5

If you search for any video or article that teaches the past perfect continuous tense, you'll surely come across an example such as:

"He had been throwing rocks at her window for five minutes before she finally came out on the balcony."

If you didn't know the part about five minutes, it would be only natural to ask, "How long had he been throwing rocks at the window before she finally came out?"

If I understand it correctly, it would be wrong to say:

"He was throwing rocks at her window for five minutes before she finally came out on the balcony."

(As the past continuous tense is natural for particular moments. For example, "...at 11:35", "...all day long", "...when she opened the balcony door.", etc.)

So I draw a conclusion that it would be equally wrong to say: "How long was he throwing rocks at her window before she finally came out on the balcony?"

However, here's a little dialogue in which I heard a well-educated American use past continuous where I would expect to see past perfect continuous:

Chuck: How long was I unconscious?

Ernesto: I'd say, maybe, about a minute, you were kind of in and out.

Chuck: And how long was I lying on the floor before the ambulance arrived?

Ernesto: About 10 minutes, I think, but I didn't look at the clock.

Better Call Saul

So, should I view that usage as a minor aberration in speech? A slip of the tongue, maybe? Or am I completely misconstruing the whole usage?

Update 1:

Some of you have suggested that it's idiomatic and grammatically correct to say "He was throwing rocks at her window for five minutes before she finally came out on the balcony." and "How long was he throwing rocks at her window before she finally came out on the balcony?" But that suggestion seems to be in conflict with what Michael Swan's authoritative "Practical English Usage" says:

How long? past perfect progressive, not past progressive

We use a past perfect progressive, not a past progressive, to say how long something had been happening up to a past moment.

We’d been walking since sunrise, and we were hungry, (not We were walking since sunrise...)

When she arrived, she had been travelling for twenty hours, (not ...she was travelling...)

So who's right?

Update 2:

People keep suggesting another thread as a possible answer to my question. I'd like to assure those people that that thread doesn't answer it, as my question is not about reported speech. I'm fully aware of the optional back-shift in reported speech, thank you very much.

Another, I'd like to thank those of you who pointed out the difference in emphasis between the PPC and PC in the construction at hand. I wonder if that difference has any importance in light of the structure we're examining.

Let
  • 235
  • 1
    As with the marked duplicate, it seems like you have been misled about the past perfect in English. We seldom use it because it makes things needlessly complicated. You have other markers for ordering of events. – tchrist Nov 25 '22 at 19:47
  • @EdwinAshworth it doesn't, the link leads to a question about the reported speech where both tenses are possible, but my question is about a different issue. – Let Nov 25 '22 at 19:51
  • @tchrist would you mind elaborating on that? – Let Nov 25 '22 at 19:51
  • 'He was throwing rocks at her window for five minutes before she finally came out on the balcony' is perfectly idiomatic and accepted as grammatical. 'He had been throwing rocks at her window for five minutes before she finally came out on the balcony' is equally correct, probably less idiomatic, but conforms better to strict ideas of sequencing. But where would we go with 'Before she finally came out on the balcony, he had been throwing rocks at her window for five minutes, and he ??had had?? been plucking up the courage to do so for ten minutes before that. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 25 '22 at 20:05
  • @EdwinAshworth It's an interesting question you've raised! I need to think. But why on earth does no article or video (I've watched plenty of those) point to the possible usage you've stated as perfectly idiomatic and grammatical? – Let Nov 25 '22 at 20:23
  • In "He was doing X before she came out, we need nothing more to understand the sequence. – Yosef Baskin Nov 25 '22 at 20:41
  • @EdwinAshworth how about 'Before she finally came out on the balcony, he was throwing rocks at her window for five minutes, and he was plucking up the courage to do so for ten minutes before that." and 'Before she finally came out on the balcony, he had been throwing rocks at her window for five minutes, and he had been plucking up the courage to do so for ten minutes before that.'? The latter reads better, doesn't it? Why? – Let Nov 25 '22 at 22:09
  • 3
    With regard to your update: the important part of Michael Swan's statement is up to a past moment. Your first sentence is about the moment when 'she' eventually came out onto the balcony. If you use the past continuous, the sentence merely states that, at some point in the past, 'he' threw rocks for five minutes and then 'she' came out. – Kate Bunting Nov 26 '22 at 09:06
  • @Let Yes, I agree here. There are loose rules hereabouts; often, Orwell's 'if it sounds wrong ...' is applicable. English isn't logically explicable (and changes over time in any case). FWIW, I use the more logical verb forms more than most Americans would, but simplify where it doesn't impinge on clarity and sounds acceptable to my ear. 'He was embezzling funds for many years before he was finally caught.' – Edwin Ashworth Nov 26 '22 at 15:46
  • @KateBunting Kate's point is important because the difference between the two is emphasis. One just tells you while the other emphasizes the activity up to a point in time. – Lambie Nov 26 '22 at 17:22
  • @Lambie I thought of it, too. But I can't think of any case where that emphasis could be important, can you? – Let Nov 26 '22 at 18:50
  • I would note that — in American English, anyway — we might further reduce it to He threw rocks at her window for five minutes... The for five minutes part does what the progressive does — no need to say it twice. – Tinfoil Hat Nov 26 '22 at 20:43
  • It's only important if you are telling a story and wish the reader to be 'in' the moment when the lady finally appears. – Kate Bunting Nov 27 '22 at 08:55

1 Answers1

5

The point you are missing is that if the order of events is clear without the past perfect continuous, you do not need to use it and can use the past continuous instead. I don't know whether Swan says something to this effect, but if he doesn't, he is wrong.

See, for example, this website, which says

If the order of past events is clear from the context (for example, if time expressions make the order clear) we can often use either the past perfect or the past simple:

After Ivan had finished reading, he put out the light. (or….Ivan finished…)
The two leaders agreed to meet, even though earlier talks had failed to reach an agreement. (or…talks failed…)

This rule applies equally to past perfect and to past perfect continuous.

The order is not clear in Swan's sentence. Without the past perfect,

We were walking since sunrise, and were hungry

suggests that they were hungry the entire time they were walking, while

We had been walking since sunrise, and were hungry,

suggests that they were hungry because they had been walking.

However, in the sentences:

He had been throwing rocks at her window for five minutes before she finally came out on the balcony,

And how long was I lying on the floor before the ambulance arrived?

the word before makes the order of events clear, so you do not need the past perfect continuous.

The similar sentence

*He was throwing rocks at her window for twenty minutes when she came out on the balcony,

does not contain the word before, so it's incorrect, and we need the past perfect continuous.

Let
  • 235
Peter Shor
  • 88,407
  • Thanks for bringing those examples with the past perfect tense. I've seen that explanation before, what I have not seen is that the same principle is at work with the past perfect continuous tense. I've looked at many reputable resources, though. I wonder why they never mention that. – Let Nov 26 '22 at 12:28
  • 1
    @Let: Probably they assume that the reader will take what they said for the past perfect and realize it also applies to the past perfect continuous (a fact which is obvious to native English speakers but maybe not to learners of English). – Peter Shor Nov 26 '22 at 12:39
  • I know that the past perfect continuous can also mean that the first action stopped right before the second action began (the one that is after the before) whereas the past continuous doesn't imply that, it just means that something was in progress at some moment. From this stems my question: does that difference become insignificant in the PPC sentences we've been examining here? – Let Nov 26 '22 at 13:39
  • 1
    @Let: I don't think that difference is at all significant here. – Peter Shor Nov 26 '22 at 14:20
  • 'Probably they assume that the reader will take what they said for the past perfect and realize it also applies to the past perfect continuous (a fact which is obvious to native English speakers but maybe not to learners of English). 'So, on ELU, a duplicate? – Edwin Ashworth Nov 26 '22 at 15:40
  • 3
    Not sure how relevant this is, and I've no idea what the grammatical rules are, but "we were walking since sunrise" just sounds wrong. I think "since" always needs "had been". Conversely, "we were walking before sunrise" sounds fine. – Michael Kay Nov 26 '22 at 16:51
  • 1
    **We were walking since sunrise* is wrong for the same reason **We are walking since sunrise* is: The use of since triggers the perfect. Correct: We had been walking since sunrise or We have been walking since sunrise. Compare: **We were living in London since 1982* and **We are living in London since 1982* (both incorrect). Correct: We had been living in London since 1982 and We have been living in London since 1982. – Tinfoil Hat Nov 26 '22 at 19:34