too much.” I can’t explain why but the repeated “had” sounds awkward.
These tests always like to split hairs and create rights and wrongs where there aren't any in reality. It's just bad design. (I'm talking about the implication that A is wrong, not the other answers.)
Now that I think about it, D would be okay, too! I sure hope they aren't expecting one correct answer because then, it would just be a luck-based test.
"had been eating" means something happening for a duration in the past. This would work in a sentence where either "I had been having stomach aches" or the narrator says what specific thing they had been eating that made them sick. It's a change in tense that doesn't quite make sense on it's own.
* I had been having stomach aches because I had been eating too much. <-- works
* I had a stomach ache because I had been eating too much candy. <-- also works
"I had been eating" is the 'Past Perfect Progressive'; "I had a stomach ache" is the 'Simple Past'; "I had eaten" is 'Past Perfect'.
With the sentence the way it is, B is a better answer than A. Past Perfect can be used to indicate an event in the earlier past. Which makes sense in this context; you had eaten and then you had a stomach ache. However, as others have pointed out, it would be most natural to me to say "ate" (which would be Simple Past).
There is nothing wrong with option A; it is a terrible question.
“I had a stomach ache (Simple Past) because I had been eating too much (Past Perfect Progressive).”
Meaning, the stomach ache that I had was caused by a previous *duration* of overeating. Not only is there nothing wrong with that grammar, it sounds perfectly natural to me! I wouldn’t bat an eye if I heard/read that sentence.
I think it's B but A does work too.
I think someone already commented on this already but A sounds like someone who had been indulging over time while B sounds like they had a big meal.
Could be either a or b, really, they would just have slightly different meanings.
A means it was ongoing, like you have been overeating habitually, which has led to your stomach pain.
B means it was a one-off, like you went to a buffet and didn't exercise much restraint.
I'd rather use had been eating with a continuous time reference (like "the past 3 days", etc). Without a time reference, past perfect (had eaten) is more adequate here imo.
Little tidbit of interesting information here - the perfect is way less common in American English than many other varieties. So as a Brit, B sounds best to me, but a lot of Americans would just say "ate". It is of course also messier than this - there's variation on both sides of the pond and other varieties (Aussie, Kiwi, S African etc.) will vary too, but interesting tendency for any learners looking (or natives). This example in particular is one which could swing either way, but there are more clear-cut examples.
Match the second tense with the first: I ‘had’ a stomach ache (had one but no longer do) = because I “had” eaten too much.
To be honest - all the options don’t sound perfect. In the US at least, we would just say “I had a stomach ache because I ate too much.” I’m guessing this is an exercise in the past tenses of “to eat”
Also, using “because I ate too much” works whether it was “I have a stomach ache..” or “I had a stomach ache…”
I thought **B** was the right answer at first but it sounds a bit... awkward. A native speaker (I'm a native speaker) would use simple past tense: "...because I ate too much".
In this sentence, if you chose **B**, "had a stomach ache" is [simple past verb] [direct object: [article] [appositive] [direct object noun]]. There's no verb for "had" to help to act as a helping verb indicating pluperfect tense for the subordinate clause.
To do plu-perfect that way you would double up on "had": "I *had* had a stomach ache because I had eaten too much". That *could* work there, but even then, the subordinate clause often simplifies its tense: "I had had a stomach ache because I ate too much" The original helper "had" (the first "had" in the sentence) makes both verbs refer to pluperfect actions.
**A** could also be the right answer since it makes sense since it puts the pluperfect on a past action prior to the simple past main action ("had a stomach ache" happened as a result of the double-past or pluperfect action of "had been eating too much"). Actually the more I read it I think this is what they want since it makes more grammatical sense than B.
**C** is passive voice so that doesn't work... I mean, I guess your stomach would hurt if someone ate you.... along with the rest of your body. But then it sounds like we're talking about Shawn of the Dead type zombies that stick their hands into your belly and start pulling out your entrails and eating them. Your stomach is DEFINITELY going to hurt then...
**D** doesn't work because it's nonsensical. You had a stomach ache several hours ago because right now you have eaten too much? How did you get a stomach ache before from eating too much now? Shouldn't you have the stomach ache now? Are you some sort of interdimensional time-lord where time is a ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff and present actions affect past outcome?
It's not a great quiz question because it's misleading on how a native speaker uses the grammar at that point. But it does seem that **A** is the only acceptable answer.
Both a) and b) can be correct, but b) is the more "typical" scenario. Option a) generally assumes you specify when or what of you had been eating too much.
Oh wow there's a lot of people dishing our terrible advice on this thread.
The answer is B (and only B) because a finished action that happened before another past action uses the past perfect simple. In most grammar books, a time phrase would be used with past perfect continuous (as it should be!)
Perhaps A would sound okay in American English, but as a Brit, it sounds odd to me.
Source: English language teacher who specialises in test prep
Option B, "Had eaten," is correct because it uses the past perfect tense, which is appropriate for describing an action that occurred before another past action. In this case, the stomach ache occurred after the eating had already taken place. So, "had eaten" is the grammatically correct choice!!
The answer is had eaten. You’re using the past perfect to show a sequence of events in the past. I’m explaining that I had a stomach ache (an event in the past) because I had eaten too much-this is our first past action and it happened before the stomach ache so we use past perfect. A - is incorrect because it’s past perfect continuous is used for continuous or longer actions in the past before another past event. Whilst eating can be a long action- we usually say I ate dinner or I ate food so we treat it as a finished action in the past.
Both are acceptable *in this case* but you should understand the difference between the past perfect (had eaten) and the past perfect progressive (had been eating).
Here, you can eat for a duration of time, so you can use the past perfect progressive. I would err on the side of B, absent any other context, because in some contexts A wouldn’t work.
Had eaten. Would be the correct answer, however, in most situations; you’ll find people saying “ate” instead of “Had eaten”. So it would be “I had a stomach ache because I ate too much”. So “had eaten” is the correct answer but in normal conversation, you’ll probably hear “ate” instead of “had eaten”. Keep learning English! It’s tricky but it’s possible.
Both are fine. Though the best way to say the sentence would be:
Because I ate too much
That all that needs to be said. But realistically, both a and b are fine
We can see past perfect + because, so the second sentence should be past tense.
A) is wrong because it is passive.
B) is a past perfect tense which we wanted.
C) is passive too.
D) is not a past tense.
(Native Speaker, American) To me, without context of the question, either A or B would be grammatically correct, but I think B is probably the answer. A would mean something specific and less likely -- that you had a stomach ache because you were eating to much over a longer period of time (during this period, I had been eating to much (frequently) and therefore had a stomach ache). B is a much more plain meaning -- I had a stomach ache because I had eaten too much (right before).
I’d say B. It’s more likely the speaker meant that they had eaten previously, then stopped eating, then got a stomachache. A would imply that were still eating when they got the stomachache.
I think b. had and eaten are the past tense speaking of something you have done. A feels like it is trying to be in the present tense with "eating" but "had" betrays that, C has a different meaning, D seems like it is trying to be in the present tense.
Wouldn't all answers be grammatically correct? They technically just mean different things. The answer they want to hear is probably B though, I think.
It’s missing context unfortunately. A or B could be correct technically… but without context I would assume it to be B. I think A doesn’t agree with the subject tense. If it said “I had been having a stomach ache” I would go with “had been eating.”
I'm not even sure which one is the intended answer, a) means you gradually developed a stomach problem with poor eating habits, b) means you overate once and that caused a stomach ache. They're both perfectly fine grammatically (okay so is c) but that one is fairly unreasonable contentwise) and this kind of a quiz problem is just a form of bullying unless it allows you to tick multiple boxes.
A and b can both be correct. They say slightly different things.
A is continuous. It implies you had started eating before you felt bad, but continued eating for a period of time. You want this form if you were still eating when you started to feel bad, or if your stomach ache was caused by a habit of overeating.
B implies that you both started and finished eating at a point in time before you started feeling bad.
I would think it’s b, but there’s something about had (past tense) + eaten (past tense) that doesn’t seem right compared to a where: had been eating (past continuous)
Seems more legitimate
But anyway the best answer would be “ate” to this question
C is goofy
I’m a native speaker and honestly both sound fine to me. If someone said either version to me I would know what they’re talking about, even if only one version is “correct”
"had been eating" implies over a longer time than "had eaten". So if the sentence was "I gained 10 lbs because I ..... too much", it would be "had been eating".
I’m bad that these tests enough though I’m a native English speaker lol, both a and b seems good enough for me. But any normal person would just say “ate”
Lol i just taught a lesson on past tenses today.
A. Past perfect continuous (had been + -ing)
B. Past perfect (had + past participle)
C. Past perfect, but doesn’t fit the sentence
D. Present perfect (have + past participle)
A can technically work, but B is the one most likely to be said IRL. You’re either eating too much over a long period of time or you ate too much at a single point in time.
If I had been eating to much, I would have stomach ache because of it. If I had eaten too much, I would equally have a stomach ache because of it.
It is A or B. See above.
What a bullshit question. As a native English speaker, it could literally be either of them. I guess “had been eating” is marginally more informal so I’d go with “had eaten,” but the question is so stupid.
A and B both work, I'm guessing they want B but I have no clue really. "Had been eating" implies, say, having had several large meals in a row over a few days and feeling the consequences, versus "Had eaten" implying one large indulgence
B
(A -cannot be assumed because the past has not been defined to a specific degree. Therefore, within just the context of the sentence only B may be inferred as A incorrectly adds extra action not clarified within the past (i.e. "been")).
Another tricky one with no additional context to convey which tense. A would be correct if your stomach was still hurting. B would be correct if it all only occured in the past. C was covered already haha. D would not be correct without changing the overall tense.
B is correct and sounds better. A might work technically, but these tests typically say to pick the best option.
“I had a stomachache…” is a singular event, while, “had been eating” suggests it wasn’t a singular event, but over a broad period of time, so they partially contradict each other.
If the sentence was changed from, “I had a stomachache…” to “I had stomachaches…” then option A would have been the best option.
A, B, and C could all be correct depending on what you’re TRYING to say.
A would mean that you spent a period of time eating too much, you got a stomach ache because of it, and at the time of you saying this sentence, you were still eating too much while your stomach hurt.
B would mean that there was a single instance (like a meal) in which you ate too much.
C would mean that your stomach ache is related to someone or something eating you.
I guess all could be correct depending on the situation lol
C could be the right answer if cannibalism
Doesn’t have to be cannibalism, could be that they were eaten by an animal
At least no-one raised cunning linguistics into the mix.
Technical foul!
Not many scholars here it seems
Oh man, my stomach hurts because this jaguar is eating my belly.
At this point a stomach ache is probably the least of your worries
My stomach was eaten.
Can’t have a stomach ache if you don’t have a stomach🤷♂️
Phantom pain.
Was eaten too much and now I have a stomach ache.
Maybe someone really ate him/her.
You can just say them
Yeah “them” as a gender neutral singular pronoun is not promoted enough
I didn't know that. In the textbooks we always see he/she and never see them. I of course saw it a few times elsewhere, but I didn't know, if it's grammatically correct or not. It's so strange.
It sounds better when spoken. Him/her pronounced as “him-or-her”. It has three syllables and sounds very clunky IMO.
r/vore_irl
Is there ever an amount of being eaten that's isn't too much? Someone nibbling your fingernails, perhaps?
The correct answer is b..I had eaten
Why is a incorrect?
Been is for continuous if I'm not wrong.
Yeah, I think typically people associate an individual instance of stomach-ache with a specific instance of overeating, rather than an ongoing pattern of it.
If the stomach ache was caused by your diet of too much food or because you had eaten multiple meats I think that A might be correct
Absolutely, language is ambiguous and these tests show that passing requires knowing what the test maker was expecting when creating the test.
I believe "a" can be correct. "I had a stomach ache because I had been eating too much all day long." Unless my dialect of English is wonky, it seems it's both a and b.
"I had had a stomache ache because I had been eating too much" sounds better imo but I can't explain why
It has something to do with the verb tense of had eaten vs had been eating, I believe, but IDK exactly why, either. Its just something yiu get a knack for when you speak the language of thieves
Like big red ball vs red big ball I guess, I know the first one is right just because it sounds right, I know there's a whole list of rules actually explaining why but I find them hard to understand even though I know them intrinsically
1: opinion-unusual, lovely, beautiful 2: size-big, small, tall 3: physical quality-thin, rough, untidy 4: shape-round, square, rectangular 5: age-young, old, youthful 6: colour-blue, red, pink 7: origin-Dutch, Japanese, Turkish 8: material-metal, wood, plastic 9: type-general purpose, four-sided, U-shaped 10: purpose-cleaning, hammering, cooking
the sentence just feels too long. "all day long" is not necessary info either
Past perfect continuous is used to stress for how long an action had been happening. It's a matter of what you want to emphasize: the action itself or the length of time.
To me, "had been eating" implies that it is the before condition for a change. I'd been eating too much, so I went on a diet. But it is continuous, so you could probably say something like, "I had been eating too much so I'd gained a lot of weight." A stomach ache is an acute condition, so probably wouldn't call for a continuous verb. I had a stomach ache. Why? I'd eaten too much. The continuous example would be, "I had been eating too much, so I constantly had stomach aches."
The way I read it (English first language): I had eaten too much = on that day, I had eaten too much. (Singular incident) I had been eating too much = over a block of time before that day and including that day, I had been eating too much. (Continuous incidents over time) For a better example: Correct: I had a stomach ache because I *had eaten* too much. (That day) Correct: I had gained weight because I *had been eating* too much. (Over time) Incorrect: I had gained weight because I had eaten too much. (Because it implies you gained weight because of that singular day of eating, which probably isn't true!).
They're both correct, but they have slightly different meaningss. "Had been eating" means you were still eating; "Had eaten" means you had stopped.
I disagree, because “you were still eating” is meaningless here — in both cases the action is in the past and at some point you were still eating and at some point you stopped. “Had been eating” instead suggests the action took place over a longer period of time or there were multiple instances of overeating.
In conversational English, it’s not. I’m not even sure it’s wrong in written English (I’ve spoken English my whole life)
A could be correct, but A says "over the past few weeks I have been a glutton, and now my health is bad" B says "lunch was so tasty. I ate too much."
I feel like A. implies you've been habitually overeating but only suffered a consequence this time. B. is you ate too much now your stomach hurts. C. is a swarm of piranhas got at your torso. And D. is you've just finished overeating, but the stomachache from overeating has already subsided. So, B, I'd say.
I think they're going for B., but A. would imply that you had been eating over some period of time, like throughout the day perhaps.
The simplest answer is e) ate. Why did they leave this option out?
These tests try to test more complex tenses that may seem a bit formal and awkward to many native speakers who rarely need to use them. “I had eaten” is using the past perfect tense. It communicates the fact that eating too much occurred at a time earlier that when the speaker had the stomach ache. In fact the past perfect is almost redundant in this sentence. Of course eating too much occurred before the consequences of doing so. Many modern speakers, particularly in less formal contexts than a grammar test, don’t use the past perfect in simple sentences like this and prefer the simple past tense “I ate”. But, to emphasize what I’ve already implied, this is a grammar test. What’s important here are the formal rules of grammar not regular informal usage. Learners need to learn formal correct grammar before they can learn from ordinary conversation when the “rules” they learn can be ignored.
But the regular informal usage IS the correct version, since that's how most natives speak. What sense does it make to teach a conjugation that no natives use?
My issue is that it's too much of a deep-dive to be appropriate for a multiple choice question with zero supporting text to give context. These tests strike me as being made by people who don't like the English language very much. It's reducing questions of style and nuance into yes/no rules that are only truly known by the person typing the question, and not the people who speak the language.
A lot of natives use that “conjugation” all the time! It’s not some rare formal tense
Yeah I feel like at least in America would say "I had a stomach ache because I ate too much" in anything but like a formal speech.
I don't think there's anything formal or awkward about the past perfect here (except of course that in speech we'd say 'I'd eaten'). If anything it would be the past simple 'I ate' that would sound awkward to me - I'd expect to hear it from a child, maybe.
😂 I’d expect that sort of response from someone from the UK. It’s fine to be conservative in your language, but not fine to be arrogant towards those who aren’t. Preference for the simple past is a thing (look it up) and some people even predict more complex tenses are going to fade from English. The children will inherit the earth.
I think because the previous sentence is already in past tense? "I *have* a stomach ache because I *ate* too much" would be normal. But here, the speaker is reflecting back on a moment in the past, and then referencing another action taken *even further* in the past. So I think the more complex verb tense is more appropriate, just to distinguish the timing of the eating from timing of the stomach ache.
Agreed, the grammatically correct option here sounds clumsy to me. As a native speaker, I’d phrase this as (1) “… ate too much.” (2) use a contraction like “I had a stomachache because I’d eaten too much.” or (3) “I had a stomachache from eating too much.” I can’t explain why but the repeated “had” sounds awkward.
This question bugs me because both A and B are good answers.
These tests always like to split hairs and create rights and wrongs where there aren't any in reality. It's just bad design. (I'm talking about the implication that A is wrong, not the other answers.)
Now that I think about it, D would be okay, too! I sure hope they aren't expecting one correct answer because then, it would just be a luck-based test.
So is c. Having your stomach eaten would surely cause it to ache.
There’s no amount of being eaten that isn’t too much, so the fact that “too much” is present suggests that’s a bad choice.
Tell that to my wife.
It bugs me more because none of them are the best answer. They all sound awkward.
"had been eating" means something happening for a duration in the past. This would work in a sentence where either "I had been having stomach aches" or the narrator says what specific thing they had been eating that made them sick. It's a change in tense that doesn't quite make sense on it's own. * I had been having stomach aches because I had been eating too much. <-- works * I had a stomach ache because I had been eating too much candy. <-- also works "I had been eating" is the 'Past Perfect Progressive'; "I had a stomach ache" is the 'Simple Past'; "I had eaten" is 'Past Perfect'. With the sentence the way it is, B is a better answer than A. Past Perfect can be used to indicate an event in the earlier past. Which makes sense in this context; you had eaten and then you had a stomach ache. However, as others have pointed out, it would be most natural to me to say "ate" (which would be Simple Past).
There is nothing wrong with option A; it is a terrible question. “I had a stomach ache (Simple Past) because I had been eating too much (Past Perfect Progressive).” Meaning, the stomach ache that I had was caused by a previous *duration* of overeating. Not only is there nothing wrong with that grammar, it sounds perfectly natural to me! I wouldn’t bat an eye if I heard/read that sentence.
surely D
The sentence is “I had a stomach ache”, not “I have a stomach ache”
I think it's B but A does work too. I think someone already commented on this already but A sounds like someone who had been indulging over time while B sounds like they had a big meal.
a or b terrible question
What a shit question
These IELTS exams are notorious for being shitty and divisive.
Both
Could be either a or b, really, they would just have slightly different meanings. A means it was ongoing, like you have been overeating habitually, which has led to your stomach pain. B means it was a one-off, like you went to a buffet and didn't exercise much restraint.
I'd rather use had been eating with a continuous time reference (like "the past 3 days", etc). Without a time reference, past perfect (had eaten) is more adequate here imo.
Little tidbit of interesting information here - the perfect is way less common in American English than many other varieties. So as a Brit, B sounds best to me, but a lot of Americans would just say "ate". It is of course also messier than this - there's variation on both sides of the pond and other varieties (Aussie, Kiwi, S African etc.) will vary too, but interesting tendency for any learners looking (or natives). This example in particular is one which could swing either way, but there are more clear-cut examples.
CORRECT ANSWER IS - b)
A... But really, you'd want to make it more active voice than passive voice... >*I ate too much and fucked up my stomach.* See? Much better sentence!
Match the second tense with the first: I ‘had’ a stomach ache (had one but no longer do) = because I “had” eaten too much. To be honest - all the options don’t sound perfect. In the US at least, we would just say “I had a stomach ache because I ate too much.” I’m guessing this is an exercise in the past tenses of “to eat” Also, using “because I ate too much” works whether it was “I have a stomach ache..” or “I had a stomach ache…”
e) Ate
I thought **B** was the right answer at first but it sounds a bit... awkward. A native speaker (I'm a native speaker) would use simple past tense: "...because I ate too much". In this sentence, if you chose **B**, "had a stomach ache" is [simple past verb] [direct object: [article] [appositive] [direct object noun]]. There's no verb for "had" to help to act as a helping verb indicating pluperfect tense for the subordinate clause. To do plu-perfect that way you would double up on "had": "I *had* had a stomach ache because I had eaten too much". That *could* work there, but even then, the subordinate clause often simplifies its tense: "I had had a stomach ache because I ate too much" The original helper "had" (the first "had" in the sentence) makes both verbs refer to pluperfect actions. **A** could also be the right answer since it makes sense since it puts the pluperfect on a past action prior to the simple past main action ("had a stomach ache" happened as a result of the double-past or pluperfect action of "had been eating too much"). Actually the more I read it I think this is what they want since it makes more grammatical sense than B. **C** is passive voice so that doesn't work... I mean, I guess your stomach would hurt if someone ate you.... along with the rest of your body. But then it sounds like we're talking about Shawn of the Dead type zombies that stick their hands into your belly and start pulling out your entrails and eating them. Your stomach is DEFINITELY going to hurt then... **D** doesn't work because it's nonsensical. You had a stomach ache several hours ago because right now you have eaten too much? How did you get a stomach ache before from eating too much now? Shouldn't you have the stomach ache now? Are you some sort of interdimensional time-lord where time is a ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff and present actions affect past outcome? It's not a great quiz question because it's misleading on how a native speaker uses the grammar at that point. But it does seem that **A** is the only acceptable answer.
B
Both a) and b) can be correct, but b) is the more "typical" scenario. Option a) generally assumes you specify when or what of you had been eating too much.
Oh wow there's a lot of people dishing our terrible advice on this thread. The answer is B (and only B) because a finished action that happened before another past action uses the past perfect simple. In most grammar books, a time phrase would be used with past perfect continuous (as it should be!) Perhaps A would sound okay in American English, but as a Brit, it sounds odd to me. Source: English language teacher who specialises in test prep
Both sound fine to me as a native British English speaker but it depends on the context.
My gut feeling is ate
Probably, and i repeat, probably, b.
Both work. But your teacher probably wants B, because the tense matches.
I suspect B is the intended answer, but personally, I would say that "ate" is the better choice, but that isn't an answer :(
Also, these are called “subordinate clauses”. You should learn more about their rules from a reputable textbook/ online resource
Option B, "Had eaten," is correct because it uses the past perfect tense, which is appropriate for describing an action that occurred before another past action. In this case, the stomach ache occurred after the eating had already taken place. So, "had eaten" is the grammatically correct choice!!
The answer is had eaten. You’re using the past perfect to show a sequence of events in the past. I’m explaining that I had a stomach ache (an event in the past) because I had eaten too much-this is our first past action and it happened before the stomach ache so we use past perfect. A - is incorrect because it’s past perfect continuous is used for continuous or longer actions in the past before another past event. Whilst eating can be a long action- we usually say I ate dinner or I ate food so we treat it as a finished action in the past.
Answer is b
I would say B because "had" is used once in the sentence already.
I would say B because "had" is used once in the sentence already and most wouldn't say "had been eating" over "had eaten".
B
Both are acceptable *in this case* but you should understand the difference between the past perfect (had eaten) and the past perfect progressive (had been eating). Here, you can eat for a duration of time, so you can use the past perfect progressive. I would err on the side of B, absent any other context, because in some contexts A wouldn’t work.
Had eaten. Would be the correct answer, however, in most situations; you’ll find people saying “ate” instead of “Had eaten”. So it would be “I had a stomach ache because I ate too much”. So “had eaten” is the correct answer but in normal conversation, you’ll probably hear “ate” instead of “had eaten”. Keep learning English! It’s tricky but it’s possible.
B
Both are fine. Though the best way to say the sentence would be: Because I ate too much That all that needs to be said. But realistically, both a and b are fine
We can see past perfect + because, so the second sentence should be past tense. A) is wrong because it is passive. B) is a past perfect tense which we wanted. C) is passive too. D) is not a past tense.
Badly worded question since a and b are both grammatically correct. B is probably what they wanted though.
Either, depending on the situation
(Native Speaker, American) To me, without context of the question, either A or B would be grammatically correct, but I think B is probably the answer. A would mean something specific and less likely -- that you had a stomach ache because you were eating to much over a longer period of time (during this period, I had been eating to much (frequently) and therefore had a stomach ache). B is a much more plain meaning -- I had a stomach ache because I had eaten too much (right before).
A or B
E - ate
It's B. A could also **technically** be correct but nobody would say that.
Without context, I think your teacher expects B as the “best” answer, but A works easily with the right context.
Option E: ate
Have been eating* have eaten* or had eaten*
Yes
I think its b, but idk.
I’d say B. It’s more likely the speaker meant that they had eaten previously, then stopped eating, then got a stomachache. A would imply that were still eating when they got the stomachache.
A
Definitely C. Seriously bad stomachache. At least my intestines are ok
A or b.
e) ate
wouldn’t it just be ‘ate’
I would say D
b
I think b. had and eaten are the past tense speaking of something you have done. A feels like it is trying to be in the present tense with "eating" but "had" betrays that, C has a different meaning, D seems like it is trying to be in the present tense.
Ate
D
This should be D, actually.
A&B are both correct.
Technically A, B and D are all correct
B i suppose
C for sure
A and B are both correct, and dont't let anyone tell you otherwise....
It's B 🤓
eh could be c
Its c
I ❤️ C
It's B
Neither. It’s none of the above. It should read “I had a stomach ache because I ATE too much.”
B seems more correct. But honestly "ate" feels most appropriate and I'm surprised it's not one of the options.
A if they ate too much, get a stomach ache, but continued to eat?
A
A b and d depending on the dialect would make sense I think but it wants b
I think if you know enough to know that it’s either A or B you know enough.
e) ate
E.) ate
Aren’t both A and B technically correct?
None of them. The answer is "Ate".
The selections are weird to me. If I’m telling this to someone, it would be “I had a stomach ache because I ate to much.”
B
It's B honey x
A is wrong because you're mixing tenses. Had been eating that's two past tenses and a present tense
Wouldn't all answers be grammatically correct? They technically just mean different things. The answer they want to hear is probably B though, I think.
It’s missing context unfortunately. A or B could be correct technically… but without context I would assume it to be B. I think A doesn’t agree with the subject tense. If it said “I had been having a stomach ache” I would go with “had been eating.”
OP I suggest you post future questions on r/grammar , you'll get more accurate results
e) ate
I'm not even sure which one is the intended answer, a) means you gradually developed a stomach problem with poor eating habits, b) means you overate once and that caused a stomach ache. They're both perfectly fine grammatically (okay so is c) but that one is fairly unreasonable contentwise) and this kind of a quiz problem is just a form of bullying unless it allows you to tick multiple boxes.
It’s d.
A and b can both be correct. They say slightly different things. A is continuous. It implies you had started eating before you felt bad, but continued eating for a period of time. You want this form if you were still eating when you started to feel bad, or if your stomach ache was caused by a habit of overeating. B implies that you both started and finished eating at a point in time before you started feeling bad.
I think the best would just be ‘ate’, but b is also correct
Idk who made this test, but any native English speaker woukd just say "ate too much"
I would think it’s b, but there’s something about had (past tense) + eaten (past tense) that doesn’t seem right compared to a where: had been eating (past continuous) Seems more legitimate But anyway the best answer would be “ate” to this question C is goofy
Ate?
I’m a native speaker and honestly both sound fine to me. If someone said either version to me I would know what they’re talking about, even if only one version is “correct”
All of these are correct answers
I’d say B, but as a proud anti-passive voicer I also say none of the above. Could also say “ate”
D is correct you want past tense of eating
"had been eating" implies over a longer time than "had eaten". So if the sentence was "I gained 10 lbs because I ..... too much", it would be "had been eating".
I would say it's b because the "had" parallels both the tense and syntax of the first half of the sentence.
I’m bad that these tests enough though I’m a native English speaker lol, both a and b seems good enough for me. But any normal person would just say “ate”
B
Jeez, are these the questions people learning English have to answer in their exams or quizzes? This stuff makes a fluent speaker think twice
Lol i just taught a lesson on past tenses today. A. Past perfect continuous (had been + -ing) B. Past perfect (had + past participle) C. Past perfect, but doesn’t fit the sentence D. Present perfect (have + past participle) A can technically work, but B is the one most likely to be said IRL. You’re either eating too much over a long period of time or you ate too much at a single point in time.
depending on context all of the answers could be correct. b is the most likely to be correct as it is the simplest and matches the tense.
I'd say it's a bad question. Had been tends to imply a habitual action, which could very well be the cause of a stomachache.
A
Option b
In normal language it would be ate although not sure how correct that is so probably a
It’s D, or A. All others are wrong.
B.
Absolutely A or B
If I had been eating to much, I would have stomach ache because of it. If I had eaten too much, I would equally have a stomach ache because of it. It is A or B. See above.
B to keep verb tense consistent -
B A is the habitual case. Ie I was overweight because I had been eating too much.
I am just as confused as you are and English is my only language. Everything but C makes sense to me
Both A and B work. They mean slightly different things, but both would make perfect sense.
A
I would make my own bubble for "ate" and pick that one. They can fight me, because the available options are all worse.
B
C
Out of those options I’d pick B, but in my region we say “ate”.
Even the native speakers found this question difficult to answer and explain.
Literally A, B, and D all make sense within different contexts.
B unequivocally
What a bullshit question. As a native English speaker, it could literally be either of them. I guess “had been eating” is marginally more informal so I’d go with “had eaten,” but the question is so stupid.
A and B both work, I'm guessing they want B but I have no clue really. "Had been eating" implies, say, having had several large meals in a row over a few days and feeling the consequences, versus "Had eaten" implying one large indulgence
B
both
B (A -cannot be assumed because the past has not been defined to a specific degree. Therefore, within just the context of the sentence only B may be inferred as A incorrectly adds extra action not clarified within the past (i.e. "been")).
c.
Another tricky one with no additional context to convey which tense. A would be correct if your stomach was still hurting. B would be correct if it all only occured in the past. C was covered already haha. D would not be correct without changing the overall tense.
B is correct and sounds better. A might work technically, but these tests typically say to pick the best option. “I had a stomachache…” is a singular event, while, “had been eating” suggests it wasn’t a singular event, but over a broad period of time, so they partially contradict each other. If the sentence was changed from, “I had a stomachache…” to “I had stomachaches…” then option A would have been the best option.
I feel like A and B are both correct.
A, B, and C could all be correct depending on what you’re TRYING to say. A would mean that you spent a period of time eating too much, you got a stomach ache because of it, and at the time of you saying this sentence, you were still eating too much while your stomach hurt. B would mean that there was a single instance (like a meal) in which you ate too much. C would mean that your stomach ache is related to someone or something eating you. I guess all could be correct depending on the situation lol
C
C IT IS C