# described how they <were / had been> eating when [past simple continous or past perfect continous]



## Terrorizer

The couple described how they *..... *in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel.

The word given to this example is "*eat*" and i have to do something with it. 
Well... 
I used *"were eating"* but
 in the key page i see *"had been eating"

*Why?? i don't get it


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

I bet you don't, Terror.

1. I don't see what the use of "how" is in the sentence proposed: I'd have written "... declared that ..."
2. Both "were eating" and "had been eating" seem to me correct 

GS


----------



## Terrorizer

This is an exercise from the cambridge book.
And the answer key provides only 1 answer "had been eating".
English exams are coming and I still dont get it >,<


----------



## velisarius

I think it's a sort of indirect speech that requires the tense to be shifted back.
Direct speech: The couple said, "We had just sat down in the dining room and started eating the first course when the explosion destroyed the hotel".
Reported speech: The couple described how they had been eating in the dining room ...

"Described how" makes the difference, because it is supplying background information about what had been going on when the explosion took place. If it had been "The couple said that they were eating in the dining room when the explosion ..." I think either of the tenses would have been possible.


----------



## lucas-sp

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> 1. I don't see what the use of "how" is in the sentence proposed: I'd have written "... declared that ..."
> 2. Both "were eating" and "had been eating" seem to me correct


1. "Described how [something happened]" is totally fine for me. There's no need for it to be changed.

2. You're entirely correct. In everyday English, we don't use the past perfect very much in general, because it's redundant (the time relationship between verbs is almost always clear from the rest of the sentence). But on an English exam, they probably want test-takers to demonstrate their mastery over the past perfect. Very often on tests they expect you to prove that you understand the past perfect, in situations where an everyday native speaker wouldn't necessarily feel any need to use it. So on an English _test_, the past perfect is almost always better than the simple past _when both can be used_​.


----------



## wandle

I think we can show reason why the past perfect is appropriate and preferable to the past simple in this and similar cases. There are two key factors involved: (a) the sequence of events; (b) the relationship between the ideas linked by 'when'.

(a) The couple are evidently speaking in retrospect: at a time when the emergency, or at least their involvement in it, is over. Therefore the sequence of events is: (1) eating in dining room; (2) the explosion; (3) the resulting emergency; (4) they describe their experience.

(b) The word 'when' in this case makes the two events linked by it simultaneous; but at the same time, it makes one of them subordinate to the other in the sentence structure. The main verb is 'had been eating' and 'destroyed' is the subordinate verb. In this situation, the main verb sets the time of its event relative to the context and the subordinate verb makes its event simultaneous with that of the main verb. 

Therefore the past perfect is correct for the main verb, because the perspective of the couple sees the time of eating as two stages back in the past: not just earlier than time (4), when they are describing their experience, but also earlier than time (3), the emergency resulting from the explosion. The past simple is correct for the subordinate verb, making the explosion occur simultaneously with the latest stage of the eating.


----------



## Parla

> The couple described how they *..... *in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel.
> 
> The word given to this example is "*eat*" and I have to do something with it.
> 
> I used *"were eating"* but in the key page I see *"had been eating".*


I think _you're absolutely right_. If they "had been eating" when the explosion occurred, that would mean that they had already finished their meal at that time. That's possible, of course, but I can't imagine anyone talking about what they had _finished_ doing when an explosion occurred. Rather, they would talk about what they _were_ doing.

I often have the feeling that many of these tests were not composed by native speakers of English.


----------



## wandle

As I see it, the test is perfectly valid. The reason for the past perfect is that, from the viewpoint of the couple looking back, both the meal and the explosion were two stages back in the past. The explosion occurred during the meal, the emergency rescue operation then followed and the statement made by the couple can only have come after that.

We can hardly imagine the couple speaking the sentence in question while they were in the middle of being rescued themselves, or helping others out of the debris. The most obvious context for the sentence is that the immediate emergency is over and they are describing the events to a friend or being interviewed by a reporter.

It is natural and correct for people speaking in that context, with the rescue fresh in their minds and the explosion as a distinct event preceding that, to express the time relation appropriately with the past perfect.

There are plenty of examples of native speakers using the past perfect in this way. 
The key point is that in the perspective of the speaker the event is two steps back in the past, not one.

McDonald’s reaches out to Cleveland kidnap hero 
_In an interview afterwards with a local TV station, Ramsey recounted how he had been eating a McDonalds when he heard a piercing scream _

Gary The Goat Overturns Conviction
_Magistrate Carolyn Barkell said the accused had been eating the flowers when police arrived._

John Gilmore Spotlight on James Dean
_They had been eating somewhere when she complained about the greasy potatoes_

Police ticket drivers snapping photos of Fatburger crash site
_5 Nov 2013 - The officers had been eating supper when the car plowed through the front garage-style window at Fatburger's Denman Street location_

The Bristle Brush as Barbecue Hazard - NYTimes.com
_3 Jul 2012 - All of those cases were similar: The patients had been eating grilled meat when they felt severe neck or abdominal pain._


----------



## DonnyB

I think lucas in post #5 has hit the nail on the head here.  This continuous form of the pluperfect ("had been") is not a particularly widely-used tense and I strongly suspect that "were eating" is how many if not most native speakers would actually say it, albeit not correctly.

As a matter of interest, Terrorizer - is this a multiple-choice exercise?  Or is there any other clue that they expect you to use this particular tense for the answer?


----------



## warren4184

As Velisarius said orginally, it's to do with direct and indirect speech. If the couple had been talking directly to you they would have said:

"We *were eating* in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel."

In your sentence, the person speaking is indirectly recounting what the couple recounted. Therefore the tense shifts back one:

"The couple described how they *had been eating *in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel."


----------



## wandle

warren4184 said:


> As Velisarius said orginally, it's to do with direct and indirect speech.


Of course, of course, that is correct. Even if the couple had said in original direct speech 'we were eating', then, when this is reported as indirect statement, it becomes 'they had been eating'.

This explanation overrides the one I gave earlier. Perhaps I was thrown off the track of indirect statement by the expression 'described how'. (I ought not to have been, as I know perfectly well that 'described how' functions syntactically in the same way as 'explained that'.)

It is perfectly possible, depending on context, for the couple to say in the original direct speech 'we were eating' but it is also perfectly correct and natural, given suitable context, for them to say 'we had been eating'. If they say 'we had been eating' in the original direct speech, then in this case too the indirect speech will be 'they had been eating'.


----------



## PaulQ

This seems to test your understanding of how "how" is used in English:

The couple described [how they *were eating] *in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel. = the couple said that they were using a knife and fork and were sitting upright in the dining room... -> In this example "how means "the manner in which"

The couple described how they *[had been eating *in the dining room] when the explosion destroyed the hotel. = The couple described how [it was at the time when] they *had been eating *in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel. -> here we have a time clause that suggests the use of the pluperfect continuous.


----------



## wandle

Granted, there are two distinct ways to interpret 'described how' ('described the manner in which' or 'explained that').
Nevertheless, it seems to me that both *PaulQ's* scenarios still involve indirect statement and require the past perfect.


----------



## redgiant

warren4184 said:


> In your sentence, the person speaking is indirectly recounting what the couple recounted. Therefore the tense shifts back one:
> 
> "The couple described how they *had been eating *in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel."



There's something I don't understand about the explanation. Is the verb in the when clause immune from tense-shifting?

If "We *were eating* in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel." is what they would have said, and the tenses are shifted back to one degree,
shouldn't it be:

The couple described how they *had been eating *in the dining room when the explosion *had destroyed* the hotel.


----------



## lucas-sp

I have to say that wandle _almost_ convinced me in post #6. Let's look at the sentence another way:





> The couple *1. described* how they *2. **were/had been eating* in the dining room when the explosion *3. **destroyed* the hotel.


We wouldn't want there to be any ambiguity about when the explosion destroys the hotel - does it happen during the time of "eating" or during the time of "describing"? If we re-write the sentence as follows, we cannot tell whether 3=2 or 3=1:





> The couple *1. was describing* how they *2. **were eating* in the dining room when the explosion *3. **destroyed* the hotel.


But looking back at the original sentence, since verb 1 is in the past simple it cannot be true that the explosion happens at the same time as the describing. I see no ambiguity.

These explanations about back-shifting are cute, but they are all unconvincing in that _we have no way of knowing what the couple "actually" said_. They very easily could've used the historical present: "So, we're just eating in the dining room, right? Suddenly, this huge explosion destroys the hotel!"


----------



## warren4184

lucas-sp said:


> I have to say that wandle _almost_ convinced me in post #6. Let's look at the sentence another way:We wouldn't want there to be any ambiguity about when the explosion destroys the hotel - does it happen during the time of "eating" or during the time of "describing"? If we re-write the sentence as follows, we cannot tell whether 3=2 or 3=1:But looking back at the original sentence, since verb 1 is in the past simple it cannot be true that the explosion happens at the same time as the describing. I see no ambiguity.
> 
> These explanations about back-shifting are cute, but they are all unconvincing in that _we have no way of knowing what the couple "actually" said_. They very easily could've used the historical present: "So, we're just eating in the dining room, right? Suddenly, this huge explosion destroys the hotel!"



What they really said is really irrelevant. We assume that the reporter of the incident is retelling the event as it was said by the couple. Whether it was said that way or not is not relevant. Moreover, we're talking about strict grammar rules. In reality, if somebody said "The couple described how they were eatingin the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel.", it wouldn't sound incorrect, at least not to my ears.


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> I have to say that wandle _almost_ convinced me in post #6.




Well, a good deal of it remains valid, even though I had overlooked that the original sentence was indirect statement. Several of the examples quoted there are indirect statements in any case.

The key point that, from the perspective of the speaker, the action is two stages back in the past is a valid general rule for the past perfect. The valid rule that the tense of the action within a past indirect statement is shifted back one stage when the verb of statement is in the past is just one example of that general rule. That is because, in the perspective of the person who reports it as indirect statement, the action within the indirect statement is now two stages back.

The historic present had come to mind when I was writing post 11. However, it is not that the historic present invalidates the back-shifting rule, but that it is impossible to represent the historic present in a past indirect statement except by treating it as if the original direct speech had been in the past tense; which is after all what the historic present means. 


redgiant said:


> Is the verb in the when clause immune from tense-shifting?


Good question. In the present case, the answer is Yes. That is because, as mentioned in post 6, the conjunction 'when' is, in the present case, presenting the action of its clause as simultaneous with that of the prior verb. The clause 'when the explosion destroyed the hotel' is subordinated to the verb 'they had been eating' and derives its time reference from that.

Interestingly enough, the synatctical role of the two clauses can be switched and their tenses will then change to match.
Instead of: _'The couple described how they had been eating in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel'_ 
we can equally well say: _'The couple described how the explosion had destroyed the hotel when they were eating in the dining room'._
Thus we still have the prior verb in the past perfect tense and the subordinate verb in the past tense, even though the clauses have changed places.


----------



## warren4184

> Originally Posted by *redgiant*
> 
> 
> Is the verb in the when clause immune from tense-shifting?
> Good question. In the present case, the answer is Yes. That is  because, as mentioned in post 6, the conjunction 'when' is, in the  present case, presenting the action of its clause as simultaneous with  that of the prior verb. The clause 'when the explosion destroyed the  hotel' is subordinated to the verb 'they had been eating' and derives  its time reference from that.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the synatctical role of the two clauses can be switched and their tenses will then change to match.
> Instead of: _'The couple described how they had been eating in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel'_
> we can equally well say: _'The couple described how the explosion had destroyed the hotel when they were eating in the dining room'._
> Thus we still have the prior verb in the past perfect tense and the  subordinate verb in the past tense, even though the clauses have changed  places.



Excellent Wandle. I struggled to think how to explain this point. Your explanation is very clear.


----------



## lucas-sp

warren4184 said:


> Moreover, we're talking about strict grammar rules. In reality, if somebody said "The couple described how they were eating in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel.", it wouldn't sound incorrect, at least not to my ears.


I both disagree and agree with this.

First, if something "sounds correct" to the average native speaker, then it ought to be considered correct by the grammar of that speaker's language. Grammar rules describe usage; if a usage feels correct, then grammar rules should reflect that. (However, as evidenced by this thread, there is apparently a BE/AE difference in evaluating this sentence - it seems like it feels more iffy to BE speakers than to AE speakers, particularly in the use of "described how.") 

But secondly - and probably more importantly - if a test wants you to demonstrate that you _can_ use the past perfect, you should probably just use the past perfect for the purposes of doing well on the test. An English exam is a context in which _artificially strict_ grammar rules are in place, and to use English correctly in that context implies following rules that do not necessarily correspond to those descriptive of everyday usage.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

I frankly don't see why, in passing from direct to indirect (reported) speech, one should shift the verb tense:

"We were eating in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel."
"The couple described how (whichever its meaning here) they were eating in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel." 

Also, are we sure that "had been Ving" represents a step back vis-à-vis "were Ving"? If I pass from direct to indirect in, say, 

"When we came out of the theatre it was snowing"

are we sure that the following reported sentence depicts the same state of things?

"GS said that when they came out of the theatre it had been snowing" ?

Wouldn't the sentence above mean that, although it'd been snowing, it had stopped, and what could be seen were the _traces_ of a previous snow. I believe the correct reported sentence should be "GS said that when they came out of the theatre it was snowing"

GS


----------



## DonnyB

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> "When we came out of the theatre it was snowing"
> 
> are we sure that the following reported sentence depicts the same state of things?
> 
> "GS said that when they came out of the theatre it had been snowing" ?
> 
> Wouldn't the sentence above mean that, although it'd been snowing, it had stopped, and what could be seen were the _traces_ of a previous snow. I believe the correct reported sentence should be "GS said that when they came out of the theatre it was snowing"
> 
> GS


I agree.  The difference beween "it had snowed" and "it had been snowing" might give an indication of how recent/heavy the snowfall was.  I'm open to persuasion, but I don't see how you can use a pluperfect there without implying that the snow had stopped, which is clearly not what the original version of that sentence states.


----------



## wandle

As regards the use of 'described how', there are two important points. 

First, that it has two different meanings: (a) 'described the manner in which' something was done; (b) 'explained that' something happened or was the case. As *PaulQ* pointed out, 'described how' in the present case does not mean 'the couple described the manner in which they had been eating'. It means 'explained that' the events related had happened.

Secondly, whichever of the two meanings applies, in the phrase 'describe how', 'describe' is always a verb of statement and 'how' is always a conjunction and this combination is always one which introduces indirect speech: and that is the key to the present test question. The past perfect is correct here because it is required by the rules of indirect speech.

The rules of indirect speech are standard. I do not believe that they are artificially strict rules, invented in order to make exams harder.  It is true of course that in colloquial language - that is, when using everyday speech and when writing in that idiom - native speakers depart to a varying degree from the rules of correct written English. However, it is the job of schools and colleges to teach the standard rules, and these rules are important for the purpose of written communication that can be clear to all educated users and for providing a template against which the lifelong learning of language can proceed.


----------



## warren4184

lucas-sp said:


> I both disagree and agree with this.
> 
> First, if something "sounds correct" to the average native speaker, then it ought to be considered correct by the grammar of that speaker's language. Grammar rules describe usage; if a usage feels correct, then grammar rules should reflect that. (However, as evidenced by this thread, there is apparently a BE/AE difference in evaluating this sentence - it seems like it feels more iffy to BE speakers than to AE speakers, particularly in the use of "described how.")
> 
> But secondly - and probably more importantly - if a test wants you to demonstrate that you _can_ use the past perfect, you should probably just use the past perfect for the purposes of doing well on the test. An English exam is a context in which _artificially strict_ grammar rules are in place, and to use English correctly in that context implies following rules that do not necessarily correspond to those descriptive of everyday usage.



I love how these discussions always turn into a discussion about standard / non-standard English and whether there is such a thing as 'correct English'. I personally agree with you. I believe grammar should be primarily descriptive, not prescriptive; however, that doesn't change the fact that there are accepted standard uses and grammatical rules that - whether you believe them to be set in stone or just arbitrary, outdated remnants of books written by the grammarians of yesteryear, applying their fixed Latin-inspired rules to what should be a free and protean language - we regularly use and refer to when we want to speak 'correctly'.


----------



## lucas-sp

warren4184 said:


> I love how these discussions always turn into a discussion about standard / non-standard English and whether there is such a thing as 'correct English'.


Non-standard English is very different from the everyday English used by native speakers in speech and writing. And non-standard English is just as _grammatical_ as standard English; it simply has different grammar rules (for instance, "Use double negatives to emphasize negation" is a grammar rule in some non-standard English dialects).

This is not a sentence in non-standard English, unless you would argue that English exams constitute a dialect of their own. "Non-standard English" is a red herring here.

So is the false binary being set up between "fixed, Latin-inspired grammar rules" and the "Protean freedom" of a language without rules. Our question is to determine what rules best describe certain situations and usages.

I think Parla's post #7 is very interesting, and provides an answer for why _even in formal written English_ (is any sentence with "described how" in it "formal"?) we might not want to use the past perfect, since it introduces an ambiguity.


----------



## velisarius

But Parla said in post #7 "If they "had been eating" when the explosion occurred, that would mean that they had already finished their meal at that time." I just don't get that information from the sentence. They had been in the process of eating when the explosion occurred. I don't see any ambiguity .


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> .... is a red herring here.
> 
> So is the false binary being set up between "fixed, Latin-inspired grammar rules" and the "Protean freedom" of a language without rules.


That is a very red herring, when there is no one setting up either limb of such a binary.

There is a relevant distinction here: that between the function of linguistic research, which includes describing grammar as it is found in use and the function of language teaching, which includes equipping the learner with the rules needed to use language. The former is a descriptive function, the latter a prescriptive one. Neither invalidates the other, but they are distinct functions which operate in different ways.


> Our question is to determine what rules best describe certain situations and usages.


I do not think so. The practical purpose of this forum, if I understand it, is to help learners and non-native speakers with advice on the grammar, vocabulary and usage of English. In other words, it performs in effect a teaching function rather than a research function: prescriptive rather than descriptive.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Veli.

I'd say "They _were_ in the process of eating when the explosion occurred."

Don't you think so?

GS


----------



## velisarius

Hi Giorgio,

If I were telling someone what I had heard about the affair, I'd probably say "They were eating when the explosion happened." The sentence however says "The couple _described_ how they had been eating when the bomb went off". It sounds perfectly normal to me. I still don't understand why we should assume that they had finished their meal.

It just occurred to me that "They described how they were eating" means " They described how (with knife and fork, from a plate etc.) For some reason I feel the past perfect continuous avoids the ambiguity that goes with "described how".


----------



## wandle

If the couple had finished eating, then as direct speech they would naturally say, _'We had finished eating when the explosion _etc.'
Reported as indirect speech, this would be _'The couple described how they had finished eating when _etc'.


----------



## Forero

My observations:


"They were eating in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel" puts the explosion at some point in the time interval in which they were eating. It says that, at the time the explosion occurred, they had started eating but had not finished eating. It does not say for sure whether the couple stopped eating when the explosion occurred, but of course if the dining room exploded with the hotel, I doubt they kept eating.


"They had been eating in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel" means the same as "They were eating in the dining room before the explosion destroyed the hotel." It does not say whether they finished eating before the explosion occurred, stopped eating when the explosion occurred, or continued to eat during and after the explosion. It is, however, reasonable to assume that if "the dining room" was part of "the hotel", their dinner was interrupted, to say the least.


There is no reason to backshift anything after "The couple described how". For example, if the couple have twice been present at hotel explosions while eating, I say...

_The couple described how they have twice been present at hotel explosions while eating._

... not "... had twice been present ....".

Did "the" dining room explode with "the hotel", or not?


----------



## lucas-sp

My observations:

1. BE speakers do not like the "describe how" phrase; it seems confusing on a semantic level for them (#12, #28). AE speakers do not mind it, and find it completely transparent.

2. BE speakers feel that there is a strong need for "had been eating." AE speakers feel that there is no need for "had been eating"; some AE speakers even feel that only the sentence with "were eating" is correct (#5, #7).

We could be dealing with usage differences between the major dialects here. Scientific open-mindedness and a suspension of personal judgment are thus important and desirable practices in this situation.

I would like to say, again, that the argument from "backshifting into indirect speech" is specious because A) we have no idea of what the "direct speech" version of the sentence might have been (thus, logically, a conclusion is being based on information that was not provided by the question) and B) there are multiple styles of indirect speech, with various different rules (thus, logically, a conclusion is being reached by a method that is not incontrovertibly valid).


----------



## Loob

Just bucking the trend described by lucas in the post immediately above....

I don't find "described how" particularly opaque, though for me it would be informal rather than formal usage.

I _wouldn't_ have backshifted the tense in the original sentence.  Even if I replaced "described how" with "said that", I would have kept the original "were eating": _The couple said that they *were eating *in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel._

So for me, the answer key is wrong to suggest that the [only] correct answer is "had been eating".


----------



## wandle

lucas-sp said:


> I would like to say, again, that the argument from "backshifting into indirect speech" is specious because A) we have no idea of what the "direct speech" version of the sentence might have been (thus, logically, a conclusion is being based on information that was not provided by the question)


I would like to indicate again that that is not a problem. The information provided is in fact sufficient. The context, as explained earlier, makes clear that the couple were speaking in retrospect. Therefore, whatever tense they used it would have been a past tense. By the standard rules of indirect speech, any past tense (including the historic present) converts into the past perfect when the introductory verb of statement is in a past tense.


> and B) there are multiple styles of indirect speech, with various different rules (thus, logically, a conclusion is being reached by a method that is not incontrovertibly valid).


Sticking to the standard rules means that inconsistency of that kind is avoided. It is too much to ask of practical language instruction or advice that it should have at every point an incontrovertibly valid theoretical basis.
The realistic aim is to provide a reasonably consistent and reasonably comprehensive set of rules. The standard rules of indirect speech meet this criterion, in my view, well enough and are far better than a set of variations between which the learner is unable to choose.


----------



## lucas-sp

wandle said:


> The context, as explained earlier, makes clear that the couple were speaking in retrospect. Therefore, whatever tense they used it would have been a past tense.


No, it means that they would have used a past _time_. The past time is covered by many tenses in English, not only the past tense. As many examples here have shown, tense and time are not the same in either direct or indirect speech.

To say that there are multiple styles of indirect speech is not to leave the door open for "inconsistency."

That being said, the most relevant grammar rule in this context is: When a test asks you to demonstrate your command of a certain grammatical form, use that form. (As I've said since the beginning; however, I feel no need to claim that "ESL test rules" are the most descriptive of or most valid over actual English usage.)


----------



## wandle

By 'a past tense', I mean one involving a past context, that is, any of the following: the simple past tense, the past perfect and the historic present (which has a past meaning), or their continuous or modal forms.


lucas-sp said:


> To say that there are multiple styles of indirect speech is not to leave the door open for "inconsistency."


It is, if offered in answer to someone who asks: _'Why is past perfect the right answer here?'_ 
The learner is left adrift in a sea of options.


> the most relevant grammar rule in this context is:
> When a test asks you to demonstrate your command of a certain grammatical form, use that form.


To me, that is not a grammar rule, but a piece of test advice. It is good as far as it goes.
It is no great help, though, in a test requiring the student to decide which grammatical form is needed.


----------



## warren4184

All I was trying to say is that this discussion should not be about whether backshifting in this case is correct or not; various native speakers' varying opinions clearly show that there is no definite answer to this. The question was asked by a confused English learner, and I fear that he or she is probably more confused now. The discussion should have been about trying to make sense of why an examination would make "had been" the correct answer instead of "were". I'm pretty sure the answer lies in the backshifting theory, whether you believe it to be correct, incorrect, standard or dialectical. 




> The learner is left adrift in a sea of options.



EDIT: I've just realised that Wandle said something similar.


----------



## Forero

As a native English speaker, I would instinctively reject "eat" or "ate" and go for "were eating" in the context given. I would not even think of "had been eating", but if I were in charge of deciding what answer(s) would be accepted, I would be inclined to accept "had been eating" an alternative correct answer. In the absence of further context to support "had been eating", however, I would find "were eating" more natural, so if I were compelled to accept only one answer as correct, that one answer would have to be "were eating".

The fact is, both answers are grammatically correct, and both can be considered natural, depending on what is meant. If, for example, there was context indicating the couple was not in the dining room at the time of the explosion, only "had been eating" would be correct.

Unless the context of this test indicates, for example, that the choices should be limited to perfect tenses whenever possible, I would insist that an answer key giving only "had been eating" was incomplete and possibly wrong.

As for backshifting of tenses, I do not believe it even applies in the context given. There is no logical coincidence of time between an event and a description of that event or, for that matter, between an event and a description of the "how" of that event.


----------



## wandle

The original post asks why 'had been eating' is the right answer.

The straightforward answer, in my submission is:
(a) since the context shows that the couple were speaking in retrospect, then whatever tense they used in direct speech was,  in their perspective, referring to the past;
(b) since the introductory verb of statement 'described' is in the past, then the standard rules of indirect speech require the following verb 'had been eating' to be in the past perfect (shifted back one step).

No teacher in my experience would doubt the correctness of this.


----------



## Loob

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, wandle: for me, the presence of the "when" clause makes a difference.


----------



## RM1(SS)

wandle said:


> The original post asks why 'had been eating' is the right answer.
> 
> The straightforward answer, in my submission is:
> (a) since the context shows that the couple were speaking in retrospect, then whatever tense they used in direct speech was,  in their perspective, referring to the past;
> (b) since the introductory verb of statement 'described' is in the past, then the standard rules of indirect speech require the following verb 'had been eating' to be in the past perfect (shifted back one step).


Then surely "when the explosion destroyed the hotel" would also have to be backshifted to "when the explosion had destroyed the hotel."


----------



## wandle

The when-clause, though, is subordinated to the how-clause and the how-clause is subordinated to the main verb.


----------



## Loob

RM1(SS) said:


> Then surely "when the explosion destroyed the hotel" would also have to be backshifted to "when the explosion had destroyed the hotel."


----------



## wandle

As mentioned earlier, the conjunction 'when' in this case makes the action of its verb simultaneous to that of the prior clause, the how-clause. Thus, because it is subordinate to the how-clause, the when-clause can take its time reference from that.


----------



## Loob

Yes, that's exactly why I think "were eating" is correct.

_They said that the explosion happened while they were eating.

They said that they were eating when the explosion happened._


----------



## wandle

> Yes, that's exactly why I think "were eating" is correct.


However, as discussed in post 17,  the subordinate verb is governed by the prior verb, not the other way round.

The prior verb needs to be past perfect: the subordinate verb, since it is simultaneous with the prior verb, becomes equivalent to past perfect; but this effect only operates downstream, so to speak, not upstream.

_They said that the explosion had happened while they were eating._ 
_They said that they had been eating when the explosion happened. _


----------



## Loob

As I said, wandle, we'll have to agree to differ. I think "were eating" is correct in Terrorizer's original sentence; you don't.


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> we'll have to agree to differ


Well, that cannot be helped. I hope Terrorizer will feel that there has at least been a positive answer to the original question.


Terrorizer said:


> in the key page i see *"had been eating"*
> Why??


----------



## EStjarn

It appears the sentence was originally lifted from an article published in The Daily Telegraph (UK) on Oct 9, 2004:





> In a split second the lorry, packed with explosives, was detonated by a suicide bomber, ripping the building apart and killing at least 28 people, all but five of them Israelis, and injuring more than 120. [...] Among the survivors in Taba was Magdy Aly, 50, and his wife Nahla, from Cairo. They described how they had been eating in the dining room when the explosion destroyed the hotel.



I agree with those who feel the past perfect is more correct in the context given, that is, it being a (British) ESL exercise.


----------



## wandle

EStjarn said:


> it being a (British) ESL exercise


It would be a pity if there were a regular difference between the UK and the US on this. The posts in this thread do not divide simply like that: even if they did, the sample is a very small one and not really reliable.


----------



## Forero

I suppose you could ask the author of the article what was meant, but to me "had been eating" in the context given refers to the time before the explosion.


----------



## EStjarn

wandle said:


> It would be a pity if there were a regular difference between the UK and the US on this. The posts in this thread do not divide simply like that: even if they did, the sample is a very small one and not really reliable.



That's true – and also the reason I put 'British' in brackets. Yet, like lucas in post 31, I seem to notice a trend. Also, I think it's generally accepted that the past perfect is more commonly used in BE than in AmE.


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> I suppose you could ask the author of the article what was meant, but to me "had been eating" in the context given refers to the time before the explosion.


There seems no reason to think, though, that they had stopped eating prior to the explosion.


----------



## Forero

wandle said:


> There seems no reason to think, though, that they had stopped eating prior to the explosion.


Though "had been eating" does not say "had stopped eating", in my view it does refer to earlier time.

I really don't see any reason to backshift anything here. Besides, description does not logically belong in the "indirect speech" category, does it?


----------



## wandle

Forero said:


> Though "had been eating" does not say "had stopped eating", in my view it does refer to earlier time.


I see the explosion as simultaneous with the last actions of eating.


> I really don't see any reason to backshift anything here. Besides, description does not logically belong in the "indirect speech" category, does it?


Well, both these are points I have addressed before. 
As regards 'described how':


wandle said:


> in the phrase 'describe how', 'describe' is always a verb of statement and 'how' is always a conjunction and this combination is always one which introduces indirect speech: and that is the key to the present test question.


As regards backshifting:


wandle said:


> The context, as explained earlier, makes clear that the couple were speaking in retrospect. Therefore, whatever tense they used it would have been a past tense. By the standard rules of indirect speech, any past tense (including the historic present) converts into the past perfect when the introductory verb of statement is in a past tense.


(Also in post 38.)


----------



## velisarius

There are about seven other occurrences of the past perfect in the article (link in post #48). It might be instructive to see whether those who object to its use in the sentence in question feel the same way about how it's used throughout the article. They all seemed good and justified to me.


----------



## Loob

I don't object to "had been eating", veli.  What I _do_ object to is the suggestion that it's the only correct answer, and that "were eating" is wrong.

Many thanks to EStjarn for finding the original


----------



## wandle

Loob said:


> What I _do_ object to is the suggestion that it's the only correct answer, and that "were eating" is wrong.


Well, on this I cannot really add anything substantive to my posts 22 (last para) and 33 (last para). 
There is a distinct difference between colloquial English and standard written English.


----------

