had been!

[endeavor6636]

i have seen many sentences from books or dictionaries,

sometime, when they use "past perfect" sentence, they didnt indicate " had been" was happened before soemthings else.


for ex:explorers going where no man had trod before.


so, "had trod" before "when"
(according to grammar rule: when you use past perfect it's taking about something happened before somthing else in the past , right? but the sentence
above dosn't give any sense of "past of past" this sentence seem like simple past.)

[Avalon]

explorers going where no man had trod (so this is it!) They went to places where until then, nobody had gone before (them,the explorers)

[endeavor6636]

but, they just plan to go there, but have not gone yet, why use "had been"

[Avalon]

sorry,I had the impression you were talking about a quote from the past,like a sentence from a book of history or the like...If these explorers are just planning to go, but haven´t actually gone, then it should be explorers going where no man has trod before.

[Humble]

Hello,
There is not enough context. It might well have been some where had been after going was perfectly correct.
Bye

[endeavor6636]

i found this sentence in an electric dictionary, it's only given that much of clue,
so, i am confusing it. but it said: "no man had trod"

[DavyBCN]

i found this sentence in an electric dictionary, it's only given that much of clue,
so, i am confusing it. but it said: "no man had trod"

The text must be referring to people in the past who went somewhere where no-one had been before. For example, when a man walked on the moon (which happened for the first time many years ago), he was walking where "no-ne had trod before". So the past perfect tense is correct for a past event which happened before another past event.