Doesn’t adding the ‘d change it from past tense to passive voice past tense?
Passive past would be something like "Goodbye had been said too many times before [by her]"
In active voice, the subject does something to the object.
In passive voice, the object is affected [by the subject]. (I wanted to write "is done something to" instead of "affected", but that feels ugly - the issue with affected is that it is also an adjective; I really mean the past participle here)
The object becomes the subject, and vice versa. The be auxiliary needs to be present. If be is not here, it ain't passive. If be is here… be can be used in active voice so you can't know for sure, but if there's a "by ..." clause, or if adding one feels natural, that a good hint.
The intent of the passive voice is usually to focus on the object or the action, of de-emphasis the subject, of even to drop it because it's not important, it's redundant or even to create some suspense regarding who performed the action.
(English is a second language to me, though what I wrote completely applies to my first language too)
I'd be interested to know though. It just reads as ...wrong to me.
I guess it might be an English dialect thing.
Because it still has relevance for the present, it should be present perfect.
Unless if course it's about finally quitting, then the past tense makes sense.
Yeah, that sounds OK. Probably better than my original suggestion.
Or even the contracted "She's said goodbye too many times before".