Time clauses are used in English to demonstrate a period of time based on an action or event, similar to dependent clauses in conditional sentences.
For example, I will cook dinner when I get home. ‘When I get home’ is a clause demonstrating a point in time, based on an action/event (the time that I get home), in place of a time such as I will cook dinner at 7pm.
Time clauses are grammatical units that require subjects, verbs and objects, but they do not always use the same verb rules as the main clause. This article will tell you all about them!
Identifying a time clause
Time clauses are started with adverbs or adverb phrases that show they represent a time (sometimes also functioning as subordinating conjunctions). These include when, after, until, as soon as, before. A clause that starts with an adverb of time like this is not usually a complete grammatical idea, as they work as subordinating conjunctions:
- When the sun sets,
- Before the first lesson begins,
- After my teacher arrives,
Although they have a subject, verb and object, none of these are complete ideas, as they simply point to a time, similar to a clause that simply says “At 7pm.”
This is because when we form a time clause, the adverb of time joins two ideas, linking the main clause to the time in a dependent way. The two clauses could be separate sentences without the adverb of time. Consider the following two clauses:
- I will master English. I will complete every exercise in my textbook.
Either of these could become a time clause, and therefore make the main clause dependent on the timing of the other:
- I will master English after I complete every exercise in my textbook.
- When I master English, I will complete every exercise in my textbook.
Notice, however, that the time clause is no longer in the future tense. Time clauses must be adjusted for certain grammar rules. So watch out for clauses starting with adverbs of time, then consider the following rules.
Time Clause Rules
Patterns for forming time clauses are similar to those for regular clauses, with the same word order (except with an adverb of time first), though time clauses use some particular tense rules.
Time clauses only use different rules for future tenses; when talking about past or present events, you can generally use regular tenses for time clauses.
- Before we cook pies, we wash our hands.
- He came home after he finished work.
- We had dinner before we watched the movie.
For the future, we use the present tenses to talk about future times:
- He will finish reading the book after he eats dinner. (Not after he will eat dinner.)
- They are going to the museum before we arrive. (Not before we are going to arrive.)
- I might practice my pronunciation until my friend’s lesson has finished. (Not until my friend’s lesson will have finished.)
Do not repeat the future tense in clauses with adverbs of time
As you can see in the examples above, when two clauses are joined by adverbs of time the future form should not be repeated.
- She will meet me after it stops raining. (Not after it will stop raining.)
- I’ll turn off my computer when he does. (Not when he will.)
Times clauses and the conditionals
Time clauses, or ‘when’ clauses are often compared to ‘if’ clauses. This is a logical comparison because when discussing the future they are grammatically very similar to the first conditional.
- We will see them when they get here.
- We will see them if they get here.
In both cases the main clause is dependent on the second clause. A time clause shows the event will happen at a certain time, while the if clause shows it will happen if something else happens. As both make the main clause dependent on another detail (time or something that is possible), the grammatical construction is the same.
So you can practise your time clause grammar further by developing your understanding of the first conditional.
Noun phrases
Be careful, because the future tense may still be used if the time adverb introduces a noun clause. The difference is if the clause is the object of a verb, and not a time clause.
- I know when the boat will leave.
This answers the question what (You know what.) rather than when.
Time Clauses Exercise
Combine each of the following pairs of sentences by changing one clause into a time clause, using any of the time adverbs, such as when, after, before, unless, until, as soon as. The first one has been done for you:
- I will read this book. I will eat dinner.
- I will read this book after I eat dinner.
- He will get wet. He is going swimming.
- We are meeting the team. The team is arriving at the station.
- I got to work late. I got up late.
- The police will catch the criminal. The criminal will make a mistake.
- They are going on holiday. They are finishing their exams.
Suggested Answers
- He will get wet when he goes swimming.
- We will meet the team when they arrive at the station.
- I got to work late after I got up late.
- The police will catch the criminal when he makes a mistake.
- They are going on holiday after they finish their exams.
If you found this article useful, please be aware it is also discussed in the book The English Tenses Practical Grammar Guide, available in eBook from this website and paperback format here. Please ask any questions below!
Want to master English grammar?
This article was adapted from The English Tenses Practical Grammar Guide; if you found this useful, the book gives a deep understanding of grammar in use.
Thanks for this very helpful post! I’m inclined to get a bit fussy, though, when the explanatory text includes sentences such as “Though the patterns for forming time clauses are similar to regular clauses, with the same word order (except with an adverb of time first), but time clauses use particular tense rules.” Patterns for forming time clauses are similar to those for forming regular clauses, and don’t you want to pick one or the other of “though” and “but”?
Absolutely right – thanks for pointing it out.
And what about the sentence: I will lend you the book as soon as I have read it.
Hi Peter, yes that example is absolutely fine.
Respectfully, sir, “Before the first lesson” is not a clause, but a phrase. A clause needs a verb, so the construction should be something like this:
Before the first lesson begins…
Hi Karen, thanks for spotting that oversight – I will correct it at once.
Helping.
Very interesting and helpful thanks a lot God bless!
would have been good had there been more explanation on the tense rules
There is more discussion of the tense rules in other articles on the site (and a whole book about them!) – please do check out the menu button under lessons, pointing to English Tenses,for more.
Thanks for your help
You’re welcome!
Hello, Mr. Williams
I have a difficulty understanding the below sentence
” I knew that if things were going to improve, I was the one responsible for making it happen. (From Atomic Habits) ”
What type of conditionals is it?
Hi Wendy, it’s being used a mixed conditional here, to use a past statement in relation to an imagined possibility – but I can see why it would unclear as it’s not the most appropriate form really. It would make more sense to say ‘if things were going to improve, I would have been the one responsible’, to make it about a past possibility.
‘if things were going to improve, I would be the one responsible’, to make it about a past possibility.”
Isn’t it unlikely case in the future not past?
Thanks Kate, yes, you’re right thanks for pointing that out – that should’ve been present perfect for the past possibility, I’ll edit that.
thank you so much it was beneficial and useful for us
You are welcome!
Dear Phil,
You mentioned at the start that “Time clauses are complete ideas that require subjects, verbs and objects, but they do not always use the same verb rules as the main clause”, however, in the subsequent para, you wrote “A clause that starts with an adverb of time like this is not usually a complete idea, as they work as subordinating conjunctions”. I think i get the idea that time clauses are subordinate clauses and hence are not complete in that they can’t stand alone like main (i.e. independent) clauses, but i am confused by the above two sentences. Appreciate if you could clarify the following:
a) When you say a “complete idea”, are you referring to whether a clause can stand on its own and express an idea (i.e. like a main clause can)?
b) Why is it that you mentioned that time clauses are complete ideas, and yet in the subsequent para you wrote that such time clauses that start with adverbs of time are not usually complete ideas.
c) Is it a case where time clauses include the adverbs of time (e.g. when)? If so, may i know why you wrote that “Time clauses are preceded by adverbs or adverb phrases that show they represent a time. These include when, after, until, as soon as, before”. In my view, to say that adverbs precede time clauses would mean that the time clauses simply start with “the sun sets” instead of “When the sun sets”. However if the adverbs do not precede (i.e. come before) the time clause and is in fact reckon as part of a time clause, then i would agree that “When the sun sets” is the time clause itself.
Appreciate your kind advice, thanks!
Regards,
Tim
Hi Tim,
Thank you for taking the time to point this out – apologies, you are absolutely right that the wording here was rather clumsy – indeed ‘complete’ has been used in two different ways as in the first instance my intention was to suggest a time clause is a complete clause as a grammatical unit, rather than that it makes complete grammatical sense (as in, we can present a whole grammatical scenario in a time clause, but with the second meaning as you rightly point out saying that no – it does not form a complete idea without the context of the main clause).
On your other point, yes you’re right that is rather sloppy word choice – technically the adverb is a part of a time clause; it precedes the clause to form the time clause, rather than preceding the time clause – more appropriate would be to say the adverb comes at the front of the time clause.
Again thank you for pointing these out, I have amended the article accordingly to avoid future confusion. It’s very useful at this time as I’m in the middle of updating the website and will be proofing all the old articles to iron out kinks like this!
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil, thanks. “Defining clause” meaning the main (i.e. independent clause) correct?
Regards,
Tim
Ah apologies, that was poor wording – but yes, I meant the main/independent clause, which in this case defines the situation but is not actually a defining clause in the grammatical sense of the phrase – I’ll edit that!
Best,
Phil
Hello! i have a question of that exercises. The phrases that are in Present continuous, are they in future use or in present tense? If they are in future tense use, would i aplicated the future´s rule? For example : In 2, we are meeting the team when the team arrives at the station, it would be good?
Hi Nuria – you’re correct, the present continuous is being used for future meaning here, and yes your example would work fine. I appreciate this could be a little confusing – when used for a time clause, unless it’s clearly discussing a timeless rule, the present tense like that is quite likely to suggest a future arrangement.
Ok. Thank you so much. Your explication of time clauses has been usefull me. And you answering very fast 🙂
You’re welcome, glad I could help!
Hi Phil,
One additional query:
You mentioned “when talking about past or present events, you can generally use regular tenses for time clauses.” Are you simply saying that if the time clause is about a present activity (use present tense), if it is about a past activity (use past tense) etc?
Thanks!
Regards,
Tim
Hi Tim,
Yes, though I think my intention there was to suggest it is the tense we would expect for the event – without needing to make the time clause too complicated. Often simple tenses are more appropriate in time clauses than perfect tenses, for example, because we are marking time with a completed activity, rather than indicating a more complicated time relationship.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil, sorry to press further, but what exactly are you referring to when you said “regular tenses”? I simply took it to mean that when using time clauses to refer to the past, simply use simple past tense (as logically you would expect) and similarly use simple present tense in a time clause when you are referring to the present. In other words, we only need to ensure that time clauses referring to future time are in the simple present tense?
Hi Tim – generally I meant regular in the sense that they are the expected/logical tense, yes, exactly as you’ve suggested.
Dear Phil, thanks so much for your patience. Another point in which i would like to seek your advice on is again on the part where you mentioned “Time clauses are started with adverbs or adverb phrases that show they represent a time. These include when, after, until, as soon as, before. A clause that starts with an adverb of time like this is not usually a complete grammatical idea, as they work as subordinating conjunctions”.
Since time clauses are subordinate clauses, and we know that subordinate clauses always begins with subordinate conjunctions (such as when), however, based on the portion as reproduced above, it seems you are alluding that when is in fact an adverb. Isn’t “when” functioning as a subordinate conjunction and not as an adverb in the time clause?
Regards,
Tim
Hi Tim, sorry for the slow response on this one; that’s a good question. You are right that it could technically be defined as a subordinate conjunction, but, for example, ‘when”s adverb function can also define “at/on which” for time, as opposed to the conjunctive use for “at/after/during” a time – as both uses include “at” for defining time, there is some murkiness between where exactly it would be an adverb or conjunction. I’ve referred to it as an adverb here to highlight the familiar word type, but its technical definition in the context of time clauses could be either an adverb or conjunction, depending on what we are demonstrating.
Hi Phil, you mentioned that “Time clauses are used in English to demonstrate a period of time based on an action or event, similar to dependent clauses in conditional sentences.
For example, I will cook dinner when I get home. ‘When I get home’ is a clause demonstrating a point in time, based on an action/event (the time that I get home), in place of a time such as I will cook dinner at 7pm.”
Are time clauses used to demonstrate “a period of time based on an action/event”, or are time clauses used to demonstrate “a point in time”? or do you mean the same thing as in a period of time can refer to a long or short duration of time, and that a “point in time” simple refers to a short duration of time?
Hi – you’re correct in the latter explanation, wherein I meant a period of time could also refer to any length of time, including a particular point in time – perhaps it would be most accurate to say a “period of or point in time”.
Thank you for explaining and sorry to probe further, but does “a point in time” absolutely mean a short duration of time, no matter how short it is?
Hi – essentially, ‘a point’ refers to a specific time relative to a wider range. This doesn’t necessarily define a duration, but typically focuses on a specific instant (e.g. “at 12 o’clock exactly”) – in different contexts it could refer to different units of time.
For example, ‘1980’ could indicate a specific point in time (‘The company was established in 1980.’) or a period of time encompassing the duration of a year (‘The company opened twenty new shops during 1980.’).
Thank you Phil for explaining. I think i get what you mean now, just that in my native tongue we tend to quantify time differently. In any case, I think what you are saying is that in English, when we say “a point in time”, it can mean either an instant (i.e. at a specific time such as at 7 o’clock or on 13th June), or it can also mean a duration of time (however short this duration is), correct?
Hi – yes, but for the most part, I would say ‘a point in time’ refers to a specific instant – the duration aspect was only really to say that what we define as a specific instant can depend on context (7 o’clock is an instant, but 1980 is also an instant relative to a century). I rather have a habit of making things complicated when I look for ways in which language can be flexible!
Hi Phil, so time clauses can refer to a period of time such as “when I was a child” – this referring to an entire duration of time (i.e. the time when I was a child), or time clauses can refer to a point of time such as “when I get home” to mean at the exact instance when I am home.
May I know if the above is what you meant when you said “Time clauses are used in English to demonstrate a period of or point in time based on an action or event, similar to dependent clauses in conditional sentences”?
Hi Vegito,
Yes that’s the idea, you have understood correctly.
Phil
Hi Phil,
As a conjunction, “When” can mean either “At or during the time that”, or “After”.
Firstly, using the example “I will cook dinner when I get home”, “When” here is functioning as a conjunction, right?
Secondly, “when” here carries the meaning of “after” as in the sentence means the same as “I will cook dinner after I get home”, correct?
Thirdly, you quoted another example in “I might practice my pronunciation until my friend’s lesson has finished”. Does this mean that my practice will extend up to the point when my friend’s lesson finished, and will likely continue past that point, hence the use of the present perfect “has finished” within the time clause that begins with “until”?
Lastly, what is/are the difference(s) between your example “I might practice my pronunciation until my friend’s lesson has finished” (use of present perfect within time clause) as compared with saying “I might practice my pronunciation until my friend’s lesson finishes” (use of simple present tense within the time clause)?
Hi, yes you are correct about the uses of ‘when’. For the other example you are also correct; the present perfect indicates that the friend’s lesson is ongoing now. It could be used the same way as the present simple in this sentence without much difference, for the most part, but that current activity is the emphasis of the present perfect (whereas the present simple version could be said before the lesson has started, for example).
Hi Phil, sorry, to clarify, when you said “For the other example you are also correct”, are you referring to this example “I might practice my pronunciation until my friend’s lesson has finished”, and that my understanding of it (i.e. that the example means that my practice will extend up to the point when my friend’s lesson finished, and will likely continue past that point, hence the use of the present perfect “has finished”) is correct?
Thanks.
Hi – yes, that’s what I was referring to; that is the correct understanding of it.
Hi Phil, to visit again the definition of time clauses, which is “Time clauses are used in English to demonstrate a period of or point in time based on an action or event, similar to dependent clauses in conditional sentences.”, as well as the meanings of “when”, I would like to refer again to two examples “I will cook dinner when I get home” as well as another example “I loved maths when I was at school”.
“when” can mean either (‘At’ or ‘during the time that’), or (‘as soon as’ or ‘after’).
Firstly, just to seek some re-clarification, is it a case where “I will cook dinner when I get home” means that I will cook dinner as soon as / after i get home? – and that the time clause (aka “when” clause) here is used to demonstrate or represent a point in time (i.e. an instant/moment)?
Secondly, “I loved maths when I was at school” simple means that during the time (i.e. throughout the whole duration I was at school), I loved maths? – and that the time clause here is used to demonstrate or represent a period of time (i.e. a duration of time)?
Thank you, and apologies if the queries are abit long, however its just me breaking up my doubts into individual questions so that its easier to understand (for me). Thanks.
Regards,
Vegito
Hi Vegito,
Yes you’ve got that right, ‘when I get home’ would be used to demonstrate that point in time, the arrival at home or soon after, whereas ‘when I was at school’ would represent a wider duration of time, ‘during the period of time that I was at school’. I’m happy to help clarify; it sounds like you have a good idea of it.
Phil
Hi Phil, you have said that Time clauses, or ‘when’ clauses are often compared to ‘if’ clauses. This is a logical comparison because when discussing the future they are grammatically very similar to the first conditional.
We will see them when they get here.
We will see them if they get here.
We know that we can begin a sentence with a subordinate ‘if’ clause, similarly can we begin a sentence with subordinate Time clause ‘when’ too? If yes, then would you please tell whether the following example for Time clause is right or not-
When all your dreams fade away, I’ll still shine as reality!
Thanks
Hi Punyo,
Yes, you are correct, clauses starting with ‘when’ can be moved in a similar way to ‘if’ clauses. Your example does work, yes (and is rather poetic!).
Hello, I have a problem figuring out how does the following sentence work.
“They’ve been living with his mother while they look for a house.”
Shouldn’t the sentence look like this? “They’ve been living with his mother while looking for a house.”
Hi David,
Very good question as that’s one that’s got some ambiguity around it. The fact is both work here – unlike regular clauses, we can use the present simple to show a temporary/process action in a time clause, so “while we do” effectively has the same meaning as “while we are doing”. Because this is possible, we tend to go with the simpler option, and use the continuous if we want to emphasise that this is a process. So, your two examples would essentially be understood the same way, but “while looking for a house” draws more attention to the house search being a process.
Hi Phil,
Appreciate your advice on the following three points.
Firstly, You mentioned at the start of this article that “Time clauses are started with adverbs or adverb phrases that show they represent a time (sometimes also functioning as subordinating conjunctions)” – just to clarify, “they” in this sentence refers to “time clauses”, and the point is that time clauses simply represent a time, correct?
Secondly, you went on to mention that “These include when, after, until, as soon as, before. A clause that starts with an adverb of time like this is not usually a complete grammatical idea, as they work as subordinating conjunctions” – just to clarify, “they” in this sentence refers to the adverbs of time (e.g. when, after, until, as soon as, before)?
Thirdly, your point in the sentence “These include when, after, until, as soon as, before. A clause that starts with an adverb of time like this is not usually a complete grammatical idea, as they work as subordinating conjunctions” is that sometimes these adverbs of time also function as subordinating conjunctions? If so, what is the difference and also when does the adverbs of time function as adverbs, and when do they function as subordinating conjunctions?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
(1) Yes, that’s right, “they” meaning the time clause.
(2) Correct again, this “they” refers to the adverbials.
(3) The difference here would be if they’re connecting a verb clause or phrase; we may indicate a time with an adverbial phrase with a time, for example, which won’t include a verb, so in that case it’s not a conjunction. “We will come home after 10pm.” (adverb) / “We will get come after we have have been to the theatre.” (subordinating conjunction). That said, this indicates whether we have a clause of phrase following the verb but technically it’s doing the same “adverb of time” job in both cases: “We will come home [adverb of time] + [phrase / clause of time].”
Hi Phil,
I was re-reading this article when the following caught my eye “Time clauses only use different rules for future tenses; when talking about past or present events, you can generally use regular tenses for time clauses”. When you say “regular tenses”, what exactly do you mean?
Regards,
Shizuka
Hi Shizuka,
Sorry I missed this one – yes, I can see “regular” might be the clearest word there, what I mean is the tense that you would expect to see, considering the usual rules (i.e. if it wasn’t a time clause). Whereas with future tenses, it’s not necessarily the same tense that we would expect if it was not put into a future time clause:
I will put out the garbage.
But:
I am going to sleep after I put out the garbage.
Phil
Hi, Phil, it should be “The team is arriving,” not “The team are arriving.” The team, in this case, is used as a singular. If you said “The members of the team are arriving,” then ARE is correct. Similar to “The staff is trying to decide where to go for lunch.”
Hi Michael, thanks for pointing that one out. Occasionally using plurals with group nouns is one of my language vices (and one I do think can be argued in colloquial usage) but certainly, for accuracy’s sake this one should be singular.
Hi dear Phil,
You mentioned that “Time clauses only use different rules for future tenses; when talking about past or present events, you can generally use regular tenses for time clauses.”.
Does this mean that if we’re talking about future arrangements, we must use the present tense in the conditional sentence?
On other hand, if we’re not talking about the future, we can use any kind of tenses in time clauses. Am I right? (At this point, does this rule apply to both clauses? I mean can we use any tenses in both the time clause and the other clause?)
I have a little problem with tenses in this grammar.
Regards,
Sadra
Hi Sadra,
Essentially yes – it’s always tricky to offer complete absolutes in English, as there are always exceptions, but generally speaking for the future the time clauses will be in the present tense, for the present we’ll most likely also use present tense time clauses, and past sentences are likely to use past tenses. There are cases where there will be other mixes, but it’s essentially a case of logically connecting the time clause tense with the other tense – when it comes to the future, we typically use the present tense for arrangements/schedules, so this logically fits future time clauses, which will be established points in time (whereas the other future tense forms, “will” and “going to be”, usually have some determinate quality, for less established factual points in time). I hope this makes sense!
Phil
If you were to write a sentence like “I opened the tin of beans and, after heating it, ate the contents”, would the words ‘after heating it’ be referred to as a time phrase? (I note the previous comment about clauses requiring verbs). If not, what is it called?
This is part of an ongoing conversation about correct use of commas, specifically whether a comma is required before the ‘and’, and I want to be technically correct when describing sentence structure!
Thanks.
Hi Piers,
That could be described as a time phrase, yes, or more technically an adverbial of time (as you rightly say not a clause as there’s no verb). The comma might be a bit debatable, not everyone would agree, but I would personally suggest it is necessary there, as you are using the commas to parenthesise the phrase in an unexpected/not typical location (as the time phrase would usually come at the end).
Hope this helps!
Phil
Thanks!
Just to be clear, I’m happy about the commas round ‘after heating it’, the question now is whether you need a comma before the ‘and’, i.e. “I opened the tin of beans, and, after heating it, ate the contents”.
From what I’ve read elsewhere it seem that adding commas before conjunctions depends on sentence length and is a bit of a grey area.
I can see, for example, that it might be necessary if I wrote “It was only after spectacularly failing my cordon bleu culinary course that I opened the tin of beans, and, after heating it, ate the contents to assuage my bitter disappointment”.
Is this comma necessary, and is there a rule I can follow, or is it a matter of personal style?
I’m not aiming for ‘stream of consciousness’, but I feel too many commas can make sentences clunky.