Does the sentence express that Shelly lived in London for a period including 1974? Or does 1974 mark the culmination of the London period?
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974."
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974."
Shelly had been living in London in 1974.
Including 1974. Pretty much says she was living in London in 1974. It gives no other information.
I think we need to see the rest of the sentence or context. I don't think you'd usually see an isolated sentence phrased like this.
Example:
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974 for 7 months before the big tidal wave came and swept away the city."
Example:
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974 for 7 months before the big tidal wave came and swept away the city."
It could be either way; it depends on the context.
The past perfect only means that the action or state in question preceded some other action or state. In this case, no other action or state is mentioned, so the question of whether or not she was in London in 1974 specifically remains unanswered. It could mean that she was actually living in London in 1974, or it could mean that 1974 was a vantage point to which her life in London was anterior.
The past perfect only means that the action or state in question preceded some other action or state. In this case, no other action or state is mentioned, so the question of whether or not she was in London in 1974 specifically remains unanswered. It could mean that she was actually living in London in 1974, or it could mean that 1974 was a vantage point to which her life in London was anterior.
mjd
She had been living in London when 1974 came around. Before 1974, she had lived in London.
You could use "during" if you wanted to include 1974.
"Shelly had been living in London during 1974."
She had been living in London when 1974 came around. Before 1974, she had lived in London.
You could use "during" if you wanted to include 1974.
"Shelly had been living in London during 1974."
<Shelly had been living in London in 1974>
This is sometimes confuses me. In my language it would be
'Shelly had been living ON London ON 1974'
This is sometimes confuses me. In my language it would be
'Shelly had been living ON London ON 1974'
I saw the original as "in 1974, the state of affairs was that Shelly had been living in London, but was now (1974) elsewhere.
Written another way, it would look like this:
"In 1974, when I met her, Shelly had been living in London, but was forced to leave it due to financial problems."
I saw 1974 as excluded from the time she had lived in London - or at least the culmination.
How about this? Is May included in the period in Paris?
"In May of that year, he had been working in Paris, but was then moved to Bogota."
Written another way, it would look like this:
"In 1974, when I met her, Shelly had been living in London, but was forced to leave it due to financial problems."
I saw 1974 as excluded from the time she had lived in London - or at least the culmination.
How about this? Is May included in the period in Paris?
"In May of that year, he had been working in Paris, but was then moved to Bogota."
>I saw the original as "in 1974, the state of affairs was that Shelly had been living in London, but was now (1974) elsewhere. [M56]
There's nothing in the original, though, about a change of location having taken place before that year. My assumption would be the opposite -- that Shelly lived at least part of 1974 in London. In a few unusual contexts maybe this wouldn't be true, but typically it would.
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974. In June of that year, though, he [or she] was transferred to Liverpool."
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974 when he had his first experience of riding on a double decker bus. He was not to try it again until 1978."
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974. It's unlikly that he was involved in any of the robberies in Liverpool that year. By July of 1975, though, he had moved to Liverpool. He remains a suspect in at least one unsolved robbery that matches his MO and that took place in the last week of July."
There's nothing in the original, though, about a change of location having taken place before that year. My assumption would be the opposite -- that Shelly lived at least part of 1974 in London. In a few unusual contexts maybe this wouldn't be true, but typically it would.
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974. In June of that year, though, he [or she] was transferred to Liverpool."
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974 when he had his first experience of riding on a double decker bus. He was not to try it again until 1978."
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974. It's unlikly that he was involved in any of the robberies in Liverpool that year. By July of 1975, though, he had moved to Liverpool. He remains a suspect in at least one unsolved robbery that matches his MO and that took place in the last week of July."
Gjones2
<There's nothing in the original, though, about a change of location having taken place before that year. My assumption would be the opposite -- that Shelly lived at least part of 1974 in London. In a few unusual contexts maybe this wouldn't be true, but typically it would. >
So what do you see as the difference between:
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974."
"Shelly was living in London in 1974."
<There's nothing in the original, though, about a change of location having taken place before that year. My assumption would be the opposite -- that Shelly lived at least part of 1974 in London. In a few unusual contexts maybe this wouldn't be true, but typically it would. >
So what do you see as the difference between:
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974."
"Shelly was living in London in 1974."
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974. In June of that year, though, he [or she] was transferred to Liverpool."
Sounds bad to me. Why not "was living in London" there?
Sounds bad to me. Why not "was living in London" there?
>So what do you see as the difference between:
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974."
"Shelly was living in London in 1974." [Guest]
I don't believe that we can draw sharp lines between these tenses. In some contexts either may be used, even when one would seem to be the better choice. This must be taken into account when interpreting a sentence. According to a grammar site, "We use the past perfect when we wish to stress that one action or situation in the past occurred before another action or situation in the past." http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/pastperfect01.html
By using the past perfect [progressive], I emphasized that I was viewing a past state from a later point in the past that I wished to distinguish from it. In the robberies example I distinguished the time during which Shelly hadn't been a suspect (which included 1974) from the later time when he was (starting in July of 1975).
I confess that I don't ordinarily spend time reasoning about the significance of tenses. I "feel" them. Then later (if called upon to give an explanation) I go in search of the rules. My initial impression of the original sentence was the same as Tiffany's -- that Shelly lived at least part of 1974 in London. I don't rule out unusual contexts in which this wouldn't be so, but I believe that would be the usual implication.
"Shelly had been living in London in 1974."
"Shelly was living in London in 1974." [Guest]
I don't believe that we can draw sharp lines between these tenses. In some contexts either may be used, even when one would seem to be the better choice. This must be taken into account when interpreting a sentence. According to a grammar site, "We use the past perfect when we wish to stress that one action or situation in the past occurred before another action or situation in the past." http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/pastperfect01.html
By using the past perfect [progressive], I emphasized that I was viewing a past state from a later point in the past that I wished to distinguish from it. In the robberies example I distinguished the time during which Shelly hadn't been a suspect (which included 1974) from the later time when he was (starting in July of 1975).
I confess that I don't ordinarily spend time reasoning about the significance of tenses. I "feel" them. Then later (if called upon to give an explanation) I go in search of the rules. My initial impression of the original sentence was the same as Tiffany's -- that Shelly lived at least part of 1974 in London. I don't rule out unusual contexts in which this wouldn't be so, but I believe that would be the usual implication.