Grammar question for native speakers

Which of the following sentences sounds better to your ears?

1. I had never seen that man before it happened.
2. I never saw that man before it happened.

Thanks in advance...

Probably 2 out of the options presented. But I'd prefer "I didn't see that man before it happened."

To my ears the first sounds better. The past perfect is the appropriate grammatical structure for the situation.

Thanks for your answers. I guess both sentences are acceptable.

Oh dear, back to the Atlantic divide again ...

Both are acceptable in American English. The second is not acceptable in English English.

Oh! "Both are acceptable in American English." I didn't know that. Thanks for opening my eyes. Anyway, I'll be sticking to number one as it still seems to be the appropriate grammatical structure to me. Although my English isn't English English. It's the Pacific divide from my perspective.

Hey, I'm not an authority on these things. But there is I think a difference like that. American English will often use (alas my knowledge of grammar escapes me) things like

"Did you see Jim today?"
"Yeah, I saw him"

Whereas in England it would be

"Have you seen Jim today?"
"Yeah, I've seen him"

By the way, what is the "Pacific" divide? What is on the other side? Or are you just saying you're from the West Coast?

Hi could anyone answer me on this pls?

Some dinstinctive motive or some dinstinctive motives in commission of a crime?

Australia is on the other side of the Pacific. The grammar, spelling, vocabulary and accent of Australian and New Zealander Engllish is a lot closer to that of British English than it is to American English. So it is American English which seems different to me but it's the Pacific Ocean rather than the Atlantic which splits my country off from North America.

The majority of the Brits go for 2 whilst those who live in the north America choose 1.

Coincidentally, present perfect and past perfect are more frequently used in Britain than in the USA. Americans tend to use much simpler forms with respect to tense. Temporal awareness is linguistically stronger in British English.

This is due to the fact that British English was formally grammatised based on the French language in the 18th century. The major separation from French in terms of grammer is the existence of "ing" forms in English. We formally invented "ing" forms in the 18th century. Before it didn't exist and therefore you cannot find any "ing" forms in works of Shakespear and Chaucer, for instance.

Rupert, I couldn't disagree more.

Hello, from Japan

Please let me ask you a question.

What is the difference between the two expressions below?

"a walker"

and

"a walking person"

I also would like to know when to use which.

I assume that the latter way of saying is more flexible than the former. For example, (I suppose) you can say:

"a walking woman"
"a walking man"
"a walking girl"
"a walking boy"

i.e. you can specify what kind of person the walker is. (I suppose) you cannot say "a man walker", "a girl walker" etc. Well, I'm not sure...

Could you please help me out?

Dear Rupert

I truly think that your knowledge of the English is less than nought. Do you have any qualifications in the study of the English language? Probably not, but if you do, (with all love and affection) please stick them up your arse.

Ryuta

The former is more useful when referring simply to anything that walks regardless of sex, age, species, etc.. But a 'walker' is also a device to help toddlers, well, walk.

The latter is better when describing the ongoing actions of a noun, i.e.

a walking man
a sitting man
a standing man

In simplified Enligsh grammar, the former is a noun, the latter an adjective.

Very interesting Rupert about the -ing thing. But then I have to ask, why was it invented?

PS I think we did agree earlier on, you just mixed up the numbers.