Why can't we say:
"At 4pm, John had arrived at 3pm."
"At 4pm, John had arrived at 3pm."
Adverbs and the past perfect
Sorry, that sentence does not make sense.
You can perhaps say "At 4pm it became clear that John had arrived at 3pm".
In this case "at" implies a very specific point time when something happens. So, if something happens"at 4pm" it does not really seem logical to then throw "at 3pm" into the same phrase as you have done.
It's like saying the cat is both on the table and under the table at the same time.
You can perhaps say "At 4pm it became clear that John had arrived at 3pm".
In this case "at" implies a very specific point time when something happens. So, if something happens"at 4pm" it does not really seem logical to then throw "at 3pm" into the same phrase as you have done.
It's like saying the cat is both on the table and under the table at the same time.
Thanks, Johnny, but what would be the grammatical explanation against its use'
Just think about the literal translation on your own language and you will figure it out. There is information missing.
Perhaps you could also say:
"At 4pm John, who had arrived at 3pm, was still waiting for is cup of tea".
Perhaps you could also say:
"At 4pm John, who had arrived at 3pm, was still waiting for is cup of tea".
I don't know that you could find a rule of grammar to slay that monster but logic would do the trick. You first pin-point 4 pm to tell us a fact that (presumably) had been true for an hour and (presumably) remained true thereafter so why pin-point 4 pm? You wouldn't, right, not in a normal world & therefore we don't. So that's why it sound odd. Now suppose the sentence had been "At 4 pm, the Mad Hatter had arrived at 3 pm.", this works since in a nonsense world like Wonderland it just may be that at 4 pm, the Mad Hatter had arrived at 3 pm; but at 4:05 pm, the Mad Hatter had arrived at 2:55 pm.
<<Why can't we say:
"At 4pm, John had arrived at 3pm." >>
Why can't you? Technically, I don't see anything wrong with it (although it does 'sound' sorta odd)
"At 4pm, John had [already] arrived[, he arrived] at 3pm."
or
"By 4pm, John had arrived, at 3pm."
These make it easier to understand...
"At 4pm, John had arrived at 3pm." >>
Why can't you? Technically, I don't see anything wrong with it (although it does 'sound' sorta odd)
"At 4pm, John had [already] arrived[, he arrived] at 3pm."
or
"By 4pm, John had arrived, at 3pm."
These make it easier to understand...
<< Why can't we say:
"At 4pm, John had arrived at 3pm." >>
Because it doesn't make sense. What particular relationship is there between 4 PM and John's arrival at 3 PM? The sentence doesn't express any. Sure, 4 PM is later than 3 PM, but then why mention 4 PM in particular? Why not 3:30 or 6:00? In what sort of context would you want to use this sort of sentence?
- Kef
"At 4pm, John had arrived at 3pm." >>
Because it doesn't make sense. What particular relationship is there between 4 PM and John's arrival at 3 PM? The sentence doesn't express any. Sure, 4 PM is later than 3 PM, but then why mention 4 PM in particular? Why not 3:30 or 6:00? In what sort of context would you want to use this sort of sentence?
- Kef
<<Because it doesn't make sense...>>
right, but grammatically, if not logically, it is correct. Theorhetically, you could substitute those times with anything...I agree, the example is bad...
btw, where is the adverb? "At 4pm"? "At 3pm?"--those are adverbial phrases?
right, but grammatically, if not logically, it is correct. Theorhetically, you could substitute those times with anything...I agree, the example is bad...
btw, where is the adverb? "At 4pm"? "At 3pm?"--those are adverbial phrases?
<btw, where is the adverb? "At 4pm"? "At 3pm?"--those are adverbial phrases? >
O.K.
O.K.
In all examples of the past perfect there is an event time (ET) and a reference time (RT).
Here, the ET is "arrive" and the RT "3pm".
"Mary had arrived at 3pm."
Also, with past perfect, we represent a span of time from the ET to the RT.
We can represent the above sentence in this way:
1. (RT follows ET)
----->>>ET=arrive-->>>>>-RT =3pm
----------span-span-span-span
2. (ET and RT coincide)
----->>>ET=arrive
----->>> RT =3pm
----------span
In your sentence, "at 4pm" attempts being the RT. That means there is no span of time between the ET=arrive and the RT "at 4pm" (because the arrival (ET) and 3pm (the true RT) are completed time). The past perfect requires a time span, as do all perfect forms.
"At 4pm, he had arrived at 3pm."
----->>>ET=arrive---->>>>---4pm
----->>> RT =3pm
----------span-----no span-no span
Without that span - whether the ET precedes the RT, as with some cases of the past perfect, or the ET and RT coincide, as with other cases of that form - we are not using the past perfect correctly.
Hope that's not too confusing an exlplanation.
Here, the ET is "arrive" and the RT "3pm".
"Mary had arrived at 3pm."
Also, with past perfect, we represent a span of time from the ET to the RT.
We can represent the above sentence in this way:
1. (RT follows ET)
----->>>ET=arrive-->>>>>-RT =3pm
----------span-span-span-span
2. (ET and RT coincide)
----->>>ET=arrive
----->>> RT =3pm
----------span
In your sentence, "at 4pm" attempts being the RT. That means there is no span of time between the ET=arrive and the RT "at 4pm" (because the arrival (ET) and 3pm (the true RT) are completed time). The past perfect requires a time span, as do all perfect forms.
"At 4pm, he had arrived at 3pm."
----->>>ET=arrive---->>>>---4pm
----->>> RT =3pm
----------span-----no span-no span
Without that span - whether the ET precedes the RT, as with some cases of the past perfect, or the ET and RT coincide, as with other cases of that form - we are not using the past perfect correctly.
Hope that's not too confusing an exlplanation.