Check it out

[Jung]

hello~I am here again
please check out the following sentence.

He provided some entirely disparate evidences regarding whether Macro Polo had been Chinese.

Q: Is it correct?

[Luis Ko]

incorrect!!

[Jung]

incorrect!!

orz....
Is the problem in the "...regarding whether..."

[Luis Ko]

it's ok for that but "had been Chinese"
it sounds weird

[Darren]

Regarding the end part of the sentence,

Did you mean:
Marco Polo is/was Chinese?
or Marco Polo had been in China?

[Jung]

YES!!
I lost a prep.

[Glotynn]

it's ok for that but "had been Chinese"
it sounds weird

I don't see anything wrong with "had been Chinese" here. It's a pattern of simple past tense vs. past perfect tense. Marco Polo lived in much earlier times than the author.

However, replacing it by "was" is equally right, just like the following sentences being correct:
I am Chinese.
I have been Chinese since I was born.

[euphorian]

hello~I am here again
please check out the following sentence.

He provided some entirely disparate evidences regarding whether Macro Polo had been Chinese.

Q: Is it correct?

Not correct enough.

He provided some entirely disparate evidences regarding whether Macro Polo had been a "Han" Chinese.

You know... The concept of "Chinese" does come in so many different shades and varieties, as far as race, ethnicity and nationality is concern.

[Luis Ko]

it's ok for that but "had been Chinese"
it sounds weird

I don't see anything wrong with "had been Chinese" here. It's a pattern of simple past tense vs. past perfect tense. Marco Polo lived in much earlier times than the author.

However, replacing it by "was" is equally right, just like the following sentences being correct:
I am Chinese.
I have been Chinese since I was born.

do we use "had been a Chinese"? even "have been a Chinese"?

[Glotynn]

do we use "had been a Chinese"? even "have been a Chinese"?

Yes, we do.
In "a Chinese", Chinese is a noun.
In "I am Chinese", Chinese is an adjective.

I am a Chinese. (O)
I am Chinese. (O)
He is English. (O)
He is an English. (X)
He is an Englishman. (O)

[Darren]

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.

[Glotynn]

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?

[euphorian]

it's ok for that but "had been Chinese"
it sounds weird

I don't see anything wrong with "had been Chinese" here. It's a pattern of simple past tense vs. past perfect tense. Marco Polo lived in much earlier times than the author.

However, replacing it by "was" is equally right, just like the following sentences being correct:
I am Chinese.
I have been Chinese since I was born.

do we use "had been a Chinese"? even "have been a Chinese"?

had been = 曾經是,現在不是(死)

have been = 曾經是,現在還是(活)

[Glotynn]

had been = 曾經是,現在不是(死)

have been = 曾經是,現在還是(活)

"had been" does not necessarily imply death.
One could once be a Chinese before a specific time in the past, as in:

He had been a Chinese before he migrated to Canada in 1990.

[Darren]

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.