No sooner....

[dihen]

Not about "no sooner" but why is it
"I had (only) just reached the station when the train left"
if both actions have completed?
Why isn't it "I had (only) just reached the station when the train had left?

[Deen]

Because you say you reached the station just as the train left.

If you want to say you reached the station right after the train HAD left, meaning you didn't see the back of the train leave the station, you might say:

"The train had just left when I reached the station."

If you want to put emphasis on how close you were to reaching it, you could go:

"The train had just left the station when I got there."

or

"The train had just left, seconds ago, when I reached the station."

[dihen]

Originally Posted by Deen

Because you say you reached the station just as the train left.

Then it's not that both of the actions are complete; the verb "left" in the "as" clause is not actually complete.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by dihen

Not about "no sooner" but why is it
"I had (only) just reached the station when the train left"
if both actions have completed?

True. But the verb housing past perfect morphology (had reached) happened first. That is, I reached the station and then train left. No sooner ... than is about split-second timing. I didn't have enough time to get on board the train.

Here's another example, "No sooner had I hung up the phone than it rang." As soon as I hung up the phone, it rang. There may have been a split-second between my hanging up the phone and it ringing.

Hope that helps.

[Passionwagon]

"No sooner had I reached the station when the train left."

There was some doubt about this one, but I am qute sure that this is unacceptable. As somebody mentioned previously, "no sooner" is a comparative; that is, it expects "than". In saying "no sooner...when" you are suggesting that after the train left you didn't get there any sooner (although there is a tense problem between "had I reached" and "the train left" in this meaning because it makes it nonsensical; you have already reached the platform so you won't get there any sooner now the train has left.) To resolve this problem you could say:

[b]No sooner did I reach the station when the train left." This would be fine, although a bit odd: why would a train leaving make it quicker for you to get to the station?




I had (only) just reached the station when the train left.

[Passionwagon]

Although I should point out that in my above last example there is no sense of immediacy; by using "when" all you are saying is that you didn't get there any sooner when the train left, which makes very little sense when you are, indeed, trying to get to the train station and board a train.



Casiopea is spot on about the split-second thing.

"I had (only) just reached the station when the train had left?"

This also suggests that your reaching the station was dependant on the train having left (if you use "only" and not "just"). (I had only climbed the tree when the bear had left.) I did this once the bear had left, alhough it sounds a bit odd; "had left" could be quite a long time so the idea that you "had only climbed" has no use for the sense of immediacy. (I had just climbed the tree when the bear had left.) Again, "had left" suggests that the bear was out of sight, which could take some time; therefore, it is difficult to say you "just" did climbed when the bear's departure could take a long time.

So... "I had (only) just reached the station when the train had left?"

this follows the same principle. The train is out of sight or its was some way into its travel.

[Deen]

Originally Posted by dihen

Then it's not that both of the actions are complete; the verb "left" in the "as" clause is not actually complete.

Correct. If you were telling this story in the present tense (as it happened), you'd say "I'm just reaching the station, and (I can see) the train leaves/(leave)."

It is happening as you arrive at the station.

And the other story:

"I'm just reaching the station, and (I can see) the train has left." NOW, the action of leaving is complete. But you're no longer telling an exciting story about split seconds!!!

[Fazzu]

Originally Posted by dihen

Can I say these?
`
We reached the station no sooner than the train left.
We reached the station no sooner than when the train left.
No sooner than the train left did we reach the station.
No sooner than when the train left did we reach the station.

Can I say that we should not use 'No sooner' & 'than' beside each other?