5

In the following sentence:

The old couple told the police that they were watching T.V. at the time of the break in

why aren't we using 'had been':

The old couple told the police that they had been watching T.V. at the time of the break in

Or are both correct?

I know "were" is appropriate here, but why not use "had been" since the robbery is in past perfect?

Or is it "optional back-shifting" here with an option that is?

Chris Mukherjee
  • 196
  • 8
    Either one is correct. They both describe the same situation and they are both grammatical. In general, when there are several possibilities, the shorter one is preferred and will automatically be chosen when nothing's at stake. English speakers like short sentences (unlike English writers, unfortunately). – John Lawler Jun 19 '14 at 16:52
  • And here both are okay to say? "She said she has/had to work overtime tomorrow" –  Jun 19 '14 at 17:42
  • Once again, same situation, both grammatical. – John Lawler Jun 19 '14 at 18:11
  • So even 'had' and 'tomorrow' are okay here? –  Jun 19 '14 at 18:13
  • 1
    Yes, as I said. There are no grammatical rules prescribing one or the other, and they're the same length, so they're probly about even in choice. Speaker's habit here; some will prefer one to the other, for a variety of reasons (many ridiculously wrong). But it won't make any difference, and often won't be noticed. – John Lawler Jun 19 '14 at 18:19
  • @John Lawler Can you come to chat here please if you want that is http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7227/english-language-learners –  Jun 19 '14 at 19:04
  • FWIW, I would write the noun as break-in, not break in. – Drew Jun 20 '14 at 04:40

3 Answers3

1

I prefer were watching, because the break in happened at the same time as the couple were watching T.V. That's the past progressive.

Archa
  • 916
1

"...[W]ere watching TV" means that the couple did so in the past and finished doing so, using "had" here would mean they probably only stopped watching TV to speak to the police officer, or some other connection to the present. Or so I take it; I'm still learning myself :-)

Here is further explanation by IMcRout on The Free Dictionary English Forum on a similar question:

As I have been directly addressed I shall not refrain from doing my duty.

has / have been sent ---> present perfect tense

used when the action has an immediate connection to the present. It is very often used with words like just, already, always, never, this week / month / year ...

The little word 'just' in the first sentence indicates just that connection.

was / were sent --> past tense

used for an action that began and ended in the past. It is often used with ago, in 1975, yesterday, last week / month / year ...

The tense is often decided on by the speaker's attitude towards his deed:

They were sent ten minutes ago. --> It's over and done with. Let's tackle the next problem.

Ted Broda
  • 1,801
  • 11
  • 25
Mnescat
  • 161
0

In an unsearchable and potentially ephemeral comment to the original posting, Professor Lawler kindly presented the following answer:

Either one is correct. They both describe the same situation and they are both grammatical.

In general, when there are several possibilities, the shorter one is preferred and will automatically be chosen when nothing’s at stake. English speakers like short sentences (unlike English writers, unfortunately).

There are no grammatical rules prescribing one or the other, and they’re the same length, so they’re probly about even in choice. Speaker’s habit here; some will prefer one to the other, for a variety of reasons (many ridiculously wrong).

But it won’t make any difference, and often won’t be noticed.

I’ve marked this posting Community Wiki because it is John’s answer not my own, and so I deserve no reputation from it.

Community
  • 1
tchrist
  • 134,759