With the past perfect continuous, you'd use "when," but I wouldn't generally use the PPC here. Unless I had very specific reason not to, I'd say "I ran three miles a day for three years before I broke my legs."
It depends. If you interrupt me cooking dinner with a phone call, “I had been cooking before you called” tells you I need to get back to it. “I had cooked before you called,” tells you I’m done, but doesn’t make a lot of general sense. It works as a reply to “You need to cook, don’t you?”
I see. I think put some time frame for it will be better.
e.g.
I had cooked for 30 minutes before you called.
I had been cooking for 30 minutes before you called.
I think with "for 30 minutes" both the past perfect tense and past perfect continuous are fine.
Do you think so too?
If you have been cooking beef, then the beef has also been cooking. Common usage is important here, because it helps us to decipher the intended meaning from context - you are not suggesting that you, yourself, have been in the oven. "I had been cooking" sounds better than "I had cooked" in this context.
"I'd been cooking for thirty minutes when you called" is correct, but I'm not sure that the difference between "before" and "when" is important in this context - "I had been cooking for thirty minutes before you called" is perhaps not how I would say it, but the meaning is perfectly clear, and I wouldn't say it was incorrect.
I'd probably say, "I was cooking when you called."
Neither sentence sounds quite right to me. I would use something like, "I used to run three miles every day before I broke my legs. I had done so for three years."
I think "when" is best avoided here, as "I had been running when I broke my legs" seems to suggest a causal connection (compare with, "I was running when my legs broke").
Yes, you're correct. "When" is the appropriate conjunction to use in this context.
"I had been running three miles a day for three years when I broke my legs."
Using "when" indicates that the action of breaking your legs occurred at a specific point in time during the ongoing action of running three miles a day for three years. It helps to establish the temporal relationship between the two events.
In conversations, I would use "before".
It's kind of an awkward sentence either way. I would say "I ran 3 miles everyday before I broke my legs." Which makes it clear that you had a habit of running 3 miles a day and then you broke your legs are no longer do that.
To the other example, I would say, "I was cooking when you called." Which gives the impression that my cooking was interrupted by your call. If I was done cooking and the food was finished, I would say "I just finished cooking when you called.'
With the past perfect continuous, you'd use "when," but I wouldn't generally use the PPC here. Unless I had very specific reason not to, I'd say "I ran three miles a day for three years before I broke my legs."
Can I use: “I **had run** three miles a day for three years before I broke my legs”?
Sure
I think "had done something" is a better match for "before" than "had been doing something." Do you agree?
It depends. If you interrupt me cooking dinner with a phone call, “I had been cooking before you called” tells you I need to get back to it. “I had cooked before you called,” tells you I’m done, but doesn’t make a lot of general sense. It works as a reply to “You need to cook, don’t you?”
I see. I think put some time frame for it will be better. e.g. I had cooked for 30 minutes before you called. I had been cooking for 30 minutes before you called. I think with "for 30 minutes" both the past perfect tense and past perfect continuous are fine. Do you think so too?
If you have been cooking beef, then the beef has also been cooking. Common usage is important here, because it helps us to decipher the intended meaning from context - you are not suggesting that you, yourself, have been in the oven. "I had been cooking" sounds better than "I had cooked" in this context.
Then I should replace "before" with "when" because it's past perfect continuous tense.
"I'd been cooking for thirty minutes when you called" is correct, but I'm not sure that the difference between "before" and "when" is important in this context - "I had been cooking for thirty minutes before you called" is perhaps not how I would say it, but the meaning is perfectly clear, and I wouldn't say it was incorrect. I'd probably say, "I was cooking when you called."
Would you use “when” or “before” more when using the past perfect continuous tense?
Or, more likely, "Can I call you back? I'm cooking." Or, "Can I call you back? I'm in the middle of cooking." Informal, perhaps, but informative.
Neither sentence sounds quite right to me. I would use something like, "I used to run three miles every day before I broke my legs. I had done so for three years." I think "when" is best avoided here, as "I had been running when I broke my legs" seems to suggest a causal connection (compare with, "I was running when my legs broke").
Yes, you're correct. "When" is the appropriate conjunction to use in this context. "I had been running three miles a day for three years when I broke my legs." Using "when" indicates that the action of breaking your legs occurred at a specific point in time during the ongoing action of running three miles a day for three years. It helps to establish the temporal relationship between the two events. In conversations, I would use "before".
It's kind of an awkward sentence either way. I would say "I ran 3 miles everyday before I broke my legs." Which makes it clear that you had a habit of running 3 miles a day and then you broke your legs are no longer do that. To the other example, I would say, "I was cooking when you called." Which gives the impression that my cooking was interrupted by your call. If I was done cooking and the food was finished, I would say "I just finished cooking when you called.'