played guitar/had played guitar at the party

Question

He is the man who played guitar at the party. This is stating a fact.
He is the man who was playing guitar at the party. This emphasizes the duration, but the meaning is essentially the same as the first sentence.

If I put these sentences into past perfect, does the same principle apply?

He was the man who had played guitar at the party.
He was the man who had been playing guitar at the party.

Btw, we might say he played guitar if a band has already been mentioned: you might expect a band to have a guitarist. And someone might ask, "and who played drums?" But if there was someone playing on his own, or if it was a surprise, we say, he played a* guitar* or *the guitar. I think this it is a recent thing. No-one ever used to say, "He plays clarinet in the orchestra": it was always the* clarinet. — Old Brixtonian, Jan 29 '21 at 14:31
@OldBrixtonian: he played guitar sounds perfectly OK to this Brit, and doesn't imply an accompanying band. — TonyK, Jul 06 '22 at 11:51
Does this answer your question? Canonical Post #2: What is the perfect, and how should I use it? — FumbleFingers, Mar 09 '23 at 17:10

score 0 · Answer 1 · answered Jan 29 '21 at 11:35

0

The same principle mostly applies to both tenses. However, the past perfect tense can imply a certain finality... "He had played guitar at the party, and might never do so again" while the past perfect progressive tense does not quite carry the same level of finality.

Note that this is a matter of implication, and not a meaning that is necessarily stated via the grammar. It's subtext, not text. And the greater context of the sentence can completely get rid of this subtext entirely, or reinforce it. So in that sense, there is no real difference-- unless the writer wants there to be one.

answered Jan 29 '21 at 11:35

Richard Winters

7,193
21
43

I don't think Past Perfect carries any implication of and might never do so again. What it does imply is "relevance to narrative reference time" (in OP's context, that's whatever past time is being referenced by *He was* - which with Present Perfect has played would be *now, time of utterance*). – FumbleFingers Jan 29 '21 at 12:38
@FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica Is my understanding correct? – anouk Jan 29 '21 at 12:52
1

I don't know exactly what your understanding is. I certainly wouldn't attach too much importance to the idea that the Continuous verb form "emphasizes the duration" (sometimes it might; other times that's just not a factor). But to the extent that's a valid thing to say, yes - the same general principle applies to continuous forms of Simple Past AND Past Perfect constructions. ALSO *Present Perfect* constructions - so for the sake of "symmetry", perhaps you should have included He is* the man who has been playing guitar at the party* as one of your examples. – FumbleFingers Jan 29 '21 at 13:03
@FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica What I meant was: is my explanation of the sentences in my post correct? – – anouk Jan 29 '21 at 17:54
1

That's what I was referring to! I even specifically cut&pasted your "emphasizes the duration" and left it as US spelling (where as a Brit, I would have written "emphasises"). All I'm saying is *don't attach too much importance* to that distinction, because most of the time most native speakers wouldn't particularly think like that. They're just two different ways of saying the same thing, and the choice about which to use is just as likely to be based on the idea that "short and sweet is inherently better" rather than "continuous emphasises duration" – FumbleFingers Jan 29 '21 at 18:13

played guitar/had played guitar at the party

1 Answers1