Grammar Nerds - HELP!

[Namisuke]

My JTE, who always comes to me with difficult grammar puzzles, asked me this:

In the book, it says this:

She had wanted to be a writer since she was a child.

He wanted to know if he can say:

She had wanted to be a writer since she had been a child.

Is that okay? It sounds redundant to put "had been" instead of "was" as in this sentence the past should be simple in the last part, but I don't know if it is considered wrong to do that or it if is still okay. However, when I flip the sentence around, it does sound a little strange:

Since she had been a child, she had wanted to be a writer.

That means the timeline of being a child is all screwed up.

Here is another example:

I had wanted to be a teacher since I had met Mr. Sato.

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.

Thanks in advance!

[AVN]

so I'm going to do my best here but I often have trouble explaining this stuff in written form.
So basically if you take the sentence and imagine it it doesn't work. For me at least.

Since + had been don't work together (usually there may be special exceptions).
The implication of had ____ed is that something has ended
I had wanted to meet him forever (image, either you met him or you stopped wanting to meet him)
since I had been a child (image, since you stopped being a child...)
This doesn't quite work and creates a strange image.

This is just me working it out not based on a grammar book.

[Patryn]

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

[AVN]

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

I agree this one is really hard to talk about.
"She had wanted to be a writer since she had been a child."
Though in this case I feel that it's still not the meaning the teacher had been going for.
I feel like since + had (in this case) feels like giving a reason as opposed to a time.

[Pjj]

"Since she had been a child she had wanted to be a writer." is grammatically correct, though stylistically awkward.

[Pjj]

"She had wanted to be a writer since she has been a child."

Completely wrong. Your sentence implies that since she had been a child at some point she had wanted to be a writer.

[hysan]

I think both AVNicholls and Patryn explain this fairly well. But if you still find it hard to explain this to your JTE, this would be my approach (Disclaimer: not a grammar nerd so I can't say I'm correct in my explanation).

First, for a simple explanation of "was" vs "had been": http://english.stackexchange.com/questi ... i-had-been
Using the change of state definition, I would explain it by trying to convert everything to this form:

When she <time frame>.

So breaking down the first example you gave, you'd get:

"has been" implies a change of state => She had been a child. => When she stopped being a child. => "stopped being a child" is the time frame being defined.
"since" also implies a change of state => Since when did she want to be a writer? => Since she was a child. => When she was a child. => "was a child" is the time frame being defined.

Combining the two ("since" and "had been") is not a commonly accepted form of usage because it create ambiguity in determining the proper time frame. To explain, this is what would happen using the above format:

Since when did she want to be a writer? => Since she had been a child. => When she had been a child. => When when she stopped being a child.

This makes absolutely no sense because "when" is not referring to a proper time frame. Additionally, as both AVNicholls and Patryn pointed out, "had been" and "was" do not mean the same thing. So even if the usage was correct, the two sentences are not interchangeable as you'd be changing the meaning of the sentence.

Not sure if this explanation makes sense or is even correct, but it's how I would make sense of the two.

[Namisuke]

At both points there is a stop in time.

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.

Is it okay to put those together?

"Has" implies that it is presently happening. "Had" means it is finished.

I think I figured it out though:

Since + had been don't work together (usually there may be special exceptions).

I think this is the key. I think "since" plus "had been" are strange because it signifies a time when something is over, so it is starting from the ending point of being a child. Does that sound right? My JTE is confused because of the timeline of events that are occuring in the sentence, so I think this now makes sense. Does this sound right to you? The meaning of the original sentence is that a girl wanted to be a writer, and now she is as an adult, in case there was any confusion.

Thanks for the responses!

Edit - the above post redefines this one in different words. Thanks!!

[Kaesespaetzle]

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.

Actually I was gonna say that to me "She had wanted to be a writer since she had been a child" makes it sound like she's dead now - that she's ended the state of having been a child - or maybe that something happened later in life to make her stop wanting to be a writer, but the more I think about it, the more it sounds okay to me as long as you add an extra level of 'past' in there..

"She had wanted to be a writer since she had been a child, but it wasn't until she was in her late 40s that she wrote her first book"

Does that sound like an acceptable sentence?

[KIKKI.K]

there are 3 ways to talk about past time in english, has been, had been, and was. From what my TESOL lecturer told me in university:

has been= something still has an effect on the present, or a state that began in the past is still continuing ie: "it has been hot lately"

had been= something that began in the past and is over, but still has an effect on the present, or has since changed in some way ie "it had been hot this morning, but it's now cold [ie until recently and now isn't]"

was= something is totally in the past ie "it was hot yesterday [end of story]"

so to say she had wanted to be a writer since she had been a child, is fine, but there are 2 different interpretations: she is now a writer, or, she doesn't want to be one any more.

[trout501]

I tried paraphrasing the two sentences over and over to tease out nuances of meaning, but in the end I realized that the second one is just too hard to interpret under normal conversational conditions. The way I'm reading it, "since she was a child" is an adverbial phrase modifying "She had wanted to be a writer." It tells the time of the event, which gives a basic meaning and reinforces the past tense on the main verb phrase "had wanted to be." I just don't understand what could be gained in meaning if you add perfect aspect to an adverbial phrase, but then again I may just not be thinking about it hard enough to find good counter-examples.

The answer to your JTE should probably be something like "English only allows one instance of each aspect per clause," which sounds right to me right now, but again, I'm tired and may not be giving this enough thought.

[Jax]

My interpretation of this...

"She had wanted to be a writer since she was a child."

She wanted to be a writer from her childhood, but no longer wants to be one.

"She had wanted to be a writer since she had been a child."

The since here sounds to me like it's being used as because. This person wanted to be a writer as a child and her reason was that she was a child? Kinda funky.

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.

I would completely take out the has/had for that and say, "She wanted to be a writer since she was a child."

[Allison_NaraPA]

To help clarify the intent of the sentence, what about including an `ever`?

Ex: `She had wanted to be a writer ever since she was a child.`

This confirms her continued desire to be a writer, doesn`t sound redundant, and (I think) is grammatically correct, although it still sounds like she is deceased. If she`s going strong, what about this:

`She has wanted to be a writer ever since she was a child.`

[mountainboy]

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.[

Why does it sound wrong to you? It sounds absolutely fine to me, and from that point of view, it must be correct. Whatever the native speaker produces IS correct, although not always stylisitically acceptable in certain standards.