I had been running three miles a day for three years before/when I broke my legs.

[MichaelLu2000]

I am wondering which conjunction I should use when using the past perfect continuous tense. See below:

“I had been running three miles a day for three years before/when I broke my legs.”

“I had been living in Japan for three years when/before I met you.”

I think “when” fits better with the past perfect continuous tense while “before” is better with the past perfect tense (E.g: I had run three miles a day for three years before I broke my legs & I had lived in Japan for three years before I met you.)

It’s just my guess, so I am not sure if I am right about this.

Please give me some advice.

 

[5jj]

Did you really break your legs (plural)?

 

[MichaelLu2000]

Did you really break your legs (plural)?

In this scenario, yes, both legs are broken.

 

[5jj]

I am wondering which conjunction I should use when using the past perfect continuous tense. See below:

“I had been running three miles a day for three years before/when I broke my legs.”

“I had been living in Japan for three years when/before I met you.”

I think “when” fits better with the past perfect continuous tense while “before” is better with the past perfect tense (E.g: I had run three miles a day for three years before I broke my legs &“I had been living in Japan for three years when/before I met you.”)

It’s just my guess, so I am not sure if I am right about this.

Please give me some advice.

I think it would be more natural to say "I broke both legs".

I had been running three miles a day for three years before/when I broke both legs.
When is good. Before suggests to me that breaking both legs was foreseen.

I had run three miles a day for three years before/when I broke my legs.
Neither works particularly well. the continuous aspect works very well, suggesting to duration of this activity,

I had been living in Japan for three years when/before I met you.
Both of these work for me. I see little real difference between the two conjunctions. Before perhaps helps strengthen the idea of the duration.

“I had lived in Japan for three years when/before I met you.
I see no signifant difference in meaning between the two conjunctions.

 

[Skrej]

Did you really break your legs (plural)?

In this scenario, yes, both legs are broken.

Probably should have stopped when you broke the first one.

 

[Marika33]

I had been running three miles a day for three years before/when I broke both legs.
When is good. Before suggests to me that breaking both legs was foreseen.

I had run three miles a day for three years before/when I broke my legs.
Neither works particularly well. the continuous aspect works very well, suggesting to duration of this activity,

Another thing that I just can't understand about English. Why do you say here that the continuous aspect works very well (in contrast to the simple aspect), but if we remove the part "before/when I broke my legs" and put the rest as the main idea, the main message, then the simple aspect suddenly works well and there is no need for the continuous aspect (unless, of course, there is a proper context)?

• I had been running three miles a day for three years when I broke my leg. (Works well!)
• I had run three miles a day for three years when I broke my leg. (Doesn't works particularly well! — Use the continuous aspect instead as it "suggests to duration of this activity")
  ---
• I ran three miles a day for three years. (Works well — no special need to use the continuous aspect that would "suggest to duration of this activity")
• I was running three miles a day for three years. (Would require a special context)

 

[5jj]

Another thing that I just can't understand about English. Why do you say here ... ?

I say that because that's the way I see it after 75+ years as a native speaker, 55+ years as a teacher, 50 years as an amateur grammarian and 24 years as a responder in English language forums. In all those years of experience, I have had two major failures:

1. to explain things to you so that you understand them;
2. to get you to realise than it is not possible to explain every single English utterance in terms of what English grammar books, even very
advanced ones say. We have far more grey areas and flexibility than you seem prepared to accept.

I wish you luck in your attempts to master the intricacies of English. I shall probably not risk more failures.

 

[Marika33]

I say that because that's the way I see it after 75+ years as a native speaker, 55+ years as a teacher, 50 years as an amateur grammarian and 24 years as a responder in English language forums.

It sounds like you're a little frustrated and stressed out. Cheer up! There's nothing to be so sad about!

Just to explain to you (not just to you, 5jj, but anyone who might read this) exactly what it is that confuses English students about this logic:

Here (link to the YouTube video), the guy says "I ran every day for 30 days" instead of "I was running every day for 30 days". OK, fine, he's a native speaker, this is how they talk. But... you said that the continuous aspect works "very well, suggesting to duration of this activity", didn't you?

I had been running three miles a day for three years before/when I broke both legs.
When is good. Before suggests to me that breaking both legs was foreseen.

I had run three miles a day for three years before/when I broke my legs.
Neither works particularly well. the continuous aspect works very well, suggesting to duration of this activity,

So why didn't that guy use the aspect that you say "works very well" (but instead used the aspect that you say doesn't work "particularly well")?

• I'd been running every day for 30 days when I broke my leg.
• I'd run every day for 30 days when I broke my leg.

Why out of these two (above), the one with the continuous aspect "works very well, suggesting to duration of this activity" (unlike the one with the simple aspect that doesn't work "particularly well") while in the other two (below) the one with the simple aspect works just fine on its own?

• I ran every day for 30 days.

(original screenshot)

• I was running every day for 30 days.

(edited screenshot)

How does adding "when I broke my leg" create this need for the continuous aspect?

And why is it that without the "when I broke my leg" this need for the continuous aspect suddenly disappears and the simple aspect all of a sudden starts working well on its own?

1. to explain things to you so that you understand them;
2. to get you to realise than it is not possible to explain every single English utterance in terms of what English grammar books, even very advanced ones say. We have far more grey areas and flexibility than you seem prepared to accept.

Don't confuse yourself. It's not just me. This is one of the most frequent questions I hear from my students. Lots of other people wish to solve this problem too, except that they are often shy of being pushy, and therefore quickly give up before finding the answer.

 

[5jj]

So why [...]

How [...]

And why [...]

Yet more of these questions.

It sounds like you're a little frustrated and stressed out.

I would feel a lot less frustrated if I thought you took the slightest bit of notice of what I and others have told you over the months - with such points as [2] in post #7 above. Even for such a patient, tolerant soul as I there are limits to the amount of time I am prepared to waste.

 

[Marika33]

Yet more of these questions.

Yes, because I haven't gotten any legit answer (to this particular topic) yet!

Actually in #8 of this thread, I have explained this frustration as well as I ever could, thanks to the reply you gave to MichaelLu2000 in #4, as my explanation contains your words.