<p>The monument stood on that site for over
eighty years when it was toppled by an earthquake.
(A) stood
(B) had stood
(C) was standing
(D) would be standing
(E) stood there</p>
<p>Apparently B is right. I thought the sentence contains an interruption, for which past continuous is appropriate. Can someone confirm this is an error on behalf of the book?</p>
<p>Also:</p>
<p>Although Ellen had not danced in decades, she still felt comfortable getting back out onto the ballroom floor, and was grateful to learn to waltz when she was a child.</p>
<p>"To learn to" is an error here, said to be needing a change to "to have learned to". I thought past perfect is only needed for undefined time periods in the past? When talking about periods of one's life, isn't past simple used?</p>
Here is the interruption you are talking about:
“X happened when Y happened.”
Here is what the sentence is saying:
“X had happened when Y happened.”</p>
<p>The past perfect tense (“had stood”) implies that something started occurring in the past and ended in the past. In this case, the standing period of 8 years ended when there was an earthquake. Let’s say the earthquake occurred in 1950. If the monument stood from 1942 to 1950, then you could say, “It had stood for 8 years when an earthquake toppled it in 1950.” It describes a long-term event in the past. </p>
<p>If the sentence were using the simple past (“The monument stood . . .”), then it would be implying that, as soon as the earthquake hit, the monument stood for 8 years. This makes no logical sense since something cannot stand for 8 years in a single instant. To describe how long something stood in a single instant, you either say, “It has stood for 80 years” (it still stands now, and it started standing 80 years ago), or, if it is not standing anymore, “It had stood for 80 years” (it doesn’t stand anymore, but it had stood for 80 years until some past event caused it to fall).</p>
<p>To sum it up, the sentence isn’t describing what happened when the earthquake hit (which is what the “interruption” would describe). It is describing the state of the statue when the earthquake hit. It was in the state of having stood for 80 years. When the earthquake hit, the statue had stood for 80 years. Keep in mind that “had stood” is still an action just as much as merely “had” is. You can say, “When you woke up, it had not been raining for 2 hours,” just as much as you can say, “When you woke up, you had breakfast.” One describes what happened and another describes what had been happening or what had happened.
To your first question, yes, although that’s not the best way to put it. The time period certainly is not defined in the sentence because the sentence does not tell you how long Ellen had gone without dancing. The act of “not dancing” is not exactly an act; it is the long absence of the act, so past perfect is needed. The END point of the period in which Ellen had not danced in decades occurred when she “felt comfortable getting back out onto the ballroom floor.” At that point, she was grateful to have learned to waltz when she was a child. “To have” is an infinitive; don’t let that confuse you. You can’t say “to had learned.” At that point, she had learned to waltz; at that point, she was grateful to have learned to waltz when she was a child.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I understand your second question. It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about a person’s life. As long as the period is not specifically given, you can use the past perfect or the present perfect if needed. (It is wrong to say, “From 1950 to 1970, John had been very sick.” The past perfect tense is used to distinguish between two past events. By explicitly stating the years you are undermining any reason to use the past perfect. You should say, “From 1950 to 1970, John was very sick.” Maybe that’s what you mean.)</p>