Patryn wrote:This confused me too! It certainly does sound awkward.
From some quick reading, I think AVNicholls is kinda right.
Was = past tense of "to be"
had been = past tense of "to have" with a past participle/perfect tense of "to be"
I think "had been" would mean that the subject and verbs are now in the past and it is no longer true in the present.
"She had wanted to be a writer since she had been a child." could be correct depending on the meaning. This suggest she no longer wants to be a writer when she stopped being a child.
I think it would be better if it was
"She had wanted to be a writer since she has been a child."
with a present tense of "to have" with past participle "to be". This sounds to me like she is no longer a child, but the ideas she had when she was are still valid and continuing into present.
That's kinda convoluted and might well be wrong, but it kinda makes sense to me! xD
EDIT: Worst case, if you use this explanation, the JTE will most likely be confused and just take your word for it. I believe I have confused even myself with this post. lol
Since + had been don't work together (usually there may be special exceptions).
Patryn wrote:I think "had been" would mean that the subject and verbs are now in the past and it is no longer true in the present.
She had been a child - it happened and now it is over ("since she has been a child" is strange wording because it means it is continuing from the start of childhood when she is still a child, so it doesn't make sense).
She had wanted to be a writer - she wanted to do it and now she is a writer, so that want is over.
Again, "had met" sounds redundant since that sentence should be in the simple past form, but I am not sure if it can still be used anyways and if it is technically wrong.
Anyone have any sources or information on this sentence structure? It definitely sounds wrong to me, but I need a good explanation as to why it cannot be used.[
Users browsing this forum: alm, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 9 guests