0
Teeronline Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
not 'was', why?
Hi Gurus!
Take a look at the simple phrase, "It was ten long years ago now, and he had been as green as the grass stains on a tumble's skirts"
While I'm still not very used to NOT seeing any 'ing' word follow by 'had been', my question is actually whether I could substitute 'had been' to a simple 'was' in here, as I'm not very confident to make assumption that 'had been' is used the same way as 'is' except it's past perfect tense.
Am I understand correctly if the phrase weren't about ten years ago but just a while back and perhaps if 'he' still look just as green as it was I could use a simple 'was' instead of 'had been'?
'had been' = 'is' + past perfect?
Thanks for help in advance
Take a look at the simple phrase, "It was ten long years ago now, and he had been as green as the grass stains on a tumble's skirts"
While I'm still not very used to NOT seeing any 'ing' word follow by 'had been', my question is actually whether I could substitute 'had been' to a simple 'was' in here, as I'm not very confident to make assumption that 'had been' is used the same way as 'is' except it's past perfect tense.
Am I understand correctly if the phrase weren't about ten years ago but just a while back and perhaps if 'he' still look just as green as it was I could use a simple 'was' instead of 'had been'?
'had been' = 'is' + past perfect?
Thanks for help in advance
Top answer
Hi, first of all, without a more general context, it's difficult to understand perfectly what the writer wanted to convey. Anyway, what I know is that the past perfect is often not necessary and can be replaced with the past simple, provided there are no misunderstandings and the sequence of events is clear. In your sentence, I suppose it's clear from the context what "it" is and when it happened.
- Hi, first of all, without a more general context, it's difficult to understand perfectly what the writer wanted to convey.
- Anyway, what I know is that the past perfect is often not necessary and can be replaced with the past simple, provided there are no misunderstandings and the sequence of events is clear.
- In your sentence, I suppose it's clear from the context what "it" is and when it happened.
- Using a past perfect where it's not necessary is possible, but will probably lead to less smooth sentences.
- That said, I am not an expert...
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
Hi,
first of all, without a more general context, it's difficult to understand perfectly what the writer wanted to convey.
Anyway, what I know is that the past perfect is often not necessary and can be replaced with the past simple, provided there are no misunderstandings and the sequence of events is clear. In your sentence, I suppose it's clear from the context what "it" is and when it
first of all, without a more general context, it's difficult to understand perfectly what the writer wanted to convey.
Anyway, what I know is that the past perfect is often not necessary and can be replaced with the past simple, provided there are no misunderstandings and the sequence of events is clear. In your sentence, I suppose it's clear from the context what "it" is and when it
00
Hi Kooyeen, how very kind of you, thanks for the welcome 
I'm with you if you mean the writer's word use is confusing. 'Tum
I'm with you if you mean the writer's word use is confusing. 'Tum
00
teeronlineAre these correct?Yes, you can definitely use the past perfect that way, provided there is the right context. The past perfect is used to refer to something that happened before something else in the past:
There was no cake in the refrigerator, because I had eaten it all.
You are talking about a fact in the past, and with the past per
00
To be:
he, she, it is
I am
we, you, they are
___
he, she, it, I was
we, you, they were
___
he, she, it has been
I, we, you, they have been
___
he, she, it, I, we, you, they had been
___
After a form of to be you can have an -ing form, an -en form (past participle), an adjective, or a noun. The tense doesn't matter.
he, she, it is
I am
we, you, they are
___
he, she, it, I was
we, you, they were
___
he, she, it has been
I, we, you, they have been
___
he, she, it, I, we, you, they had been
___
After a form of to be you can have an -ing form, an -en form (past participle), an adjective, or a noun. The tense doesn't matter.
00
Hi Kooyeen and CaliJim, and thank you for the effort for posting, it's savely to say things have pretty much squared up.
I believe 'had been' is much more handy in the context of story telling than regular use in writing, while the time or the date of indication must be given in order for a 'had been' using properly, 'was' is good for most of time as long as everybody can tell it's from
I believe 'had been' is much more handy in the context of story telling than regular use in writing, while the time or the date of indication must be given in order for a 'had been' using properly, 'was' is good for most of time as long as everybody can tell it's from
00
CalifJimYou can substitute was for had been in your sentence.Yeah you can, but you lose part of the meaning.
0
Related Questions