She had been in London.
1) Ann wasn't in when I phoned her. She was in London.
2) Ann had just got home when I phoned her. She had been in London.
ln "1)" both states of "being in" are parallel. But in "2)" the action "had got" and the state "had been" are unparalleled, though both "having got home" and "having been in London" are expressed in the past perfect (Ann had returned from London; she wasn't there when back at home [her home wasn't in London]).
Am I right in my interpretation?
Top answer
1) The "in"s are parallel in time but not in function, since one is an adjective and the other a preposition. 2) "had got" and "had been" both happened before "I phoned". That is the limit of what the past perfect can express.
- 1) The "in"s are parallel in time but not in function, since one is an adjective and the other a preposition.
- 2) "had got" and "had been" both happened before "I phoned".
- That is the limit of what the past perfect can express.
- It cannot express also that "had been" happened before "had got" (though, of course, this is obvious from the context).
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1) The "in"s are parallel in time but not in function, since one is an adjective and the other a preposition.
2) "had got" and "had been" both happened before "I phoned". That is the limit of what the past perfect can express. It cannot express also that "had been" happened before "had got" (though, of course, this is obvious from the context).
0
Related Questions