In my textbook, The English Tenses (see the timeline comparing all the tenses here), each tense is presented with its full uses and examples, and is then compared to the most likely alternative. In English, we can often use more than one tense for the same meaning, so it is important to know exactly why we should use one and not another. This article is taken from a chapter in the book, to give a brief comparison between the very specific uses of the past simple and the past perfect, and where the two are most likely to be compared.
The past perfect and the past simple
The past perfect is used to show that an event finished before another event, while the past simple shows an event finished. The main purpose is to demonstrate a sequence of events, so the past perfect is more appropriate before another event.
- I had seen the film already, so I did not watch it again.
If the time that the event finished is not important, or is easily understood, it is often possible to use either the past simple or the past perfect. The choice is then a matter of style.
- I had travelled two miles before I ran out of petrol.
- I travelled two miles before I ran out of petrol.
These sentences essentially tell us the same information, and would be understood the same way. The past perfect can also show that one completed action had an impact on the action that followed, though.
- I ate three sandwiches before dinner so I was not hungry. (These simple statements create a stop-start sequence.)
- I had eaten three sandwiches before dinner so I was not hungry. (This sentence shows a more direct influence from one action to the next.)
These sentences can seem almost identical in meaning, but the past perfect can help to create more flowing and more carefully linked sentences.
The past perfect can also emphasise that a past action was actively done.
- He walked to the house and saw that the window was broken.
- He walked to the house and saw that the window had been broken.
In the first sentence, the past simple only tells us the window’s condition (it was broken). With the past perfect, we know that someone or something actively broke it (it had been broken – caused by someone or something).
These differences are subtle, and choosing one tense or the other will not always cause confusion, or be entirely correct or incorrect. Learning how to choose between them flexibly, and accurately, is a large part of mastering the English language.
For more detailed discussion of the tenses, please read my full textbook, The English Tenses.
Very interesting!
Amazing!
Hello Mr. Phil,
My first question is this – I understand that one of the uses of the simple past is to express a series of completed actions in the past, where these actions happen 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on (that is sequentially in the order that the actions are listed). My query is whether the paragraph is a good example of this use of the simple past tense (that is, is it a case where anyone reading the following paragraph will naturally understand that the actions I have listed occurred one after another simply because they all in the simple past tense?):
On Sunday my brother and I went to a nice lake. There we met our friends. We swam in the warm water and played volleyball in the afternoon. Too bad that we had to go home in the evening. We didn’t want to go to school on Monday.
My second question is this – some grammatical textbooks actually make the effort to list down a few uses of the simple past tense, two of which are: (a) an action that started and ended in the past, and (b) to list a series of completed actions in the past (where these actions happen sequentially in the order that they are listed). My question is that since the simple past tense very obviously shows that an action started and ended in the past, why is there then a need for some English grammar textbooks to bother to list down use (b) – my point being that use (a) already covers use (b) in that if the simple past tense can be used for a (single) completed action (as with use (a)), then it naturally means the simple past tense can also be used for multiple completed actions in the past, which is what use (b) is trying to express – so why bother listing down use (b) at all? Or is there any difference in meaning between (b) and (a)?
Appreciate your kind explanation, thank you.
Warm Regards,
Shiori
Hi Shiori,
Yes, I would say your paragraph is a clear example of a past sequence, it would be understood that the events occurred in that order, and the simple is fine because none of the results of the actions necessarily affect the following actions.
That’s a good question regarding those different definitions. You’re right that (a) does effectively cover (b) with a little thought about it, but I suppose the necessity of explaining how (b) works is more an extension of that idea, to be clear that we can use it sequentially rather than just in isolation, which (a) might otherwise suggest. To my mind, that’s a useful use to emphasise because it makes it clear that the past perfect is not required in such circumstances, and students might look to use the perfect tense if they weren’t explicitly aware that the past simple can be used sequentially. I hope that makes sense?
Best,
Phil
Hi Mr Phil,
Would it then be possible to simply use the past perfect to express sequential actions? for instance “I had repaired the car, I had cleaned the rubbish and I had walked the dog”?
My next question is whether the sentence I used above can be rephrased as “I had repaired the car, cleaned the rubbish and waked the dog” and still be read as all three actions being in the past perfect? My worry is that people reading such a sentence might think only the “repair” verb is in the past perfect, while “clean” and “walk” are in the simple past tense, when actually i meant for all three actions to be in the past perfect tense.
Warm Regards,
Shiori
Hi Mr Phil,
Sorry, I left out the following question. I asked above whether the example quoted is a good example of the simple past tense being used to show sequential events/actions “On Sunday my brother and I went to a nice lake. There we met our friends. We swam in the warm water and played volleyball in the afternoon. Too bad that we had to go home in the evening. We didn’t want to go to school on Monday”.
You replied that it is indeed a clear example of “a past sequence, it would be understood that the events occurred in that order, and the simple is fine because none of the results of the actions necessarily affect the following actions.”
My question is whether such a use of simple past tense to show sequential events only apply to sequential events/actions occurring within a single sentence such as “She came in, introduced herself, and began to talk about her country.” or does it also apply to sequential (i.e. a series of) events/actions as described using multiply sentences such as my example above (On Sunday my brother and I went…)?
Warm Regards,
Shiori
Hi Shiori,
Yes it would apply to events within a single sentence or over multiple sentences; the separation into sentences won’t really effect how it’s understood, it would only be by introducing different words and ideas that we might start to change understanding. You can signal sequences across different sentences with words such as ‘then’ and ‘after that’, or you could signal different timings with other phrases such as ‘before that’. But without those signals, the tenses will flow the same way if they are in one sentence or many.
I hope this helps!
Best,
Phil
Hi Shiori,
Yes, you can use the past perfect to express a sequence of events, and actually on your second point it sounds more natural to use only one auxiliary when you have a list like that. It would be easily understand that all the verbs in the series stem from the same perfect auxiliary, as there would need to be a new or repeated subject to suggest a change in tense. However there would be room for error there if you had longer phrases; as we get further from the auxiliary, it can be sensible to repeat the auxiliary to avoid confusion.
Hi Mr Phil.
Oh I see. So when using the simple past to express sequential past events, it does not matter whether the past events are expressed only within a single sentence or across multiple consecutive sentences, because either way the understanding is the same in that these events all occurred one after another. As such, a single sentence expressing sequential events will read as (with the numbers indicating which event occurs first, as in 1-first, 2-second, 3-third..and so on): “She (1) came in, (2)introduced herself, and (3) began to talk about her country.” and this flows in the same way with sequential events happening across consecutive sentences such as “On Sunday my brother and I (1) went to a nice lake. There we (2) met our friends. We (3) swam in the warm water and (4) played volleyball in the afternoon. Too bad that we (5) had to go home in the evening. We (6) didn’t want to go to school on Monday.”
May I know if I’ve understood you correctly?
Also, with regards to use of past perfect to express sequential past events, and using only one auxiliary verb “had” to mean past perfect for all three verbs, so this means “I had (1) repaired the car, (2) cleaned the rubbish and (3) waked the dog”?
Thank you very much.
Warm Regards,
Shiori
Hi Shiori,
Yes, you have understood all that correctly! Essentially, without clues to say otherwise, the order we say something should express the order it happens.
Phil
What’s the difference here sir
*He was smelly because he didn’t shower
*He was smelly because he hadn’t shower*
*I didn’t know he broke into your house*
*I didn’t know he’d broken into your house*
(Do they both mean the same thing? Or is there any difference what’s more natural in daily life?)
The first would be ‘hadn’t showered’, and in this case the past perfect would be used to mean he had not had a shower before the observation that he was smelly, while the past simple would represent more of a rule, i.e. he did not shower often/regularly. The second example, they might be used to mean essentially the same thing but the second would be more appropriate because the past perfect indicates the action (breaking into) was complete before the other verb, to know.
Hey thank you very much but I still have doubts.
You said he didn’t shower would indicate he didn’t shower as habit? But don’t we use past simple more commonly for single action?
What would people think if i say
“He was smelly because he didn’t shower” would they think he didn’t shower as habit or he didn’t shower earlier that day and later was smelly? And If there’s more context and the listener know I am taking about specific action or something so am i allowed to use past simple then? More examples:
yesterday,He was hungry because he didn’t eat/hadn’t eaten.
(Here hadn’t eaten is more correct and natural is daily life? Can’t i use didn’t eat to indicate he didn’t eat earlier that day and later was hungry? Is Past perfect important here?) For example someone asks me
“Why were you hungry”
What would I reply?
“Because I didn’t eat or hadn’t eaten?”
And in 2nd you said both are fine So I can use past simple right? It would mean the same?
For example:
I didn’t know he stole/had stolen your money so I let him go
(Do they have the same meaning? )
“I didn’t know what he did/had done”
(Do they mean the same? Or is there any difference and what’s more natural?)
Sorry If i am asking alot but Past perfect seems very hard to me and confusing.
Yes you’ve got the general idea there; there is nuance and the context can make a lot of difference. Without a specific time, the past simple can sound like past rules, e.g. “He was smelly because didn’t shower” may mean generally/always. “He was smelly on Tuesday because he didn’t shower.” would make it clear that we’re talking about that day, so the past perfect is not necessary. “He was smelly in the meeting because he didn’t shower.”, however, wouldn’t tell us if he didn’t shower generally, or that day, so “He was smelly in the meeting because he hadn’t showered.” would clarify that. But you could also say “He was smelly in the meeting because he didn’t shower that morning.” The past perfect might sound a little more natural there, as it adds clear sequencing, but essentially those last two examples wouldn’t be confusing.
The same principles apply to the other examples; it’s a question of how we can find the information needed to make the sentence clear, i.e. when did this verb occur in relation to the other verbs in a sentence. So for eating, “I hadn’t eaten” immediately tells us “before that past time”, but “I didn’t eat breakfast” might also clear that up; “I didn’t eat” would leave room for confusion.
On the last example, “what he did” could be interpreted as what he did generally (e.g. for work) so without other context the past perfect tells us it’s related to a specific action. Again, the nuance will come from context.
He failed the test because he didn’t practice/hadn’t practiced.
His car was dirty because he didn’t wash it/hadn’t washed it.
(What’s the difference and what’s more natural in daily life?)
His car was dirty because he didn’t wash/hadn’t washed it for 15 days.
(What’s the difference here with time duration?
Thank you so much sir that helped me alot
1.When I looked at him I Knew who he was because I’d seen him at the party before.
2.When I looked at him I Knew who he was because saw him at the party before.
Are these both correct and what’s the difference?
Sorry for the slow response; in this case they both work fairly similarly because we already have an indication of a past time, ‘when I looked at him’, which means ‘I’d seen’ or ‘I saw’ have to come before this. The past perfect helps settle that as a related past event (I’d seen = earlier), while the past simple makes it sound more complete/separate; this doesn’t make much difference at all with this example, but the past perfect would flow a bit better.
1.I found out someone broke into my house and stole my stuff.
2. i found out someone had broken into my house and stolen my stuff.
(What’s the difference here do they mean the same thing and what’s natural?)
3.My phone was lagging then I Found out someone went through my phone.
4.My phone was lagging then I found out someone had gone through it.
(What’s the difference here do they mean the same thing and what’s more natural.)
Hi,
I’ve been taught that the main use of the simple past is to express actions that happened in the past. My question is on the meaning of the word “happened”. Does “happened” mean that the simple past tense action or actions started and ended in the past?
Thank you very much.
Hi Shizuka,
Yes that’s a fair understanding of it, ‘happened’ as in ‘occurred’, ‘were completed’ or ‘took place’ in the past – but the definition you have is perfect, that the simple past started and ended in the past.
Hi Phil,
I have another question on English Tenses. I’ve been told that there is a need to ensure verb consistency in my writing, that is the verb tense I use should remain consistent throughout sentences, throughout paragraphs, and throughout the entire body of whatever I am writing – this means that I should employ the same tense, and stick to this tense, throughout my writing.
Firstly, I find the above requirement to stick to the same tense, as part of the need to ensure verb consistency, to be illogical. My reason being that the tense of an action conveys the time when the action occurs, as such, if my writing describes events which happen at different times, then I feel that the right thing to do would be to change the tense of the verbs accordingly, to reflect the timing of when the events occur. This means for instance, that I may have a sentence which carries multiple verbs of different tenses (e.g. “I have heard that Tim left Tokyo this morning, and has already arrived in Osaka, where he will be for the next two months” – Here, we have present perfect tense, simple past tense and simple future tense all in the same sentence), or paragraphs with sentences of different tenses, or entire writings with paragraphs of different tenses – the key thing being that we change the tense of verbs used to accurately reflect the timing of when the actions occur, so past tense for past events, present tense for present events, and so on, and that this is true regardless of whether we are talking about a sentence describing multiple events (and hence have multiple verbs for the events), paragraph or entire piece of writing. Of course, if the events all happen within the same time, then sticking to the same tense would be appropriate, otherwise, we would have to change the verb tenses accordingly to accurately reflect the time of when the various events happened. May I know if my understanding, as well as my example, is correct?
Thanks.
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, your understanding is correct; we use different tenses to reflect different timeframes, even within one sentence, as your example demonstrates. But I think the confusion here comes from a similar place to the idea we had about different POVs – the advice is more accurately aimed at making sure a text is consistent. This means that a text should be framed within a particular tense, which will primarily be either past or present (sometimes future). All the tenses may be used, but the basis of where the narration comes from should be set in a particular time, like with the POV issue where the text comes from a certain perspective. This is important when we tell a story in the past or present so the current moment of the story doesn’t slip into a different text (e.g. if you start a story in past and slip: “A man walked down the road. He saw a dog. He likes dogs.” – to move to ‘likes’ after past tense before would be a mistake).
I hope this helps!
Phil
Dear Phil,
Thanks. In summary:
(a) Be it in writing or speech, assuming the actions/events happen at different times, we can and rightly should use different tenses (even within the same sentence) to accurately reflect the timing of when the actions happened.
(b) Referring to your example of “A man walked down the road. He saw a dog. He likes dogs.” the reason why tense shift in this case (from simple past (walked/saw) to simple present tense (likes)) is wrong is because the assumption is that all three actions (walk, see and like) happened within the same time frame, and so all three actions should be in the same tense. Of course, if indeed the man’s liking for dogs is true in the present, then your example of “A man walked down the road. He saw a dog. He likes dogs.” is actually grammatically correct.
Have I got the above correct? Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, you are correct on (a), and with the assumption of (b). Indeed it would be grammatically possible to frame the sentence that way, but it would need to be clear in the context.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil, the term “time frame” shows up in the above explanations. The dictionary defines time frame as “A specified period of time in which something occurs or is planned to take place”, with examples illustrating the idea that “time frame” refers to a period of time (i.e. how long, for example: two months, two years, 1 day etc) but not so much the idea of when exactly something (e.g. an action) occurs (e.g. two months ago, in 1920, at 3pm etc). That being said, I believe when you used the term “time frame” in your explanation above, you are referring more to the latter idea of when things happened as compared to the idea of how long. Am I right, or is it a case where you are talking about both (i.e. time frame to mean both how long as well as when)?
Lastly, is the dicitonary’s definiton somewhat lacking to only mean “time frame” as being “how long” and not also include the idea of “when”?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, I would lean towards your latter idea, that timeframe can mean any kind of definition of time, whether for duration or a specific time. It is essentially as it sounds, the idea we use to frame the time (i.e. define it). I would say that yes, that definition of “how long” would be lacking as we may say something happened within a certain time period as a time frame – it defines a period of time without necessarily telling us how long the action itself took (e.g. “I went to work this morning.”).
Phil
Hi Phil,
Apologies to bother, but regarding your explanation in which you said “Yes, I would lean towards your latter idea, that timeframe can mean any kind of definition of time, whether for duration or a specific time. It is essentially as it sounds, the idea we use to frame the time (i.e. define it)”, by “latter idea”, you are referring to the following that I wrote, i.e. “time frame to mean both how long as well as when”?
Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
No problem – yes, that’s right!
Phil
Hi Phil,
I have another question on the use of the past perfect tense. Firstly, the two most common uses of the past perfect tense would be (a) that the past perfect expresses the idea that something (an event/action) occurred before another event/action in the past, or (b) for non-continuous verbs, the past perfect shows that a situation started in the past and continued up until another event/action in the past. May I know if this is correct?
Secondly, I have heard of another use of the past perfect, which states that the past perfect can be used “for something that happened several times before a point in the past and continued after that point” – is this also true? If so, the part I don’t quite understand is the part that says “and continued after that point”, because traditionally, I thought that the past perfect means that the past action (expressed in the past perfect) happened before the other point (represented by a time or another action in the simple past tense) in the past. Would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
You are right on the first points.
On the second, I can’t think of an example myself where that is true, as the past perfect’s purpose it to show completion. Perhaps it was referring to the past perfect continuous?
Phil
Hi Phil,
I have a question about the expression “point in time”. So for instance, using the simple past tense as an example (though any other tense will also do, I presume) grammatical texts will often explain the use of the simple past tense as “being an action which started and finished at a specific time in the past”, or for an action which happened (i.e. started and finished) at a specific point in time in the past. So “a specific time” means the same as “a point in time”, and we know that the word “time” can carry several specific meanings, such as to mean actual time (represented in hours and minutes), or a duration of time meant for an activity, or an occasion, or point in time etc.
So my question is about “point in time”. Does “point in time” = instant/occasion of something happening = “short duration (however short the duration is) of time”?
For example if I say “I did my homework last week”, this being simple past tense means that my action of doing homework began and ended “last week”, and so “last week” in this case would be a “point in time” right? however we know that the action of doing homework must have started and ended (i.e. occurred or happened) over a period of time, and so in effect “last week” while being a “point in time” when considered against the wider background of time as a whole, it also represents a short duration of time (so “last week” = “point in time” = “short duration of time” over which the action of doing homework occurred (started and finished)), am I correct?
Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, your understanding is correct here – it’s another area where we could probably get a little philosophical but indeed for the purposes of a simple or continuous tense our understanding of the same unit of time could be slightly different. ‘Last week’ can represent a point of time, as in a specific marker of past time when something was complete, or it can represent a period, if we’re using a tense to show a continuous activity. When talking in terms of complete events, such as for the past simple, that time could indicate a marker (e.g. ‘I completed my homework last week/last night/at 12pm.’) or a looser period (e.g. ‘I was studying last week/for two hours/from 11am to 12pm.’). An interesting unit to look at might be years – for example, ‘I graduated in 2002.’ indicates a clear point in time for graduation, even though it also represents an entire year of time.
I hope this helps!
Phil
Hi Phil,
Apologies, I get the point about duration and continuous tenses. but when it comes to time marker/point in time and simple tenses, I would like to query a little further.
So say we use another time marker/expression “last week”:
For a continuous tense such as past continuous, I could say “I was running last week”, to mean that my action of running occurred (began and ended) over the period of of last week (and “last week” could be referring to the whole of last week, or any duration that is part of last week, e.g. two or three days), correct?
Keeping in mind that time markers can represent either an exact point in time (e.g. for expression such as at 9pm), or last week (which can represent a duration of time (i.e. whole of last week) or a point in time when considered against the larger background of time, like for instance when considering “last year” against a longer duration like “20 years”):
For a simple tense such as simple past, If I say “I ran last week”, this means that my action of running began and ended within last week (i.e. again this could mean the running occurred over the whole of last week, or just a few days within last week), and in this case, while “last week” serves as a time marker to show when an action occurred (i.e. began and ended), the fact that the completed action of running must have a start and end (and hence a duration of time is required for this action which obviously can’t be completed within an exact moment or split second of time), means that “last week” doesn’t just represent a point in time/time marker, but also represent a duration, correct? Or to use another example, if I say “I coughed at 9pm”, while 9pm is an exact point in time, the idea is that my action of coughing occured rapidly (i.e. started and ended) within that small duration (split second of time) when time was marked as 9pm?
Apologies if this seems a weird question, but I do have a tendency to want to get such concepts sorted out clearly. Thanks once again for your kind patience.
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Phil,
So for instance, if we use time expressions such as “last week, last night, yesterday, two days ago”, where such expressions can both represent a point in time, as well as a duration of time, for sentences in the simple past, these expressions would represent a point in time since the simple past tense talks about finished events (i.e. events which started and ended in the past).
So say we use another example such as “I washed the car yesterday” or “I washed the car two days ago” – for these two examples, even though we know the action of washing must have actually occurred over a duration/period of time given that its impossible to start and end the action of washing within an instance of time (i.e. a second of time), however since these two sentences are in the simple past, we are simply trying to get the point across that my action of washing started at a certain time (anytime within yesterday) and ended at another time (again anytime within yesterday), but that as a whole, this action of washing is considered to have occurred (i.e. started and ended) “yesterday” (where “yesterday” is seen as a point in time or time marker), correct?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, that’s it!
Phil
Hi Phil,
Got it, thanks!
But just to expand a little further. When I say I “washed” my car, and unless I specify otherwise by giving more details such as I washed my car from Tuesday night to wed morning, the verb “washed” by default would encompass the start of washing till the end of washing, right?
For such verbs that when used, will automatically encompass both the start and end of the action described, for such verbs, if we use them with a simple past time expression, this expression must be able to stand as both a “point in time” as well as a past duration of time, correct?
Of course, if we are using the “point in time” expression simply to indicate when a simple past action is completed (i.e. the verb used simply conveys when the action was finished and not necessarily when the verb started, like for instance if i say I completed my homework at 8pm last night, since the action of completing points more to the fact of the action ending at 8pm, the simple past expression can be one which simple stands for a point in time and not a duration (e.g. such as “at 8pm”)? or another example would be I say I finished washing my car at 8pm?
P.S. I guess on the last point, if we really wanted to get into it, we can say that even the action of “finishing” is itself an action that has a start and an end (i.e. started and ended at 8pm, on the dot so to speak), but even so, this action of “finish” is virtually instantaneous so using an expression that clearly represents a point in time and not a duration, such as “at 8pm”, is fitting?
Sorry if this is getting too “itty gritty”, and thanks again for your patience.
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, it would generally encompass the whole activity, and yes to give a point of completion you’re right, with a precise time it is more accurate to use a more precise verb like “complete” or “finish”, otherwise we have the same issue with your question about “happen”, that it tends to indicate when something started. And yes, “to finish” itself might have a start and finish, but we could consider it to be more precise!
Phil
Hi Phil, thanks for your answer that “Yes, it would generally encompass the whole activity”. But just to clarify further, how about my query on “for such verbs that when used, will automatically encompass both the start and end of the action described, for such verbs, if we use them with a simple past time expression, this expression must be able to stand as both a “point in time” as well as a past duration of time, correct?”
Would appreciate your advice on that as well, thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, it is possible to see that as both a point in time and a duration. The time must be necessarily broader for such verbs, but by defining that broad time it’s still technically pinpointing a point in time.
Phil
Dear Phil,
Apologies, but I noticed that you also mentioned in your reply that “otherwise we have the same issue with your question about “happen”, that it tends to indicate when something started”. Hmm but doesn’t “happen”, for instance if we say something like an event or action “happened”, means that the event started and ended (i.e. that the verb happened would by default, unless otherwise indicated, encompass both the start and finish) of the action event?
Or does this mean that with verbs like happen, when used with more precise time markers such as “at 8pm”, would refer more to the commencement of the action. So for instance, if I say something like “that happened at 8pm”, this by default would convey the meaning that “that” started at 8pm rather “that” started and ended at 8pm?
On the other hand, if I say something else like “that happened last night” – taken on its own, this sentence would be default mean that “that” started and ended during the night before (with “last night” here being able to represent both a point in time as well as a past duration of time)?
Again sorry for getting abit to nuanced with this, but would greatly appreciate your advice, thanks!
Hi Shizuka,
I appreciate it’s a tricky thing to nail down, but yes, you’ve got the point of it – I meant when we’re referring to a very specific point of time, therefore it would refer to the commencement, but otherwise indeed “happen” should cover the start and end.
Phil
Hello,
I am taught in class that the “present perfect tense is used to express things (such as actions or events) that happened in the past”. I also read online that the present perfect tense is used “for actions that started and ended in the past”. May I know if there is any difference between these two explanations on the use of the present perfect tense?
谢谢
Hi Priscilla,
That is an incomplete definition of the present perfect and would seem to refer more to the past simple, so I’m not sure if you have wires crossed there (as the present perfect must include the detail that it is relevant to the present moment). But in terms of that definition I would say that ‘happened in the past’ and ‘started and ended in the past’ do effectively mean the same thing.
Phil
Hi Phil,
Firstly:
To my eyes, both of the following sentences mean the same thing:
I had travelled two miles before I ran out of petrol.
I travelled two miles before I ran out of petrol.
My point is that with the signal word “before”, it does not whether the verb “travel” is in the past perfect or the simple past tense since both of the above sentences mean the same thing, correct?
Secondly:
the second action, that follows the first (earlier) action in the past perfect tense, tends to be in the simple past tense correct? In this case, can I use more than one simple past action or is it a case where the past perfect tense action can only be use in conjunction with another, single simple past action that occurs at a latter time?
For instance, past perfect tense (verb: travel) used with a single simple past action (verb: break): I had travelled two miles before I broke my arm.
As compared with
past perfect tense (verb: live) used with two simple past actions (two verbs: ” to be (sad)” and “leave”): “She was sad when she left the house she had lived in for so many years.”
Is this second example with one past perfect + two simple past verbs correct? In fact, is there ever a grammatical sentence with use of one past perfect with two or more simple past verbs in a sentence?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, you are correct, those sentences are essentially the same. On the second point, you are also correct there, it can be used that way, with more than one past simple verb. The past perfect defines when something is complete at a certain past time, but any number of past events can be described after it.
Phil
Hi Phil,
Firstly, thanks for confirming that indeed any number of simple past verbs can be used in conjunction with the past perfect tense. So I suppose that my above example (i.e. She was (simple past verb #1) sad when she left (simple past verb #2) the house she had lived (past perfect verb) in for so many years.) is a good example of one past perfect tense verb being used with two simple past verbs to mean that the past perfect verb took place (i.e. started and ended) before both the simple past verbs?
Secondly, is it also possible to use the past perfect tense without any simple past verb accompanying? For instance, by just saying “I had eaten lunch” without any accompanying simple past tense verb, is this sentence grammatical?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, that’s a good example of it being used. You can form a complete past perfect sentence without other tenses, yes, but for it to make complete sense it would have to fit in a wider context. It’s not grammatically incorrect to use the past perfect on its own, it merely raises the question of why it’s being used.
Phil
Hi Phil,
Apologies for leaving this out, but I have two example sentences here:
The children did their homework when I got home.
Mary cooked dinner when her husband came home.
In both sentences, is it a case where both actions happened at the same time or is it a case where the action in the main clause happened only after the action in the time clause (i.e. the when clause)? So for instance, is it a case where Mary started cooking at the same time as her husband arrived home, or is it a case where Marry started cooking only after her husband arrived home?
Thanks!
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, both actions would happen at the same time – with two past simple clauses connected by when, it would suggest one action happened in conjunction with the other. There’s a little leeway with the difference between if Mary started cooking at the same time or after her husband arrived though. It suggests she started at the time that he came home, but it doesn’t necessarily indicate that was something that happened immediately, as for example when he came home she might have greeted him / talked to him before doing the cooking, so in that respect we could say technically she started cooking after he came home. There’s a bit of nuance to this!
Phil
Hi Phil,
Oh is this because of the fact that the word “when” can be used to mean one thing happening at the same time as another thing (i.e. meaning being “at the same time”), as well as something that happens just after the other thing (i.e. meaning being “after”)?
As such, on the two examples above, your point is that the there could be two meanings to them – either meaning number 1 where both simple past tense actions happened at the same time (i.e. “The children did their homework when I got home” to mean the children started their homework at the exact same point in time when I got home) or meaning number 2 of the same sentence (i.e. “The children did their homework when I got home”) to mean that the children only started their homework after I got home? same thing applies to the second example of “Mary cooked dinner when her husband came home”?
Hi Shizuka,
You have the right idea but it’s not quite that “when” can mean “after”; it’s more to do with how we’d have a fairly subjective interpretation of how precise the time needs to be. It would be the same idea using the word “once”; if we consider it be something like “at the time that I got home”, then that “time” could be interpreted in different ways – within the minute, the hour, the evening? It becomes a little philosophical! But yes, essentially it might be understood as meaning at a point “after”, because the “when I got home” establishes a new, particular time (i.e. “before I got home” vs “not before I got home”. I’m probably overcomplicating this a bit though!
Phil
Hi Phil,
Apologies to probe further as I don’t quite get your explanation above. I did a check via the oxford lexico dictionary, and one of the many meanings of “when” listed was the meaning of “after”, with the following sentence quoted as an example “There was silence in the room when she finished her description of her trip to Africa” – in this case, “when” is used to suggest that the silence in the room began after she finished her description, isn’t it?
Thanks for your patience.
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Hmm, yes it’s fair to say that, though it’s an area of a little nuance. I’m not sure there’s much to be gained from saying they’re not exactly interchangeable this way, but I wouldn’t look at that exactly as meaning “after she finished”, but more so “once she finished”, so at the point that she finished and continuing from there. So it does cover after, but I feel is a little more precise as to the starting point. If that makes sense!
Phil
Hi Phil,
Quoting an earlier example, i.e. “She was sad when she left the house she had lived in for so many years”. It’s clear that “she was sad when she left” marks a point in the past (let’s call this point 1). However, would you interpret this to mean that the past perfect verb “had lived” started and ended before point 1, or would you say that the past perfect tense started before point 1 and continued up to (i.e. end at) point 1?
I ask the above because my understanding is that with non-continuous or stative verbs, past perfect refers to something which began in the past and continued up to another (i.e. latter) point in the past, while for all other verbs (i.e. continuous verbs), the past perfect is used to refer to something which started and ended before another (i.e. latter) point in the past.
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
In this case it’s clear that “had lived” ends at the point that “she left”, so your latter meaning – I’m not sure where the confusion with your definition comes in, but essentially the past perfect tells us it started and ended at a particular point in the past, and in this case “when she left” defines the ending point.
Phil
Hi Phil,
Previously I posted the following question concerning the meaning of the word “happened” (i.e. simple past tense form of the verb “happen”):
“I’ve been taught that the main use of the simple past is to express actions that happened in the past. My question is on the meaning of the word “happened”. Does “happened” mean that the simple past tense action or actions started and ended in the past?”
To which you replied the following:
“Yes that’s a fair understanding of it, ‘happened’ as in ‘occurred’, ‘were completed’ or ‘took place’ in the past – but the definition you have is perfect, that the simple past started and ended in the past.”
Recently though, a fellow tutor commented that the word “happened” simply means that the action started in the past, but does not mean that the action necessarily ended in the past. This got me confused as I thought that whenever I say “something (e.g. an action or event) happened”, this means that this action/event started and ended in the past? Am I right?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Yes, you are right – I admit I’m struggling to think of an example where “happened” (being a complete past tense verb) can be seen to not finish in the past. Presumably that tutor had some particular use in mind, but it’s not one I can think of right now…
Best,
Phil
hello sir,
one day soon , Mariam decided, she would tell Jalil these things . And when he heard , when he saw how much she missed him when he was gone, he would surely take her with him.
I have two question why simple past tense is used ‘when he heard when he saw ‘ for imaginary situation which the girl was thinking ..
my second question in my school my teacher told me we can’t write sentences like she stands ,she sleeps . he said it always be she was standing , she was sleeping . but
I don’t understand.
and I have request could you make a article about future in past because I have problem when I write situation about future from the perspective of past.
Hi Anaa,
For the first question, this is a time clause so it uses simple tenses – I have a full explanation for that here: https://englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/time-clauses-explanation-rules-exercise/ The imaginary situation is created by the modal “he would surely”.
On the second question, this depends on context – we certainly can form sentences with either form, but it depends on our purpose. The simple tense would refer to the complete action while the continuous would describe the ongoing action.
Yes, I’ve had a few requests for the future in the past lately – I thought I had an article on the site, as it came from an earlier version of The English Tenses book, but I don’t see it, so this should be easy to put up.
Phil
*He returned the bag that he stole.
*He returned the bag that he’d stolen.
(Is there any difference is Past perfect necessary here?)
There isn’t really a difference here, as it’s clearly in sequence with the past perfect not entirely necessary, but the past perfect sounds a little nicer as it more clearly indicates the stealing occurred before the returning.
Thank you but I don’t want to use past perfect unless its essential so I can use past simple right? i had more doubts 1st:
“I wanted to buy panting so I met a guy and he showed me the work he did/had done.
(What’s the difference here? Do i need past perfect here or past simple is fine? Do they mean the same thing?)
2nd: question
“I was playing game for hours and then I realized I hadn’t attached/didn’t attach the mic to headphones”
What would I use here?
3rd question:
“He was tired because he worked/had worked alot the day before.
(What’s the difference here is past perfect necessary here?)
“He fell asleep in class because he didn’t sleep/hadn’t slept the night before.
(What’s the difference here is past perfect necessary what’s more natural?)
Sorry I don’t really have time to go too much into the specific examples here, as there is nuance, but simply in all these cases the past perfect would work well as it indicates a verb was complete at a certain time in the past (before the other verb in question). You might get away without it in some of these examples, and it could still understand, but in all these examples the past perfect would make the timing clearer so it would be best to use.