By the time I arrived at the scene, the meeting had been over.
When I arrived at the scene, the meeting had been over.
Are the two sentences correct?
-
4Why did you use "the meeting had been over" rather than "the meeting was over"?KillingTime– KillingTime2024-02-08 15:16:24 +00:00Commented Feb 8, 2024 at 15:16
-
2You need a time gap marker (and this will usually be fairly large in context) to make this acceptable: << By the time / When I arrived at the scene, the meeting had been over for hours / ages / some considerable time. >> If you don't wish to specify this, the correct time construction is past simple, as KillingTime indicates.Edwin Ashworth– Edwin Ashworth2024-02-08 15:55:08 +00:00Commented Feb 8, 2024 at 15:55
-
Do you mean when I use "has/had been over", I have to use a period of time at the end of both sentences?Ben Yao– Ben Yao2024-02-08 16:40:38 +00:00Commented Feb 8, 2024 at 16:40
-
Welcome! We need more for this question to be answerable. Many things are "correct" but might not be what you want. Please use the "edit" button below the question to tell more about the meaning you want, as well as what you've already found out about the phrase "by the time." Try not to be distracted by the "had been over" part if it has nothing to do with your main question, or if it does, tell more about that too.Andy Bonner– Andy Bonner2024-02-08 16:46:31 +00:00Commented Feb 8, 2024 at 16:46
-
Yes. As they stand, they are ungrammatical. 'When I arrived at the scene, the meeting had finished.' shows an acceptable and typical pairing of [in the past] and [further in the past] (past simple tense + past perfect construction).Edwin Ashworth– Edwin Ashworth2024-02-08 17:12:49 +00:00Commented Feb 8, 2024 at 17:12
|
Show 2 more comments
2 Answers
By the time vs when
OP's two sentences are
1.By the time I arrived at the scene, the meeting had been over.
2.When I arrived at the scene, the meeting had been over.
Are the two sentences correct?
OP's first sentence is correct. The second sentence would be correct by using "was" instead of had been. But the meaning of the sentence is changed.
When I arrived at the scene, the meeting was over. (Our church meeting was just over and they were serving tea and donuts)
The second sentence can have the same meaning as the first, if 'already' is used.
When I arrived at the scene, the meeting had already been over. (The meaning was completely over and I only saw empty chairs there)
-
Thanks for the downvotes and keep on downvoting on a daily basis. It doesn't cost you anything.James Mathai– James Mathai2025-08-02 06:07:18 +00:00Commented Aug 2 at 6:07
There is nothing in either sentence that calls for the past perfect had been over. So, in isolation, the sentences are unidiomatic.
Here's an example of a sentence that calls for the past perfect:
By the time I arrived at the scene, the meeting had been over for an hour.
had been over indicates that the meeting ended at some time earlier than your arrival on the scene, but unless you say something about how much earlier that was, the sentence is lacking the very sort of information that justifies the use of the past perfect with over.
If you leave out over, then the past perfect alone is OK:
By the time I arrived, the meeting had ended.
And if you use the simple past, you can use over as the simple complement of the predicate:
By the time I arrived, the meeting was over.
over is a state, and you need to say how long the state had been in effect when you use the past perfect.
Compare:
By the time the case was reopened and the DNA results were admitted into evidence, the wrongly convicted man had been in prison for twenty years.
in prison is also a state.
By the time the fire trucks arrived, the building had been burning for half an hour.
burning is a state.
