(1)I had my education at York.
(2)I had had my education at York.
Please at what time exactly can one make use of both two, please educate me.
It seems to me they are the same. Thanks
“I had my education at York” is ordinary past tense.
“I had had my education at York” is past perfect tense. It is used to go further back into the past when describing something that is already in the past. For example: “I had had my education at York, so I was well suited to being a guide in that city”, where “I was well suited” is in the past, and “I had had my education” is further back in the past.
It is not correct to use the past perfect unless there is some feeling of “further back in time” (or some special idiomatic case that requires it). If you are just describing a past event then use the ordinary past tense.
Hello, Mr. Adu:
I was wondering whether these sentences of mine might be helpful:
-
I was very busy yesterday. So I HAD lunch very late – at about 2 p.m. When I went home, I then HAD a light dinner.
-
Yesterday a colleague at work came to my desk at 2:30 p.m. He offered me a big slice of pizza. I did not want to hurt his feelings. So I accepted it and
thanked him very much. I did not tell him that I (already) HAD HAD lunch thirty minutes earlier.
NOTES:
-
Some American speakers (in my opinion) do not wish to say “had” two times. So they may use a contraction instead: I’D HAD lunch thirty minutes earlier.
-
In conditional sentences, “had had” is really important:
If I had had time yesterday (I didn’t), I would have visited you. (But I did not visit you because I did not have time.)
If I’d had time yesterday, …
James
Dozy,
“I had had my education at York, so I was well suited to be a guide in that city.”
Is this sentence not correct?
I replaced ‘being’ by ‘be’.
To me, “suited to being” seems more grammatically sound.
Dozy,
“I had had my education at York, so I was well suited to be a guide in that city.”
Is this sentence grammatically wrong or not?
Please confirm.
I already tried to answer that.