yzh1978 A grammar book says the third one is wrong It is wrong because the meaning is extremely odd: one knows when one lived somewhere. It is also wrong because we would expect past perfect with a time previous to another past time. With other contexts the structure works fine: I had finished school by 1996.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
yzh1978A grammar book says the third one is wrongIt is wrong because the meaning is extremely odd: one knows when one lived somewhere. It is also wrong because we would expect past perfect with a time previous to another past time. With other contexts the structure works fine:
yzh1978so the 2 is also wrong since "before 1996"is also not exact and it might be converted into " I had lived there before 1996"?No, not at all. #2 is fine. I was born before 1980.
yzh1978And what is the difference between the pair (1) I had lived there by 1996.(2)I had lived there before 1996.Nothing really; #1
yzh1978 "I lived at 1996"No meaning.
yzh1978 I lived there before 1996"OK.
yzh1978We can't say "I lived there by 1996" just like we can't say "I lived there at or before 1996".Am I right?Yes, that is a good comparison.
yzh1978What is the difference between these 2 sentences? 1 I will live there by 2015.2 I will have lived there by 2015.It is just the mental perspective of the speaker. In #1, s/he is viewing the future from now. In #2, s/he is viewing the same future from farther in the future.