Glotynn 寫:Darren 寫:I don't think it's quite logical using "had been" or "have been" when it comes to ethnicity.
"Had been" gives the impression of "once, was"
for example: I have been to Singapore. i.e. I was once in Singapore
So, when it comes to ethnicity, one cannot be once a Chinese and not anymore after that (physically that is).
Point is, finite verbs are more suitable in this case.
He provided some entirely disparate evidences regarding whether Marco Polo had been Chinese. I can agree with you that using "was" sounds better than "had been", but it is possible for somebody to "have once been" Chinese. There have been some assumptions with some people that Marco Polo was once a Chinese, and he ended up becoming an Italian after he returned/went to Italy. Based on this assumption, using "had been" in this sentence makes sense.
Besides, is it possible that the titled sentence involves the contrary past subjunctive?
Hi glotynn,
Thankyou for the vote of confidence by agreeing with "was" "had" matter.
Just want to clarify on the last reply I posted.
The reply was posted under the assumption that the topic sentence was arguing about the ethnicity of Marco Polo. In other words, what
blood or gene descendent was Marco Polo. Did Marco Polo have Chinese or European physical properties(looked like Chinese or European)? Or, is the majority of his blood Chinese or European (if he is indeed half Asian) . With this assumption, "was" would be a more appropriate verb in that sentence.
However, if the sentence was stating Marco Polo's
nationality, then, definately agreeing with you here, "had been" would definately be suitable.