Explain the difference between both the sentences?

Question

1. I had been the representative of my class during the year 2006.

2. I was the representative of my class during the year 2006.

Details: I know both are right. plz say me the difference clearly

Answer 1

The first is in the past perfect tense and as Robert responded earlier, there should be another past action included. Standing alone out of context, the sentence doesn't make sense and it is really incorrect just to use it with "the year 2006". You could say something better such as, "I had been the representative of my class for 3 months in 2006 but then I had to step down because my family moved away."

The second sentence is fine. The verb "to be" is in the simple past tense indicating a completed, finished past action at a specific time, that being the year 2006.

Answer 2

The past perfect of the first sentence is used because their is another past somewhere else in the sentence.

I was the representative in 2006 and I had been for a year before the incident came up.

Answer 3

The first one implies that one was the representative for only part of the year 2006 and then no longer was. "I had been" implies that you were up until the point that something happened and then you no longer were.

The second one implies that you were representative throughout the entire year 2006.

Answer 4

sentence 1 construction is used in INDIRECT SPEECH and is a subordinate clause to I said that I had been ...
more clear example

somebody said that Gandhiji had been a Gujarati [not was a Gujarati]

while

sen... 2 construction indicates SIMPLE PAST TENSE
more clear example

Gandhji was a Gujarati [not had been a Gujarati]

also in your sentence :
Details: I know both are right. plz say me the difference clearly

'say' is wrong, there should be 'tell' me ...

Answer 5

1. past continuous tense
2. past tense