I (had) always thought he was the director, but now I've learned he is the producer.

[Michaelll]

Can we use the past perfect here to emphasize that something is no longer the case, or would the past simple suffice?
Is it ungrammatical to use the past perfect here (because there is no point in the past to which the past perfect magnetizes) or is it fine?

1a. I (had) always thought it should be done that way, but now I know it should be done this way.
2a. I (had) always thought it should be done that way, but now I've learned it should be done this way.

1b. I (had) always thought he was the director (of this movie), but now I know he is the producer.
2b. I (had) always thought he was the director (of this movie), but now I've learned he is the producer.

 

[Barque]

I told you in another thread. Context makes a difference.

All of those work. You need context to decide which.

You've used the word "magnetizes" a few times, in this and another thread. I don't know what you mean by it.

 

[Barque]

As Tarheel said on another thread, you can't over-emphasise the importance of context in English. It's almost everything. Yes, that makes English a difficult language to master if you don't learn it as a child. That's how it is.

 

[Michaelll]

I told you in another thread. Context makes a difference.

All of those work. You need context to decide which.

Look, 'context' is not a magic word, is it? We can't blame everything on it. You can endlessly repeat the word 'context', but it won't make more sense. I think it's just a terrible way of teaching English. I do think so, and many people will agree with me. Because non-native learners of English don't know what "that needed context" is! Please, pay attention to the last sentence.

All of those work. You need context to decide which.

• I had always thought it should be done that way, but now I've learned it should be done this way.

Is this one fine as a simple statement of fact?

 

[Michaelll]

You've used the word "magnetizes" a few times, in this and another thread. I don't know what you mean by it.

As I've been taught, you can't just say "I had been learning English for five years" without a point in the past ("by March 1872", "when XYZ happened" etc.) with which it should connect.

 

[Barque]

I hope you'll find someone else who can explain this better.

 

[Tarheel]

As I've been taught, you can't just say "I had been learning English for five years" without a point in the past ("by March 1872", "when XYZ happened" etc.) with which it should connect.

No, it doesn't work as a standalone sentence. However, you could say something like, "I had been learning/studying English for five years at that point." (Nothing gets magnetized.)

I would use (and expect to hear) past perfect in all of your examples. However, in speech it is unlikely anybody would notice the omission of "had" there. (There is always another sentence that comes right afterwards )

 

[Michaelll]

I hope you'll find someone else who can explain this better.

Still, I want to thank you, you've helped me lots of times in other threads.

No, it doesn't work as a standalone sentence.
However, you could say something like, "I had been learning/studying English for five years at that point." (Nothing gets magnetized.)

Sorry, I see I couldn't explain what I meant properly. By 'magnetizes' I meant that the past perfect (as I've been taught) has to have a connection to another moment/action/event in the past, it can't just be used as a standalone sentence (unless it's clear from the context what moment it's connected to).

I would use (and expect to hear) past perfect in all of your examples. However, in speech it is unlikely anybody would notice the omission of "had" there. (There is always another sentence that comes right afterwards)

"I had always thought it should be done that way, but now I know / now I've learned it should be done this way" I had always thought I should say it in the past simple (instead of the past perfect), because - as I had thought - this sentence doesn't have another action/moment in the past, but now I see the fact that the situation is different now is another reason to use the past perfect. Thanks!

 

[jutfrank]

Can we use the past perfect here to empathize emphasize that something is no longer the case?

Yes, exactly.

As I've been taught, you can't just say "I had been learning English for five years" without a point in the past ("by March 1872", "when XYZ happened" etc.) with which it should connect.

That's right. The aspect of the past perfect presents two relative points in past time.

 

[emsr2d2]

Absent any other context, "I've been learning English for five years" would be taken to mean that you started learning English five years ago and you continue to do so. If you studied English for five years at some other time in the past, you wouldn't use the present perfect continuous. You'd say "I learned English for five years as a child/at school/at university". The underlined words would serve as the timeframe. Note, though, that it would be more natural to say "I studied English for five years ..." in that scenario.