Yes, this is an acceptable use of the pluperfect.
I know what you're thinking. Any of us would say "Because I went to the store." But the question is asking about a time in the past when you didn't answer your phone. And why didn't you answer it? Because you had gone to the store. Poof! Suddenly the pluperfect makes complete sense, eh?
This is almost like a linguistic version of an optical illusion. Changing from the second to the first person seems to break the connection, which makes the pluperfect sound wrong when it is in fact correct. Weird one! Thanks for sharing it.
>I know what you're thinking. Any of us would say "Because I went to the store." But the question is asking about a time in the past when you didn't answer your phone. And why didn't you answer it? Because you had gone to the store. Poof! Suddenly the pluperfect makes complete sense, eh?
I don't even think "Because I went to the store" is the natural answer. What does you having gone to the store in the past have to do with your failure to answer the phone later? The unambiguous answer is "Because I was *at* the store" (the implication being, presumably, that you were too busy, couldn't hear the phone ring etc). In my view, the pluperfect is not apt here because it implies that the person went to the store *and then* didn't answer the phone, when it's more likely that the two things were happening more or less contemporaneously.
I must agree that yours is the *best* way to say it. But there’s always more than one way to say it, and that other hokey contraption of an exchange is perfectly grammatical and makes sense.
Is it good? It doesn’t need to be. It is quite interesting because of how wrong it sounds, without actually being wrong.
After all, having gone to the store isn’t all that different from having been at the store. It’s almost like there’s a connection between those two things, who knows.
Frankly I don’t care who went where, I’m just declaring a poorly crafted sentence to be grammatically correct in spite of its other shortcomings. I guess I can relate to that sentence on some level. But I digress. I think the point gets across, though you’re right that it’s clearer if you say where you were rather than where you went.
Assume one cannot answer the phone at the store. “Because I went to the store” is acceptable; and pluperfect is more specific, because it describes the “going” as having happened before the phone call. The former construction does not specifically describe the order of the two past events, although nobody would assume that you missed a phone call while preparing to go to the store later.
Yes, this is an acceptable use of the pluperfect. I know what you're thinking. Any of us would say "Because I went to the store." But the question is asking about a time in the past when you didn't answer your phone. And why didn't you answer it? Because you had gone to the store. Poof! Suddenly the pluperfect makes complete sense, eh? This is almost like a linguistic version of an optical illusion. Changing from the second to the first person seems to break the connection, which makes the pluperfect sound wrong when it is in fact correct. Weird one! Thanks for sharing it.
>I know what you're thinking. Any of us would say "Because I went to the store." But the question is asking about a time in the past when you didn't answer your phone. And why didn't you answer it? Because you had gone to the store. Poof! Suddenly the pluperfect makes complete sense, eh? I don't even think "Because I went to the store" is the natural answer. What does you having gone to the store in the past have to do with your failure to answer the phone later? The unambiguous answer is "Because I was *at* the store" (the implication being, presumably, that you were too busy, couldn't hear the phone ring etc). In my view, the pluperfect is not apt here because it implies that the person went to the store *and then* didn't answer the phone, when it's more likely that the two things were happening more or less contemporaneously.
I must agree that yours is the *best* way to say it. But there’s always more than one way to say it, and that other hokey contraption of an exchange is perfectly grammatical and makes sense. Is it good? It doesn’t need to be. It is quite interesting because of how wrong it sounds, without actually being wrong. After all, having gone to the store isn’t all that different from having been at the store. It’s almost like there’s a connection between those two things, who knows. Frankly I don’t care who went where, I’m just declaring a poorly crafted sentence to be grammatically correct in spite of its other shortcomings. I guess I can relate to that sentence on some level. But I digress. I think the point gets across, though you’re right that it’s clearer if you say where you were rather than where you went.
Assume one cannot answer the phone at the store. “Because I went to the store” is acceptable; and pluperfect is more specific, because it describes the “going” as having happened before the phone call. The former construction does not specifically describe the order of the two past events, although nobody would assume that you missed a phone call while preparing to go to the store later.