"He was tired because he was/had been studying so hard."
datere
He was tired because he was studying so hard.
He was tired because he had been studying so hard.
May I ask what their difference is? I think both of them are almost
the same, but I don't know what their difference is. Could you tell
me? Thank you!!
Glenn Knickerbocker
>He was tired because he was studying so hard.
"Was" refers to the same time in both clauses. While he was studying
hard, he was tired.
>He was tired because he had been studying so hard.
"Had been" refers to a time earlier than "was." He studied hard, and he
was tired afterward. He might have continued studying after he got
tired, but he was tired from the earlier studying.
>May I ask what their difference is?
"Their difference" makes sense in arithmetic, but in qualitative
comparisons it's "the difference between them."
>I think both of them are almost
>the same,
"Both" is used to emphasize identity between two things. They can't be
"both almost the same" unless they're almost the same as something else.
Also, "both the same" is an idiom that only works with the adverb "both,"
not the pronoun, so "both of them" can't be the same. You think "they
are almost the same." If you wanted to emphasize how very nearly alike
they seem, you could use "almost" parenthetically to modify the whole
clause: "I think they're both the same, almost."
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr "The notion of objecting to a fake Web
ŹR site on the grounds that it might possibly incite other people
to do bad things is so dangerous to our constitutionally protected
freedoms that it must never be mentioned, even in jest." --Matt McIrvin
Django Cat
>Hello, everyone:
>
>He was tired because he was studying so hard.
And he hadn't finished.
>He was tired because he had been studying so hard.
But now he'd finished.
Next?
DC
jinhyun
The second is correct. Again, here the past-perfect form operates to
fix temporal context. He was studying before he got tired. Both the
studying and the getting tired are in the past but the studying is
further past. By the bye, it should be 'very hard'. 'So hard' in this
sort of context is used when you're trying to be a little arch and/or
wanting to emphasize how hard he'd been studying and the 'so' is
pronounced a little dragged out for emphasis. For a plain statement of
fact it should be 'He was tired because he had been studying very
hard'
CDB
As I think Jinhyun is saying, the "had been" version implies that the
studying had come to an end before the state of tiredness being
described. The rest of what he says (beginning "by the bye") may
apply to his version of English, but it doesn't apply to mine. I
agree that "very hard" is slightly more formal, but "so hard" can be
used perfectly straightforwardly, with no particular ironic emphasis.
I am a native speaker of North American English.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> As I think Jinhyun is saying, the "had been" version implies that the
> studying had come to an end before the state of tiredness
Not necessarily, but it had gone on for some time first. He studied
hard for a while, he got tired, and he may or may not have continued
studying while he was tired.
> agree that "very hard" is slightly more formal, but "so hard" can be
> used perfectly straightforwardly, with no particular ironic emphasis.
Both are correct, but with different meanings. "So hard" doesn't tell
us how hard he studied at all; it just says that however hard he was
studying was enough to tire him out.
ŹR
CDB
> CDB wrote:
>> As I think Jinhyun is saying, the "had been" version implies that
>> the studying had come to an end before the state of tiredness
> Not necessarily, but it had gone on for some time first. He studied
> hard for a while, he got tired, and he may or may not have continued
> studying while he was tired.
It helps, in these discussions, not to snip the examples being
discussed:
He was tired because he was studying so hard.
He was tired because he had been studying so hard.
It also helps not to snip part of the sentence you are commenting on.
I wrote
"As I think Jinhyun is saying, the "had been" version implies that the
studying had come to an end before the state of tiredness *being
described*,"
(omission bolded) precisely in order to allow for the obvious: the
state of tiredness would have begun before the studying ended. In the
example referred to, however, the past perfect indicates that the
state of tiredness *being described* follows the studying that caused
it.
>> agree that "very hard" is slightly more formal, but "so hard" can
>> be used perfectly straightforwardly, with no particular ironic
>> emphasis.
> Both are correct, but with different meanings. "So hard" doesn't
> tell us how hard he studied at all;
How hard is "very hard"?
> it just says that however hard
> he was studying was enough to tire him out.
As does the combination of "because" and "very" in the other version.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> He was tired because he had been studying so hard.
> I wrote
>
> "As I think Jinhyun is saying, the "had been" version implies that the
> studying had come to an end before the state of tiredness *being
> described*,"
>
> (omission bolded) precisely in order to allow for the obvious: the
> state of tiredness would have begun before the studying ended.
I'm at a complete loss to understand what "being described" is supposed
to distinguish here. Is "the state of tiredness being described" the
same "state of tiredness" that "would have begun before the studying
ended" or a different one?
What I think I misunderstood in the first place is whether you meant
before the state of tiredness *began* or before it *ended*. I read it
as the former, but now I see you must have meant the latter.
Regardless, though, the sentence doesn't necessarily imply the the
studying ever ended at all. He might have stopped studying and still
been tired for some time afterward, but it might just as easily
continue:
"He gave up studying and instantly felt refreshed."
or even:
"He kept studying even harder, though, and caught a second wind.
He's still studying now and alert as ever."
> > Both are correct, but with different meanings. "So hard" doesn't
> > tell us how hard he studied at all;
> How hard is "very hard"?
It's harder than "not very hard." You could say:
"He was tired because he was studying so hard,
even though he really wasn't studying hard at all."
You couldn't replace "so" with "very" in that sentence, because "very
hard" can't mean "not hard at all." All "so hard" means is however hard
he was studying, be that a little bit hard, very hard, harder than
humanly possible, or not hard at all.
ŹR
CDB
> CDB wrote:
>> He was tired because he had been studying so hard.
>> "As I think Jinhyun is saying, the "had been" version implies that
>> the studying had come to an end before the state of tiredness
>> *being described*,"
>> (omission bolded) precisely in order to allow for the obvious: the
>> state of tiredness would have begun before the studying ended.
>
> I'm at a complete loss to understand what "being described" is
> supposed to distinguish here. Is "the state of tiredness being
> described" the same "state of tiredness" that "would have begun
> before the studying ended" or a different one?
It was a little awkward. If the sentence had not been set in the
past, I could have said "his present tiredness". How about "his
tiredness at the time referred to by the main clause"?
> What I think I misunderstood in the first place is whether you meant
> before the state of tiredness *began* or before it *ended*. I read
> it as the former, but now I see you must have meant the latter.
> Regardless, though, the sentence doesn't necessarily imply the the
> studying ever ended at all. He might have stopped studying and
> still been tired for some time afterward, but it might just as
> easily continue:
> "He gave up studying and instantly felt refreshed."
I disagree. For me, that would only follow the other example, "He
was tired because he was studying so hard."
> or even:
> "He kept studying even harder, though, and caught a second wind.
> He's still studying now and alert as ever."
Ditto. I see what you mean, now, but I would consider it a sloppy
construction.
>>> Both are correct, but with different meanings. "So hard" doesn't
>>> tell us how hard he studied at all;
>> How hard is "very hard"?
> It's harder than "not very hard." You could say:
> "He was tired because he was studying so hard,
> even though he really wasn't studying hard at all."
I have no idea what that could mean. Sorry, I really don't. It would
have to have something in the first clause like a "he thought"; maybe
two, and even then the use of "so" strikes me as ironic. The point
behind my question was that you can remove any qualifier in the OP's
example and hardly change the meaning: "He was tired because he had
been studying hard."
> You couldn't replace "so" with "very" in that sentence, because
> "very hard" can't mean "not hard at all." All "so hard" means is
> however hard he was studying, be that a little bit hard, very hard,
> harder than humanly possible, or not hard at all.
I think that "so" there is the source of some of this sentence's
troubles. In that context and position, it's informally used to mean
"very", although not in some other contexts, as you point out. I
might partly agree with you, about the use of"so" you just indicated,
in a sentence like "He'd been studying so hard that he was tired,"
although, there too, it has connotations of "very".
The partial conflation of "so", in some contexts, with "very" is also
the source, I think, of Jinhyun's comments about ironic usage, which
are certainly true sometimes.
One thing that all this seems to indicate is that the choice of sample
sentences for learners is a lot trickier, and more important, than you
might think before you try them out.
Glenn Knickerbocker
>> "He gave up studying and instantly felt refreshed."
>I disagree. For me, that would only follow the other example, "He
>was tired because he was studying so hard."
Try preceding it with "He had been studying without a break for the past
ten hours." He was tired not *just* because he was studying at the
moment, but because he had already been studying for hours.
>> "He was tired because he was studying so hard,
>> even though he really wasn't studying hard at all."
>I have no idea what that could mean.
Suppose he was completely unaccustomed to studying and could hardly get
through two sentences before needing a break.
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html "I felt like I was in a
ŹR demented Wallace Stevens poem, with food poisoning." Spalding Gray
CDB
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:31:57 -0400, CDB wrote:
>>> "He gave up studying and instantly felt refreshed."
>> I disagree. For me, that would only follow the other example, "He
>> was tired because he was studying so hard."
> Try preceding it with "He had been studying without a break for the
> past ten hours." He was tired not *just* because he was studying
> at the moment, but because he had already been studying for hours.
You have altered the nature of the sentence under discussion. It was
"He was tired because he had been studying so hard." Change that in
the way you indicated above, and you get "He was tired because he had
been studying without a break for the past ten hours." In this case,
as in the original sentence, the use of the past perfect means to me
that, at the time of which the sentence is speaking, he is no longer
studying. Once again, that means that I would not follow that
sentence with "He gave up studying and instantly felt refreshed." He
can't stop just now; he'll have to start again first.
>>> "He was tired because he was studying so hard,
>>> even though he really wasn't studying hard at all."
>> I have no idea what that could mean.
> Suppose he was completely unaccustomed to studying and could hardly
> get through two sentences before needing a break.
I would still require one or more of those "he thought"s you snipped:
"*He thought* he was tired because [he thought (optional)] he was
studying so hard, even though he really wasn't studying hard at all."
It seems to me that all this messing about has turned the sentence
into more of a monster than it was to begin with, and made the
questions originally under discussion somewhat less clear-cut. For
me, at least.
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html "I felt like I was in
a
ŹR demented Wallace Stevens poem, with food poisoning." Spalding
Gray
Story of my life.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> Glenn Knickerbocker wrote:
> "He was tired because he had been studying so hard." Change that in
> the way you indicated above, and you get "He was tired because he had
> been studying without a break for the past ten hours."
I didn't suggest changing it at all. I suggested changing its context:
He had been studying without a break for the past ten hours.
He was tired because he had been studying so hard.
He gave up studying and instantly felt refreshed.
ŹR
CDB
Whatever the context, I still can't reconcile the fact that "He was
tired", as a main clause, points to a particular time in the past, and
"because he *had been* studying so hard" indicates that, at that time,
the studying was a thing of the past, even if by the narrowest of
margins, with your third sentence about giving up something that had
already been abandoned, however briefly..
To indicate that he was still studying at the particular time at which
he is described as being tired (and was therefore in a position to
stop studying), you would need a subordinate clause with the past
progressive, not the past perfect progressive: He was tired because he
was studying so hard."
*This just in* *False concession city* I suppose that, if your context
allowed for a distinction between pausing, that is to say stopping
briefly to appreciate just how tired he was, and finally abandoning
all intention to keep working, that might allow for what you propose;
but that's trivial, and I don't suppose it's what you meant.
We've covered this ground already; I think we're going to have to let
it lie there.
CDB
Whatever the context, I still can't reconcile the fact that "He was
tired", as a main clause, points to a particular time in the past, and
"because he *had been* studying so hard" indicates that, at that time,
the studying was a thing of the past, even if by the narrowest of
margins, with your third sentence about giving up something that had
already been abandoned, however briefly..
To indicate that he was still studying at the particular time at which
he is described as being tired (and was therefore in a position to
stop studying), you would need a subordinate clause with the past
progressive, not the past perfect progressive: He was tired because he
Glenn Knickerbocker
>To indicate that he was still studying at the particular time at which
>he is described as being tired (and was therefore in a position to
>stop studying), you would need a subordinate clause with the past
>progressive, not the past perfect progressive: He was tired because he
>was studying so hard."
I made my first job change within IBM when I had been working there for
five years. Would you say "when I was working there for five years"
instead? I doubt it.
The past perfect describes action up to *and possibly including* the time
described by the simple past, the same as the present perfect describes
action up to and possibly including the present moment.
ŹR "I love Blip just because it's the absolute opposite of fun"
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/travelog/19990710.html --Kibo
Jim Karatassos
Datere,
This is just another problem with the present perfect.
The first is not one of the four main cases in which we use the past
continuous, "was studying."
See my website: http://jim.karatassos.googlepages.com/pastsimppastcont
for more clarification.
The second is correct because this is a case where the past perfect
continuous serves as the past form of the present pefect continuous.
I am tired because I have been studying. <==> I was tired because I
had been studying.
This indicates that "studying so hard" was an ACTIVITY of some
DURATION. You didn't study three or four vocab words to read the state
of "tiredness." You went at it with a will.
See my website: http://jim.karatassos.googlepages.com/presperfsimpcont
for more clarification.
Alan Jones
"Jim Karatassos" <jim.kar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6b4b147-6e01-4389...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Datere,
I don't agree on the first sentence. If his period of studying extended
through part of the past into the present and would continue into part of
the future, the simple past is correct. The past perfect makes no assumption
about the present or the future: he may have come to the end of his studies
if "he had been studying". The simple past, in this past-tense narrative,
locates his tiredness within a period covering both past and assumed future.
A present-tense equivalent might have "He is tired because he is studying so
hard", with the implication that his studies are still in progress. Oddly
enough, this doesn't imply that he is studying at this moment - he may have
gone to sleep, but will return to his studies when he wakes.
Alan Jones