Thread: perfect

Could you, please, explain me using "Perfect" tense in the following examples:

1. When a car had slowed down and picked me up, I had been real happy
2. that extraordinary interview with George last night necessiated rememberance. It had been so unexpected, so frightening. Wait - had it been so unexpected?

(IMHO, All red had been in those examples I can change to simple "was", i.e. use "Past" tense. I just cant understand why the author used Perfect tense there...)

None of those sentances are at all correct. Least of all the parts with 'had been'.

Your second set of sentences is ok -- the first sentence is broken in a number of ways. You're right -- grammatically you can just subsitute "was", but it changes the meaning. If you say "had been" you're saying that AT THAT POINT OF TIME IN THE PAST, it had occurred to you that this interview was unexpected, etc. (So, basically, at 4 pm yesterday you thought this was interesting). If you say "was", then it means you are of that opinion NOW, AS YOU ARE WRITING/SAYING it.

All those sentences sound very awkward. You're correct "was" can be used in place of "had been." In fact it is more natural and sounds better than "had been" with very little change in meaning.

Why did the author use "had been"? To see how awkward it sounds to use "had been"?

Like I said, the second set of sentences is fine. I don't know why people think it sounds awkward -- it doesn't sound the least bit awkward to me (at least the portions using "had been" -- the first sentence there about the remembrence sounds wooden and stodgey). It just sounds very much like a narrative or someone's recollections...

Originally Posted by Бармалей

the first sentence is broken in a number of ways.

Why? Maybe, It must look like this: "When a car slowed down and picked me up, I had been real happy" (with the meaning that now I don't suppose I was really happy at that time) ???

1. When a car had slowed down and picked me up,

I am always told that if the subject of a sentence performs a number of actions in a row, I must use by no means perfect, but simple tense.
Why here it is "had slowed" and not just "slowed down and picked me up"?

And my english teacher told me also that if there is the question "when", it must be simple tense.

For example: I called him yesterday and not I have called him yesterday.

They are both wrong.

The only way 2. could theoretically be considered grammatically correct is if the second and third sentence don't refer to the first, but to something else in the wider context of the full text. I doubt that is the case, but it's possible.

The use of 'real' as an adverb in the first sentence is a very American thing, so I'd say either the author was an illiterate seppo, or the character is supposed to be an illiterate seppo, or the person who translated it into English was taught English by an illiterate seppo

1. When a car slowed down and picked me up, I was really happy.
2. that extraordinary interview with George last night necessiated rememberance. It was so unexpected, so frightening. Wait -was it so unexpected?

thanks!!!
(BTW, what does seppo mean ???)

Barfly is right! Those sentences sound normal, especially if this is from a novel or something. Perhaps the author was trying to add color to a character or something but I have heard plenty of people talk that way.
The first one could be correct depending on context.
PS A Seppo is a Yank!

EDIT: I forgot to add....IMHO

Originally Posted by DDT

The first one could be correct depending on context.

Could you provide context (for the first sentence to be correct), please....

For it to make sense the car slowing down to pick him up must not have anything to do with being happy. He would have to be referring to his state of happiness being at the time of the car slowing down but not connected to it and just giving reference to the car in order to give a time line. The inferrence is that he was not happy at a later time perhaps even at the time that he is making this statement.

It could be someones way of stressing that they at one time had experienced happiness. But they are not happy now.

My girlfriend died in a planecrash yesterday. I have been thinking of her all day. I remember well the day we first met. I had been hitchhiking from New York to Santa Cruz, but so far had only made it to the Nevada desert. I was dying of thirst. My feet were killing me. I saw a car coming. It passed me by but then had stopped. When I had opened the door to get it I had been so happy that I scarcely noticed her.

Well, not much of an author, I'm afraid. Maybe I should take a writing course. But that's the gist of "had been." Past action in a narrative of past actions. I think the pluperfect adds some psychological distance (versus the simple past) between the speaker and the events described.

It passed me by but then had stopped. When I had opened the door to get it I had been so happy that I scarcely noticed her.

I don't think the tenses sound right in this example. The past tense would be better.

Originally Posted by chaika

My girlfriend died in a planecrash yesterday. I have been thinking of her all day. I remember well the day we first met. I had been hitchhiking from New York to Santa Cruz, but so far had only made it to the Nevada desert. I was dying of thirst. My feet were killing me. I saw a car coming. It passed me by but then_stopped. When I_opened the door to get in I was so happy that I scarcely noticed her.

I agree that, in colloquial, spoken language, these sentences sound weird.
As Бармалей (hello, Young Man - nice to see you around again ) says, they sound like a narrative, like literary language. And writers often wriggle around grammar for stylistic purposes.

Consider the following context:

When a car had slowed down and picked me up, I had been really happy. For a minute, two maybe. Just long enough for me to realize that the driver was an axe murderer. Fate can be cruel.

See? It's possible. Maybe not grammatically correct, but possible.
"had been" would then imply that it didn't last very long, and that it was most definitely over.
(it should be "really" though....)

And I have no problem whatsoever with the second sentence - again, it is something that is definitely over, that is so definitely finished that the character speaking is already reminiscing. And it sounds literary.

gosh, this post has made me realize just how much I still get confused around the Perfect tenses. And I thought I had it all sorted out already!!!

"1. When a car had slowed down and picked me up, I had been real happy"

sounds colloquial. something like "When a car had slowed down and picked me up -- now, I had been real happy before the car slowed down and picked me up -- but then..."

BTW, I got those sentences with "Perfect" from a book by Agatha Christie. She possibly liked using that tense

Originally Posted by BabaYaga

See? It's possible. Maybe not grammatically correct, but possible.

If I could see what you see...

Originally Posted by Chuvak

BTW, I got those sentences with "Perfect" from a book by Agatha Christie. She possibly liked using that tense

Originally Posted by BabaYaga

See? It's possible. Maybe not grammatically correct, but possible.

If I could see what you see...

Awww, Chuvak - you will!

You know what - could you maybe post the context of this sentence? I mean, a couple of sentences before and after.... Maybe we'll be able to explain better why she used that tense here.
For me, the use of "had been" here implies that something happened afterwards, that really finished off the character's happiness.

"He had been happy" = "at that time he was happy, now he's not happy anymore"
"He was happy" = "at that time he was happy, and maybe he's still happy now. Or maybe not. We don't know if it isn't specified elsewhere."