Past Perfect Tense W/O TIME Reference

Your examples and source are correct. You can use "for" plus time expression or "since" plus time expression.

It is with the present perfect that you cannot be specific as to when the action occured. [I have gone there for three years; I have gone there since 1990; but not I have gone there at 5:00 yesterday morning.]

I don't understand your answer. Why would the following be wrong:

These neighboring states lived in concord for centuries.

I would think that before you used "have," you should have at least two times listed.

Before the ascension of the new king, these neighboring states had lived in concord for centuries.

Hi Ducks,

I think your instincts are right. In that first sentece, "had lived," I would assume that there was some context that makes the past perfect appropriate. Perhaps the sentence before talks about the war that broke out in the year X. Then the sentence makes it clear that their peaceful co-existence had existed for centuries prior to that. Your sentence simeply makes it ver

Grammar Geek,

Thank you for your explanation. It answered another question I had about context. I was wondering if the two times had to be listed in a single sentence. Your context-comment makes it clear that the time could carry over from an earlier sentence. So, thanks for that too.

akdomCan it stand alone when the sentence doesn't have any reference to time?

All sentences have some reference to time because all sentences have verbs. Verbs must be expressed in one tense or another. Example sentences in dictionaries are assumed to have been lifted from their original contexts, and it's up to th

CalifJimf it were universally true, the past perfect could never occur in a before clause, and yet it occurs surprisingly often in before clauses.

Jim, would you please reveal something about it? Thank you in advance.

P.S. Does it come up when we need reconcile the sequence of tenses?

We got to the station before it had becom

Fandorinwould you please reveal something about it?

Pattern 1. ... (had) ... before ...-ed.

Suppose you have two events, X and Y, and they occur in this order:

1. X occurs.
2. (later) Y occurs.

You have two choices.

X occurred before Y occurred. [before makes it clear what the order is.]

X

Hi CJ,

Your explanation enlightens me. Could you please explain  pattern 3 ? 

I had seen him before he had seen me.

Thanks!!

It makes perfect sense, Jim. As it always does. Thank you so much.

pkrI had seen him before he had seen me.

This is a backshift (or flashback form) of

I saw him before he saw me.

The backshift occurs when the preceding context has already established a past point of view and the speaker wishes to explain that this event happened even before the time established as the point of view.

I qui