Hey everybody! Sorry if this is posted on the wrong forum.
This is taken from one of Azar's tests:
"By the time he had found a parking spot, he was already late for the movie."
Also, from Swan:
"I arrived before she had finished unpacking."
Now, I'm familiar with the rules regarding past perfect use, so what's going on with these sentences? In both cases, the simple past is being used to refer to the earlier action. Both of these sentences sound quite natural, certainly something that a native speaker would say.
Can anybody clear up my confusion?
Many thanks!
Confused Am I with the Past Perfect
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Hello Echidna,
I'm not sure whether to reply to you as a native speaker or as a speaker of English as a second language. Your use of English in your post suggests that you are either a native speaker, or an awfully good student.
I'm a little confused, however, since you say you are familiar with the "rules regarding past perfect use", and yet seem to be confounded with rather ordinary sentences, both of which, as you mention you suspect, are correct in every important respect. I wonder if you might have become unduly influenced by some of the "textbook rules" which seem to have proliforated in ESL literature, many of which are misleading or even downright untrue. (Since you mentioned Betty Azar, I'll have to confess that, in my view at least, her Grammar appears to be one of the worst offenders in this regard. Swan, however, can generally be relied upon.) There is no reason that I am aware of for not having both past simple and past perfect verbs in different clauses of the same compound sentence. Earlier or later actions, as far as I know, have no valid place in describing acceptable uses of past perfect structures. In all uses of the construction, it seems to me, a speaker merely proposes to look back in time at an event, from some point which occurs before the moment of speaking. Both of your examples fit that requirement. Even in the second example, both the arrival and the unpacking have occurred before the speaker speaks.
Am I missing your point?
Larry Latham
I'm not sure whether to reply to you as a native speaker or as a speaker of English as a second language. Your use of English in your post suggests that you are either a native speaker, or an awfully good student.
I'm a little confused, however, since you say you are familiar with the "rules regarding past perfect use", and yet seem to be confounded with rather ordinary sentences, both of which, as you mention you suspect, are correct in every important respect. I wonder if you might have become unduly influenced by some of the "textbook rules" which seem to have proliforated in ESL literature, many of which are misleading or even downright untrue. (Since you mentioned Betty Azar, I'll have to confess that, in my view at least, her Grammar appears to be one of the worst offenders in this regard. Swan, however, can generally be relied upon.) There is no reason that I am aware of for not having both past simple and past perfect verbs in different clauses of the same compound sentence. Earlier or later actions, as far as I know, have no valid place in describing acceptable uses of past perfect structures. In all uses of the construction, it seems to me, a speaker merely proposes to look back in time at an event, from some point which occurs before the moment of speaking. Both of your examples fit that requirement. Even in the second example, both the arrival and the unpacking have occurred before the speaker speaks.
Am I missing your point?
Larry Latham
Wading Through the Past Perfect
Dear Larry;
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. Yes, indeed; I AM a native speaker, so I suppose it's a good thing that you think my English is good! I take your point, that the Past Perfect and other tenses do not necessarily have to reflect the TIME ORDER of the events -- a misleading fact often beaten into the heads of many ESOL teachers.
However, I DO think there is something to this. Take another example of the Past Perfect, something like, "By the time I got to the airport, the plane had already taken off." In this case, time order IS certainly important, and the Past Perfect reflects the earlier action. At least to my ear, it doesn't work to "flip" the tense use. Try taking another sentence, where you would normally use the Past Perfect together with the Simple Past, and flipping the tense use. Take " Before I left my apartment, I had already eaten breakfast." and change it to "Before I had left my apartment, I ate breakfast." and it doesn't sound spot on. What do you think?
Both of the examples I initially gave in the first post are ordinary, and this is what makes it so confounding to me! They both sound perfectly natural and acceptable. Scratch that -- they ARE acceptable. I just can't figure out WHY they're acceptable while other examples sound unnatural to my ears. Swan says that cases in which the Past Perfect refers to a time LATER than the action of the main verb are unusual (and then he rather uncharacteristically leaves it there.) I'm having trouble thinking of other examples that follow this pattern, though perhaps it's just my sleep-addled brain. More... Coffee...
Thanks for replying!
Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. Yes, indeed; I AM a native speaker, so I suppose it's a good thing that you think my English is good! I take your point, that the Past Perfect and other tenses do not necessarily have to reflect the TIME ORDER of the events -- a misleading fact often beaten into the heads of many ESOL teachers.
However, I DO think there is something to this. Take another example of the Past Perfect, something like, "By the time I got to the airport, the plane had already taken off." In this case, time order IS certainly important, and the Past Perfect reflects the earlier action. At least to my ear, it doesn't work to "flip" the tense use. Try taking another sentence, where you would normally use the Past Perfect together with the Simple Past, and flipping the tense use. Take " Before I left my apartment, I had already eaten breakfast." and change it to "Before I had left my apartment, I ate breakfast." and it doesn't sound spot on. What do you think?
Both of the examples I initially gave in the first post are ordinary, and this is what makes it so confounding to me! They both sound perfectly natural and acceptable. Scratch that -- they ARE acceptable. I just can't figure out WHY they're acceptable while other examples sound unnatural to my ears. Swan says that cases in which the Past Perfect refers to a time LATER than the action of the main verb are unusual (and then he rather uncharacteristically leaves it there.) I'm having trouble thinking of other examples that follow this pattern, though perhaps it's just my sleep-addled brain. More... Coffee...
Thanks for replying!
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Perfect means finished or complete.
The Present Perfect is used for actions completed in the present or future, and the Past Perfect for actions completed in the past.
Look at these two examples of the use of the Present Perfect.
"When you've learned enough English to understand the grammar rules, you will long have outgrown any need for them".
"I'll give you a ring before you've finished writing the memo".
Both these examples are the same as yours, except they are using the Present Perfect to refer to things completed in the future. I doubt if either of them would have raised your suspicions as the versions in the Past Perfect have.
Basically you have become the vicitm of an illusion. Because in most sentences things that are completed in the past predate the main clause that is in the past you have got the mistaken impression that the Past Perfect is a tense that is anterior in time to the Past Simple. This is not true.
The Present Perfect is used for actions completed in the present or future, and the Past Perfect for actions completed in the past.
Look at these two examples of the use of the Present Perfect.
"When you've learned enough English to understand the grammar rules, you will long have outgrown any need for them".
"I'll give you a ring before you've finished writing the memo".
Both these examples are the same as yours, except they are using the Present Perfect to refer to things completed in the future. I doubt if either of them would have raised your suspicions as the versions in the Past Perfect have.
Basically you have become the vicitm of an illusion. Because in most sentences things that are completed in the past predate the main clause that is in the past you have got the mistaken impression that the Past Perfect is a tense that is anterior in time to the Past Simple. This is not true.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Hi again, Echidna.
Your point is well taken that time order is indeed important in the sentence. That is, an interlocutor has to be able to understand which of two serial events occurred first. I'm only suggesting that time order does not figure in the "rules regarding uses of past perfect" as far as I know. I think that is what Stephen Jones has in mind also. For me, it is easier to just take it one clause and one verb phrase at a time, and as long as a speaker is retrospectively looking back in time at an event from some vantage point that is before the moment of his speaking, then use of past perfect form is appropriate.
You are correct to be confounded here, because, as a native speaker, you know darn well the example sentences you started with are totally OK. Yet there is some "rule regarding use of past perfect" knawing at your insides, and it has an unsettling effect. I have found, over many years of twisting in bed at night over seemingly simple questions my students have asked (innocently or not
), that I'm usually better off to rely on my gut feel as a native speaker. That's the only real advantage we native speakers have! Might as well make it work for us. 
Of course, then, as a responsible teacher, you have an obligation to sort out the source of your confusion and grow as an educator...just as you're doing here. 
Larry Latham
Your point is well taken that time order is indeed important in the sentence. That is, an interlocutor has to be able to understand which of two serial events occurred first. I'm only suggesting that time order does not figure in the "rules regarding uses of past perfect" as far as I know. I think that is what Stephen Jones has in mind also. For me, it is easier to just take it one clause and one verb phrase at a time, and as long as a speaker is retrospectively looking back in time at an event from some vantage point that is before the moment of his speaking, then use of past perfect form is appropriate.
You are correct to be confounded here, because, as a native speaker, you know darn well the example sentences you started with are totally OK. Yet there is some "rule regarding use of past perfect" knawing at your insides, and it has an unsettling effect. I have found, over many years of twisting in bed at night over seemingly simple questions my students have asked (innocently or not
), that I'm usually better off to rely on my gut feel as a native speaker. That's the only real advantage we native speakers have! Might as well make it work for us. Of course, then, as a responsible teacher, you have an obligation to sort out the source of your confusion and grow as an educator...just as you're doing here. Larry Latham
Past Perfect, ad naseum
Hello again, comrades in grammar! Thanks as always for taking the time to write. While I agree with both of you (twisting in bed at night over troublesome questions, eh Larry? You're as bad as me!) I have a couple of additions. Yes, very often our lovely language does not conform to tense use in regard to our impression of time. There are dozens of examples; conditionals, wishes, hope, using time clauses, and numerous other shining instances. However, there certainly IS a connection with tense and time; after all, what is tense except for how we interpret time? As teachers, we're asked to explain and make some sense of our use of various tenses. One method to this madness that we call English is to find patterns in our language; for example, that the Past Perfect tense usually indicates an earlier action than another action, whether it's reported (He mentioned that he had run over a marsupial) or in two separate past actions (I had lived in Khartoum for three years before I became a warlord.) Stephen, in your examples using the Present Perfect for future use, I agree whole-heartedly that this usage seems to fly in the face of "tense for time" use. On the other hand, I COULD say that at least it follows a somewhat static pattern; in subordinate clauses or after a conjunction of time (or time marker, such as when, until, before, as soon as, unless, on condition that, etc.) either the Simple Present or Present Perfect tenses are used.
After I've eaten, I'll give you a call.
He'll do the dishes as soon as he arrives home.
Yes, you're right; neither of these two examples conform to "proper" use of tense (as they're traditionally connected with perceptions of time) but at least I can fit them into a fairly regular pattern that my students can grok. They may not fully understand all the subtle grace of our language tenses, but at least they can make some headway.
To make a very long story short, the Past Perfect seems to conform to certain patterns of usage, regular enough to make using it understandable and grounded. So an example such as,
By the time he had found a parking spot, the store was already closed.
is frustrating (or captivating, glass half-full and all that) because I can't explain it. Doesn't mean that the sentence is wrong, it's just that I find it baffling.
One aspect of teaching English that still bothers me to this day (and one that still happens all too often, unfortunately) is the, "there's no reason, it's just that way" explanation that a lot of us resort to when we can't explain something competently. I would be doing my students a disservice if I couldn't come up with at least a mediocre explanation. So in other words, help!
Sorry for the rambling. My deepest thanks for writing.
After I've eaten, I'll give you a call.
He'll do the dishes as soon as he arrives home.
Yes, you're right; neither of these two examples conform to "proper" use of tense (as they're traditionally connected with perceptions of time) but at least I can fit them into a fairly regular pattern that my students can grok. They may not fully understand all the subtle grace of our language tenses, but at least they can make some headway.
To make a very long story short, the Past Perfect seems to conform to certain patterns of usage, regular enough to make using it understandable and grounded. So an example such as,
By the time he had found a parking spot, the store was already closed.
is frustrating (or captivating, glass half-full and all that) because I can't explain it. Doesn't mean that the sentence is wrong, it's just that I find it baffling.
One aspect of teaching English that still bothers me to this day (and one that still happens all too often, unfortunately) is the, "there's no reason, it's just that way" explanation that a lot of us resort to when we can't explain something competently. I would be doing my students a disservice if I couldn't come up with at least a mediocre explanation. So in other words, help!
Sorry for the rambling. My deepest thanks for writing.
Hello,
Let me give you a different perspective.While I'm constantly envious of you , native English teachers ,I think that sometimes you lack the understanding to "our" problems.Being taught English myself, according to "rules" (You don't like this word,Larry,ah?...),I must say that I'm expected today to pass these rules on to my students. Indeed ,Murphy's grammar books are full of them,so are others . I'm well aware today that it's more than rules,that sometimes they are inaccurate and misleading,but I haven't found yet any alternatives and I believe that in this stage, students (whether beginners or advanced) still need firm rules.
As for the Past Perfect- the way I undesrtand it,it is definately related to time .The earlier action -Past Perfect ;the one after-Past Simple; that's why I understand its use in your first example, Echidna"By the time he had found a parking spot, he was already late for the movie."finding a parking spot" came first hence Past Perfect but not the second one-"I arrived before she had finished unpacking." since she finished packing after I arrived....or did I miss something here?
It's always comforting to see even "natives " struggle sometimes...
Michal
Let me give you a different perspective.While I'm constantly envious of you , native English teachers ,I think that sometimes you lack the understanding to "our" problems.Being taught English myself, according to "rules" (You don't like this word,Larry,ah?...),I must say that I'm expected today to pass these rules on to my students. Indeed ,Murphy's grammar books are full of them,so are others . I'm well aware today that it's more than rules,that sometimes they are inaccurate and misleading,but I haven't found yet any alternatives and I believe that in this stage, students (whether beginners or advanced) still need firm rules.
As for the Past Perfect- the way I undesrtand it,it is definately related to time .The earlier action -Past Perfect ;the one after-Past Simple; that's why I understand its use in your first example, Echidna"By the time he had found a parking spot, he was already late for the movie."finding a parking spot" came first hence Past Perfect but not the second one-"I arrived before she had finished unpacking." since she finished packing after I arrived....or did I miss something here?
It's always comforting to see even "natives " struggle sometimes...
Michal
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
Earlier action Past Perfect - later action Past Simple is NOT the rule. It's what normally happens but it's not the rule and you'll only end up misunderstanding if you think it is.
I'll repeat what I said above. Perfect means finished, complete. So the Past Perfect refers to things that are complete in the past.
Normally the completed thing will be anterior in time to the action you will describe in the Past Simple but that is not necessarily so.
"Well before Stephen Jones had finished explaining the uses of the Past Perfect all the audience were fast asleep."
I'll repeat what I said above. Perfect means finished, complete. So the Past Perfect refers to things that are complete in the past.
Normally the completed thing will be anterior in time to the action you will describe in the Past Simple but that is not necessarily so.
"Well before Stephen Jones had finished explaining the uses of the Past Perfect all the audience were fast asleep."
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Well.........then I guess I'm having trouble reconciling that with uses of Perfect Aspect in combination with Progressive (or Continuous) Aspect, Stephen. Progressive actions are, by definition, not finished as of the time mark.I'll repeat what I said above. Perfect means finished, complete.
Let's take an example: I'd been eating my breakfast when the phone rang.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that breakfast is probably not finished (or more precisely, the speaker is not claiming that eating was finished) at the time marked by the phone's tinkle.
However, I do buy your other assertion:
Earlier action Past Perfect - later action Past Simple is NOT the rule.
Yes, indeed!:)
Larry Latham
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
OK I wasn't thinking of the perfect continous.
Actually your example would be more normally said as
"I was eating breakfast when the phone rang"
"I'd been eating breakfast when the phone rang" does imply that you had actually finished breakfast.
Continous of course implies something is not completed, so we do get our knickers into a twist when we talk about a perfect continous (finished still going on) tense.
Both the present perfect simple and the present perfect continous in the following example imply that the action is not finished
"I've studied English for five years"
"I've been studying English for five years".
Equally in the past
"He had studied English for five years befoe he realized that actions in the Past Perfect did not have to be antierior to actions in the Past Simple"
So the "rule" I've given only applies to the examples the original poster gave. I could possibly rephrase the rule, but frankly it seems to me that by surrendering to our students demands for rules we are doing them a scant favour. Give them examples, and more examples, and try to explain how the examples tie together, but get them to learn the examples, not the explanation.
I am sure I am not the only teacher who has to spend hours arguing with students as to why what they have written is incorrect, although if fits in perfectly with a "rule" a previous teacher has given, or find myself having to insist something I have written is correct even though it goes against the "rule".
Actually your example would be more normally said as
"I was eating breakfast when the phone rang"
"I'd been eating breakfast when the phone rang" does imply that you had actually finished breakfast.
Continous of course implies something is not completed, so we do get our knickers into a twist when we talk about a perfect continous (finished still going on) tense.
Both the present perfect simple and the present perfect continous in the following example imply that the action is not finished
"I've studied English for five years"
"I've been studying English for five years".
Equally in the past
"He had studied English for five years befoe he realized that actions in the Past Perfect did not have to be antierior to actions in the Past Simple"
So the "rule" I've given only applies to the examples the original poster gave. I could possibly rephrase the rule, but frankly it seems to me that by surrendering to our students demands for rules we are doing them a scant favour. Give them examples, and more examples, and try to explain how the examples tie together, but get them to learn the examples, not the explanation.
I am sure I am not the only teacher who has to spend hours arguing with students as to why what they have written is incorrect, although if fits in perfectly with a "rule" a previous teacher has given, or find myself having to insist something I have written is correct even though it goes against the "rule".
quote Give them examples, and more examples, and try to explain how the examples tie together, but get them to learn the examples, not the explanation.
Now,
Theoretically,I couldn't agree more but with my students it always ends up with their insisting on getting "the rules"....
As for Past Perfect use-
Well,I know how some of you feel about text books ...Nontheless,I've just checked some of them and they all speak about the sequence of actions.
Would love to hear your altenative "explanations"....
I feel it's not enough it sounds right...for me,anyway.
Thanks-
Michal
Now,
Theoretically,I couldn't agree more but with my students it always ends up with their insisting on getting "the rules"....
As for Past Perfect use-
Well,I know how some of you feel about text books ...Nontheless,I've just checked some of them and they all speak about the sequence of actions.
Would love to hear your altenative "explanations"....
I feel it's not enough it sounds right...for me,anyway.
Thanks-
Michal
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Michal, your concern is well founded. I'm sure you know how I feel about all this. I am not against rules; I am passionately against poor rules, and sad to say, our field is full of them. Stephen Jones has identified the problem: sometimes you have to argue that what they've written is not right, even though it conforms to "the rule". Sometimes you're in an argument that what you have written is good, even though it doesn't exactly fit "the rule".
I say (and forcefully so):
Some of the rules we use in English teaching are lousy, and ought to be improved. English is not that sloppy!
Larry Latham
I say (and forcefully so):
Some of the rules we use in English teaching are lousy, and ought to be improved. English is not that sloppy!
Larry LathamLarry,I'm sure you know how interesting/fascinating I find Michael Lewis approach but having gone through many textbooks ,I sometimes wonder if he's the only one who represents this approach (which by no means implies it's incorrect)....
I would still love to have your and others say about Past Perfect .Something more than just examples,if it's possible.
Thanks,
Michal
I would still love to have your and others say about Past Perfect .Something more than just examples,if it's possible.
Thanks,
Michal
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
I may be right or wrong, I had an American teacher who tried to pass all these perfect thing onto us, I don't know how I can explain it, for even for me things are not very clear.
According to this professor, perfect is a state from affairs that took place before (rather than something complete like I have been thinking about moving abroad it is not a complete action, rather something that is a result; for many things that happened to me, now, I am cosidering go abroad.) So the past perfect would be state, actions that took place in the past and are background for other affairs.
"The night before there had been ten of them in the room. They had been studying hard, trying desperately to learn all they had not had time to study before. Now, all but two had taken their tests and gone home, but those who hadn't were still studying. His eyes glazed from lack of sleep. John finally finished the last exercise and closed the book. By Thursday , he would know if he had passed, but tomorrow after the test he would be going home. Four years had been a long time and he could hardly wait to see his family again."
It seems that the past perfect prepares the passage to its main point "his eyes glazed..." for the sentence "By Thursday he would know if he had passed..." shows a situation that occured after his eyes had glazed.
"Whereas the present perfect identifies a current state delimited the past the past perfect also marks a delimited state, but one that occurred in the past. The state had already existed in a moment in the past or when some other action took place in the past , the state is delimited by the action that originated it or by the explicit mention of the beginning or duration of the action, if there is no explicit mention, any expression with 'by' (by then, by the time X occurred...) sticks the point. "
Does it all make any sense????
José
According to this professor, perfect is a state from affairs that took place before (rather than something complete like I have been thinking about moving abroad it is not a complete action, rather something that is a result; for many things that happened to me, now, I am cosidering go abroad.) So the past perfect would be state, actions that took place in the past and are background for other affairs.
"The night before there had been ten of them in the room. They had been studying hard, trying desperately to learn all they had not had time to study before. Now, all but two had taken their tests and gone home, but those who hadn't were still studying. His eyes glazed from lack of sleep. John finally finished the last exercise and closed the book. By Thursday , he would know if he had passed, but tomorrow after the test he would be going home. Four years had been a long time and he could hardly wait to see his family again."
It seems that the past perfect prepares the passage to its main point "his eyes glazed..." for the sentence "By Thursday he would know if he had passed..." shows a situation that occured after his eyes had glazed.
"Whereas the present perfect identifies a current state delimited the past the past perfect also marks a delimited state, but one that occurred in the past. The state had already existed in a moment in the past or when some other action took place in the past , the state is delimited by the action that originated it or by the explicit mention of the beginning or duration of the action, if there is no explicit mention, any expression with 'by' (by then, by the time X occurred...) sticks the point. "
Does it all make any sense????
José
"I'll give you a ring before you've finished writing the memo".
Stephen gave this as an example of an action couched in the perfect preceding one couched in the future tense.
My only problem is that this sentence doesn't sound like the English of a native speaker, but more like a literal translation from the French.
Isn't it more natural, i.e. more correct, to simply say:
"I'll give you a ring before you finish writing the memo".?
Harzer
Stephen gave this as an example of an action couched in the perfect preceding one couched in the future tense.
My only problem is that this sentence doesn't sound like the English of a native speaker, but more like a literal translation from the French.
Isn't it more natural, i.e. more correct, to simply say:
"I'll give you a ring before you finish writing the memo".?
Harzer