4

What option is right?

  1. He said he had been there when I was there.
  2. He said he had been there when I had been there.

Should the when-clause be in the past perfect if the main one is in the past perfect to emphasize simultaneity? What rule can explain that?

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    I'd parse 1) as him saying and you being there being simultaneous, and him being/having been there being the only thing reported - if everything after said is meant to be reported, it should align in tense.
    – Maciej Stachowski
    Commented Mar 25, 2022 at 15:36

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The basic rules for backshifting say how each verb should be backshifted. There's no exception in the rules for "when"-clauses.

Your sentence 2 follows those rules correctly, it has the meaning you intend, and it's 100% natural.

That said, there are times when we don't have to exactly follow those rules because the meaning stays the same and it still sounds natural. That might be what you're asking about here, about sentence 1, and the answer is no, in this case, sentence 1 would probably be understood correctly, but is grammatically incorrect.

I'm going to change your first sentence a bit to make it easier to follow the meaning of "there":

  1. He said he had been in traffic when I was in traffic.

This sentence means, "When I was in traffic, he said that he (too) had been in traffic (earlier)," which means he said that after he was out of the traffic, but while I was still in it.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Thank for your answer, mister!
    – Petro Probka
    Commented Mar 25, 2022 at 19:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .