0

His father had to pawn the earrings.

The earrings were gone for a long time.

If I change this sentence in such a way that it means exactly as "The earrings had been in absence." I wanted to know the usage "had been in absence" is right or wrong.

  • The usage is correct, but why do you want to use the past perfect here? It only makes sense if you are trying to say something like: "By the time she replaced them, the earrings had been in absence for a long time." The past perfect describes the past from a perspective in the past. – P. E. Dant Sep 5 '16 at 3:26
  • Also, just to be clear: "in absence" is not synonymous with "gone." You could not say: "That train is in absence." – P. E. Dant Sep 5 '16 at 3:33
  • I doubt anyone would say "The earrings had been in absence." Even in simple past "The earrings were absent." implies the earrings went somewhere on there own accord. You should add an explanation to your question regarding why you want to say "The earrings had been in absence." – user3169 Sep 5 '16 at 3:53
  • His father had to pawn the earrings. – learner Sep 5 '16 at 3:58
  • Why not just post the actual question from the exercise? (e.g. this one from 2104.) – P. E. Dant Sep 5 '16 at 4:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.