Hello:
Jenkins (the writer) came recently to this boarding house in France and
is still in it.
Thus, wouldn't
"not many days after I had _first_ been in the house"
be more exact?
IMO the original could lead to the idea that Jenkins had left in the
meanwhile, which is not the case.
----
Like Monsieur Dubuisson, Widmerpoool showed no enthusiasm for
Paul-Marie's jokes.
'That boy has a corrupt mind,' he said not many days after I had been in
the house.
A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 90
----

Signature
Thanks.
Marius Hancu
CDB - 09 May 2009 12:51 GMT
> Jenkins (the writer) came recently to this boarding house in France
> and is still in it.
> Thus, wouldn't
> "not many days after I had _first_ been in the house"
> be more exact?
Yes, or "come to the house". It looks to me like the kind of muddle
you get into while speaking but ought to be able to avoid in writing:
he meant "After(/when) I had been in the house for not [very] many
days", but got tangled up.
> IMO the original could lead to the idea that Jenkins had left in the
> meanwhile, which is not the case.
Mine too.
> ----
> Like Monsieur Dubuisson, Widmerpoool showed no enthusiasm for
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 90
> ----
Marius.Hancu@gmail.com - 09 May 2009 12:59 GMT
> > Jenkins (the writer) came recently to this boarding house in France
> > and is still in it.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> > A Dance to the Music of Time, Spring, by Anthony Powell, p. 90
> > ----
Thanks.
Marius Hancu
Fred - 09 May 2009 21:31 GMT
> Hello:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> IMO the original could lead to the idea that Jenkins had left in the
> meanwhile, which is not the case.
Not really. Even with the addition of first, it could still be possible for
him to have left. 'I had been in the house for not many days when....'
would clarify it.
Robin Bignall - 09 May 2009 22:11 GMT
>> Hello:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>him to have left. 'I had been in the house for not many days when....'
>would clarify it.
That might be grammatical but it's not idiomatic. "I had not been in
the house for many days when..."
However, to BrE ears the original "Not many days after I had been in
the house, ..." is not ambiguous, and does not imply leaving and
returning.

Signature
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Marius.Hancu@gmail.com - 09 May 2009 22:20 GMT
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 08:31:25 +1200, "Fred" <dre...@paradise.net.nz>
> >> Jenkins (the writer) came recently to this boarding house in France and is
> >> still in it.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> the house, ..." is not ambiguous, and does not imply leaving and
> returning.
Fine, but does it mean
"Not many days after I had been **for the first time** in the
house, ..."
?
Thank you all.
Marius Hanc
Robin Bignall - 09 May 2009 22:35 GMT
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 08:31:25 +1200, "Fred" <dre...@paradise.net.nz>
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>house, ..."
>?
In this case it probably does. But it's a fairly usual construction
in BrE. Consider the case where someone visits a place periodically,
and is writing about various visits. At some time the person might
say "... and not many days after I had been there, I saw...." In most
cases this means *On this particular occasion* not many days after I
had been there....
If Jenkins had never visited the place before, then this is not many
days after his first visit. If he had visited before (I can't tell
from the snippet) then it's not many days after he arrived on this
particular visit.

Signature
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 09 May 2009 22:37 GMT
>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 08:31:25 +1200, "Fred" <dre...@paradise.net.nz>
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>house, ..."
>?
No. In the absence of any qualification it means the most recent time
that he was in the house.

Signature
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)