Question

Please look at the following1.A girl was arrested for drunk driving yesterday.She had been drinking alcohol.2.A girl was arrested for drunk driving yesterday.She had drunk alcohol.Now in both sentences, she was drunk and drinking was over, she had already drunk.Then What is the difference between the both?In "A girl was arrested for drunk driving yesterday.She had been drinking alcohol." Can we interpret the above statement taking all possibilities into consideration in the following ways?a)To refer a specific instant of her drinking, like, 'she had been drinking alcohol at 5pm and was arrested at 6pm'.I mean just describe just what was happening at 5pm in past perfect sense.Like we describe in past continuous.She was drinking at 5pm.IS the interpretation correct?b)To refer to a situation when she had been drinking since 5pm till she arrested at 6pm.I mean this is possible in theory.In the sense of She has been drinking.Is the interpretation correct?c)To refer to a situation when she was drinking at 5pm and had been drinking since 4pm.Is the interpretation correct?Similarly, when we use past perfect can we interpret it followinglya)To refer to a specific instant of her drinking, like she was arrested at 6pm and can we now say that she had drank alcohol at 5pm? By saying that she had drank alcohol at 5pm, does it mean that she started then or could she have started earlier?Please help me.Thank you.

Deadrat · Accepted Answer

"Had drank" is wrong; use "had drunk."

To use the past perfect, you need an event in the past (e.g., yesterday at 6PM) as your reference point. The past perfect tense will then refer to times prior to the reference point. The progressive form ("had been drinking") implies that the drinking happened over an extent of time. The simple form ("had drunk") is a statement of fact about the time before 6PM. If the girl had been on a drinking binge, then it's true that she'd had a drink at some point, so it's true that she'd drunk alcohol. If it's known that girl had a single drink at some time before 6PM, it might still be true that she's had several drinks in the preceding hours, so it might also be true that she had been drinking at many times before 6PM.

This is a long way of saying that absent any further information about her drinking history, there's not much difference between the two uses of the past perfect. The verb form "had drunk" can assure you that there was at least one point before 6PM when the girl downed a shot of booze; it can't tell you if there was more than that one point.

Fivejedjon · Answer

The initial problem is that we would not add the second sentence. If she was arrested for drunk driving then it is obvious what caused her condition.

Let's move to a more likely situation:

A girl attacked a policeman yesterday. She had been drinking.

Here the effect of her drinking continues up to and through the time of the attack. The progressive form is appropriate. Note that we do not need to add the word 'alcohol. It is clear that this is what we mean.

We could also say She had drunk a bottle and a half of gin. We use a past perfect because the drinking happened before that (later) past time of the attack. We use a non-progressive form because the actual drinking of the gin did not continue to that time.

Deepuji · Answer

Thank you sirs

deadrat"Had drank" is wrong; use "had drunk."

Sorry deadrat.I just was careless.I will be more careful from now.Thank you.

deadratThe progressive form ("had been drinking") implies that the drinking happened over an extent of time

So sir, can we not use it describe one specific time? I don't know how to put it, but I will try.

Like in present perfect tense, we can't use any time dimension, like at 5pm or on monday, similarly do you mean that we cant use that same in past perfect continuous?

We say that "She was drinking at 5PM" and is correct.Similarly in past perfect continuous can we say I "She had been drinking at 5PM?" to refer to once specific sentence? If no, then why? Or instead should I say "She had drunk at 5PM"?

Please clarify deadrat sir.

fivejedjon She had drunk a bottle and a half of gin. We use a past perfect because the drinking happened before that (later) past time of the attack. We use a non-progressive form because the actual drinking of the gin did not continue to that time.

Sir in this was the effect of drinking not there at the time of attack? I yes then I fail to understand, how different it is from the 'progressive form' as even in 'progressive form' there was only the effect not actual drinking as in both cases the drinking had stopped.

Please clarify sir.

Thanks so much.

Deadrat · Answer

No need for an apology. You'll have noticed that I make my own share of mistakes.

Part of the problem is that the verb form "drinking" and the nouns "drink" and "drunk" assume that the beverage in question is alcoholic if no type is mentioned. But this isn't true of "have/had drunk."

So is the following grammatical?

She had been drinking a tequila at 5PM, an hour before she was arrested.

I'm going to say it's somewhere between ungrammatical and unnatural because the past perfect progressive wants a duration:

She had been drinking tequila for three hours before she was arrested.

If you want a single occurrence, use the past progressive:

She was drinking a tequila at 5PM, an hour before she was arrested.

Deepuji · Answer

Thank you sir.

deadratShe had been drinking a tequila at 5PM, an hour before she was arrested.

Sir, Please look at the following.In these cases it does make sense to use thus

"I was drinking a tequila at 5PM" she said.

Then in reported speech we would say---------- She said she had been drinking a tequila at 5PM.Atleast according to rules it is correct.

Similarly, we would say the same in this example also

A person was attacked by two men, who had been having their lunch at 5PM.

In the above, too, it makes sense to use such.

Please clarify sir.

Deadrar sir could you comment on this one also

deepujifivejedjon She had drunk a bottle and a half of gin. We use a past perfect because the drinking happened before that (later) past time of the attack. We use a non-progressive form because the actual drinking of the gin did not continue to that time.

deepujiSir in this was the effect of drinking not there at the time of attack? I yes then I fail to understand, how different it is from the 'progressive form' as even in 'progressive form' there was only the effect not actual drinking as in both cases the drinking had stopped.

Thank you

Deadrat · Answer

You're right about reported past action: the tense can shift to the past perfect.

I'm not sure why the effect of the drinking is important. It's clear from the context (a bottle and a half!) that the effect will continue long past the last swallow, but the grammar tells us only about the act of imbibing.

The time frame of the drinking is the time before the attack. The progressive form indicates an extent before the attack, and the non-progressive form indicates a completion before the attack. The grammar itself can't tell you how close to the attack the drinking ended. For that you have to rely on what you know about drinking and to some extent what isn't said. When we talk about a completed act, we imply a gap between the completed act and a subsequent one. If we didn't want to convey that meaning, we would have said, "She had just finished a bottle of gin when she attacked."

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

She had been drinking a tequila at 5PM, an hour

Related Questions