Gates' donations are invested in problems that should have been dealt with by governments, whose tax money is spent instead on the semi-corrupt self interests of their leaders and their business cronies,[0] an economic-social structure which contributed much to the way in which Gates and other Global business billionaires have made their fortune. It's a twisted system, and conscience-cleansing philantropy by its curr…
Conscience cleaning philanthropy, because he is responsible for so many deaths! Come on, this makes us sound silly.
Gates' donations are invested in problems that should have been dealt with by governments, whose tax money is spent instead on the semi-corrupt self interests of their leaders and their business cronies,[0] an economic-social structure which contributed much to the way in which Gates and other Global business billionaires have made their fortune. It's a twisted system, and conscience-cleansing philantropy by its curr…
Conscience cleaning philanthropy, because he is responsible for so many deaths! Come on, this makes us sound silly.
Unlike most super billionaires, Gates is actually actively spending the bulk of his wealth while he's still alive. Genuine philanthropy.
He and Buffett seem to share a skepticism of setting in motion a large charitable foundation that will outlive them. Hence, Gates wants to directly oversee the spending, and spend it at a high enough rate that it uses up most of the money in his lifetime, rather than setting something up in a will. Buffett even conditioned his recurring donation to the Gates Foundation on Bill or Melinda Gates still being alive and in control of the Foundation.
That's not what the pluperfect tense implies in English. It simply means something that took place prior to a moment in the past [1]. There is still some ambiguity that could lead a reader to infer that Gates is finished donating money. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_aspect#English
>It simply means something that took place prior to a moment in the past True, but that implies that there exists such a moment with particular significance. Otherwise, you wouldn't use that tense. In other words, it leaves you thinking Bill Gates donated 36 billion dollars before X, where X is his death, an alien invasion, the collapse of the dollar, etc. I don't know if there is a rule of thumb as to what tense to…
Like I said, "had donated" is ambiguous, however, inferring that this must mean Bill Gates either died or gave the donated money back is more than a bit of a stretch.
Can someone please change the title to say "has donated", since "had donated" implies he is dead. Or that the took the money back.
That's not what the pluperfect tense implies in English. It simply means something that took place prior to a moment in the past [1]. There is still some ambiguity that could lead a reader to infer that Gates is finished donating money. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_aspect#English
Just to reiterate the other comments, "had" is wrong because you included "in his lifetime" to contextualise it -- this implies the period of time known as his "lifetime" is in the past, which is wrong because he is still alive, and so "had" is incorrect.
If one had said "Bill Gates had donated over $x [before he was 55]" it would be fine.
Gates' donations are invested in problems that should have been dealt with by governments, whose tax money is spent instead on the semi-corrupt self interests of their leaders and their business cronies,[0] an economic-social structure which contributed much to the way in which Gates and other Global business billionaires have made their fortune. It's a twisted system, and conscience-cleansing philantropy by its curr…
Conscience cleaning philanthropy, because he is responsible for so many deaths! Come on, this makes us sound silly.
Microsoft clippy? Windows XP update auto-restarts? The Microsoft Genuine Premium Plus Advantage Home Starter Business Pro Certified Product Activator? The Zune?
Are these not some of the greatest atrocities afflicted on mankind?
Can someone please change the title to say "has donated", since "had donated" implies he is dead. Or that the took the money back.
That's not what the pluperfect tense implies in English. It simply means something that took place prior to a moment in the past [1]. There is still some ambiguity that could lead a reader to infer that Gates is finished donating money. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_aspect#English
In languages English is derived from, there is also the presence of an "aspect" to a verb, which denotes when a verb ends. We carry this through in English with the difference between "had donated" "donated" and "was donating", where the action is either completed in the past, ambiguous, or could be ongoing. I don't know if this is the "proper" way to talk about it in terms of English grammar, since I'm not sure there is such a thing for such a diverse language, but it is in Ancient Greek and Latin. Your link does a good job for people who are mixing up the auxiliary verb "had" which can be a main verb, "to have" but is not in this case. The main action here relates to donating, not having.
Gates' donations are invested in problems that should have been dealt with by governments, whose tax money is spent instead on the semi-corrupt self interests of their leaders and their business cronies,[0] an economic-social structure which contributed much to the way in which Gates and other Global business billionaires have made their fortune. It's a twisted system, and conscience-cleansing philantropy by its curr…
>It simply means something that took place prior to a moment in the past True, but that implies that there exists such a moment with particular significance. Otherwise, you wouldn't use that tense. In other words, it leaves you thinking Bill Gates donated 36 billion dollars before X, where X is his death, an alien invasion, the collapse of the dollar, etc. I don't know if there is a rule of thumb as to what tense to…
Like I said, "had donated" is ambiguous, however, inferring that this must mean Bill Gates either died or gave the donated money back is more than a bit of a stretch.
Well, yes, it's a bitch of a stretch because of our context, still the phrase is ambiguous, so it's better with 'has'
The phrase certainly can be fixed if it refers to some event like 'Bill Gates had donated 36 billion before he left Microsoft'
Gates' donations are invested in problems that should have been dealt with by governments, whose tax money is spent instead on the semi-corrupt self interests of their leaders and their business cronies,[0] an economic-social structure which contributed much to the way in which Gates and other Global business billionaires have made their fortune. It's a twisted system, and conscience-cleansing philantropy by its curr…
If governments use, in your words, tax money on semi-corrupt self interests then how would have taxing Bill Gates at a higher solved any of the problems you think should be handled by government? If governments are going to be inefficient and corrupt with a little money they are going to be inefficient and corrupt with a lot of money.