[Grammar] using had with the time expression now

[Yura Reiri]

For instance, I am narrating a story which happened in the past.

Would it be wrong to say,

'She had been suffering from her grave illness for more than three years now'?

 

[Mar Rojo]

Not wrong at all. It creates a "presentness".

 

[billmcd]

For instance, I am narrating a story which happened in the past.

Would it be wrong to say,

'She had been suffering from her grave illness for more than three years now'?

Maybe not wrong but I would prefer "until now" or "until the present".

 

[Raymott]

Maybe not wrong but I would prefer "until now" or "until the present".

I don't think that's what he means. His story is not over yet.
"One day, a specialist doctor came to visit. She had been suffering from her grave illness for more than three years now, and she was praying for some useful new advice." It's not yet "the present".

Yes, this is OK. It's understood that 'now' means "at that specific time in the past in the story."

 

[billmcd]

I don't think that's what he means. His story is not over yet.
"One day, a specialist doctor came to visit. She had been suffering from her grave illness for more than three years now, and she was praying for some useful new advice." It's not yet "the present".

Yes, this is OK. It's understood that 'now' means "at that specific time in the past in the story."

"Until now" still works with your extension. Also, "he" didn't provide any context.

 

[Raymott]

"Until now" still works with your extension. Also, "he" didn't provide any context.

But would you still prefer "until the present" if Yura Reiri had given the context I inferred? That was my only point.