in her hand was a hot Skillet, that she <had been cooking> vs <was cooking> eggs in,

[Tony_M]

Hello.

Source: Corpus of Contemporary American English (fiction book "A glass of water")

"Clay was still, then she moved, in her hand was a hot Skillet, that she had been cooking eggs in, eggs went flying, and the drow yelled, as he was hit in the head with the skillet."

Why does the author need the past perfect here?
Can the past continuous be used instead?

Thank you.

 

[emsr2d2]

They used the past perfect because she'd finished cooking the eggs (they were ready to eat). Did the original really have a capital "s" on "skillet"?

 

[jutfrank]

Why does the author need the past perfect here?

'Need'? You mean 'use'. Your question should be 'Why does the author use the past perfect here?'

This is an absolutely ideal use of the past perfect to set background narrative context. The perfect aspect indicates that the cooking was over. If the writer had used the past continuous, it would indicate that the cooking process was still in progress, which is not apparently what was meant.

I can guess what you're thinking: why is the skillet in her hand with eggs in and still hot if the cooking process is over, right? Good question. It doesn't make immediate sense to me, either. I imagine it means the eggs have finished cooking and she's about to serve them up.

 

[Tony_M]

Did the original really have a capital "s" on "skillet"?

Thank you, @emsr2d2.
Yes.

 

[Tony_M]

'Need'? You mean 'use'. Your question should be 'Why does the author use the past perfect here?'

This is an absolutely ideal use of the past perfect to set background narrative context. The perfect aspect indicates that the cooking was over. If the writer had used the past continuous, it would indicate that the cooking process was still in progress, which is not apparently what was meant.

I can guess what you're thinking: why is the skillet in her hand with eggs in and still hot if the cooking process is over, right? Good question. It doesn't make immediate sense to me, either. I imagine it means the eggs have finished cooking and she's about to serve them up.

Thank you, @jutfrank.

- Yesterday was a pretty hectic day. I came back home at 7 pm and realized that I didn't have anything to eat. I'd been cooking a couple of dishes for two hours, had my dinner, and went to bed. -> (I finished cooking; it took me two hours, had my dinner, and went to bed.)

- Yesterday was a pretty hectic day. I came back home at 7 pm and realized that I didn't have anything to eat. I was cooking a couple of dishes for two hours, had my dinner, and went to bed. -> (While cooking the dishes for two hours, I had my dinner and went to bed, and apparently was woken up by the smell of smoke, since the dishes that had been left on the stove had completely burned.)

Is my understanding correct?

 

[jutfrank]

- Yesterday was a pretty hectic day. I came back home at 7 pm and realized that I didn't have anything to eat. I'd been cooking a couple of dishes for two hours, had my dinner, and went to bed.

This is wrong. The past perfect there doesn't make sense, as it would mean that you were cooking before you got home.

- Yesterday was a pretty hectic day. I came back home at 7 pm and realized that I didn't have anything to eat. I was cooking a couple of dishes for two hours, had my dinner, and went to bed.

This is less wrong but still no good. Using the past continuous presents the cooking as a situational context, which it isn't. You need the past simple, because you're listing a set of narrative events. There's no place for any aspect here.

 

[Tony_M]

This is wrong. The past perfect there doesn't make sense, as it would mean that you were cooking before you got home.



This is less wrong but still no good. Using the past continuous presents the cooking as a situational context, which it isn't. You need the past simple, because you're listing a set of narrative events. There's no place for any aspect here.

Great.

 

[jutfrank]

No, not great. What happened? It seems your understanding of how to use aspect has taken some steps backward.

By the way, I don't understand hardly any of the bits you've written in italics.

 

[Tony_M]

No, not great. What happened? It seems your understanding of how to use aspect has taken some steps backward.

That makes my life more interesting.

By the way, I don't understand hardly any of the bits you've written in italics.

That makes your life more interesting.

 

[Skrej]

Did the original really have a capital "s" on "skillet"?

Thank you, emsr2d2
Yes.

That entire screenshot is one absolute train wreck of a composition. It's essentially one long run-on sentence with a dozen or more comma splices. Commas are used seemingly at random. It has several obvious typos. Capitalization is random and inconsistent. Dialogue is incorrectly formatted.

Do not use this text to study any aspect of English grammar. It's disturbing that it's included in any corpus. The only redeeming value in it might be in demonstrating that corporae results need to be critically reviewed.