Level: intermediate
The past perfect is made from the verb had and the past participle of a verb:
I had finished the work.
She had gone.
The past perfect continuous is made from had been and the -ing form of a verb:
I had been working there for a year.
They had been painting the bedroom.
The past perfect is used in the same way as the present perfect, but it refers to a time in the past, not the present. We use the past perfect:
- for something that started in the past and continued up to a given time in the past:
When George died, he and Anne had been married for nearly fifty years.
She didn't want to move. She had lived in Liverpool all her life.
For this use, we often use the past perfect continuous:
She didn't want to move. She had been living in Liverpool all her life.
Everything was wet. It had been raining for hours.
- for something that happened several times before a point in the past and continued after that point:
He was a wonderful guitarist. He had been playing ever since he was a teenager.
He had written three books and he was working on another one.
- when we are reporting our experience up to a point in the past:
My eighteenth birthday was the worst day I had ever had.
I was pleased to meet George. I hadn’t met him before, even though I had met his wife several times.
- for something that happened in the past and is important at a later time in the past:
I couldn't get into the house. I had lost my keys.
Teresa wasn't at home. She had gone shopping.
We often use expressions with for and since with the past perfect:
I was sorry when the factory closed. I had worked there for ten years.
I had been watching that programme every week since it started, but I missed the last episode.
We do not normally use the past perfect continuous with stative verbs. We use the past perfect simple instead:
Up until that moment, I'd never believed (NOT
been believing) in astrology.
- Past perfect
- Past perfect and past simple
Past perfect and hypotheses
We can also use the past perfect to make hypotheses about the past (when we imagine something). See these pages:
Hello LearnEnglish Team,
Could you please explain to me why we use the past perfect here?
"I had been watching that programme every week since it started, but I missed the last episode."
According to the grammar, Past perfect is used to talk about an action that hapens BEFORE another action in Past Simple. Therefore, the first action is the action in Past Perfect and the second action is in past simple. But in this sentence the first action is "start" and the second one is "watch", so why is "watch" in past perfect? Many thanks in advance.
Hello GrammarLover,
The second action is not 'it started' but rather 'I missed'. The phrase 'since it started' establishes a point in time in the past, and then there's the repeated activity of watching the programme every week since then, and then there's the action of missing the last episode.
Hope that clears it up for you.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Yeah: as you said "it started" happens first and, after that, the action of "watching" happens. Therefore, if the action of watching happens after the action of start, how is it possible that "watching" is in Past Perfect and "start" in past simple and not the other way round? For example, if I say "I realised I had left my keys at home" --> I put "had left" in past perfect because it is the first action and I put "realised" in past simple because the action of realise happens after the action of leave. In our sentence, "start" happens first and, later, the action of "watch" happens.
Hello GrammarLover,
"I had been watching that programme every week since it started, but I missed the last episode."
The past perfect is emphasises that one action occurs before one other action. In this sentence, there are two other actions -- 'it started' and 'I missed' -- and so you have to choose which one the past perfect refers to.
The idea that I was watching a programme before it started is pretty unusual, but the idea that I was watching it before missing the last episode is not. This is why I assume the reference point is 'I missed the last episode' instead of 'it started'.
As you can see, the past perfect situates an action in relation to another reference point. That reference point can occur very close to the past perfect, but it doesn't have to. In fact, the reference point is often not even in the same sentence, but in another previous sentence. It's important to think about what makes sense; the grammar expresses meaning rather than determining it.
Hope this helps.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Ok, I get your point. The sentence I am worried about and would like to check (a student of mine wrote it) is the following:
"He was my best friend since we were 5 years old."
If it was in the present, the sentence would be "He has been my best friend since we were 5 years old", so I thought that if we move that sentence into the past (like in the story of my student), the sentence should be "He had been my best friend since we were 5 years old", but I don't know how to justify my choice because the starting point is 5 years old but in my sentence it sound as if the first action was to be friends... I am confused. What do you think the correct sentence for my student would be?
Hello GrammarLover,
Assuming that your student's story is about your student's past (but when he is older than five), 'He had been my best friend since we were five years old' is probably the most appropriate form, especially if the description continues. For example, if your student is now 25 and is writing about a time when he was 15, then 'He had been my best friend since we were five years old, but he was beginning to change and so we were growing apart' works well -- the past reference point is that moment in the past when they were growing apart and the previous state was 'we had been best friends since the age of five'.
Does that make sense? If the situation your student was writing about is very different, I can try to help you make sense of it if you let me know what it is.
Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
It is hard to explain it here in writing instead of having a whiteboard where I can draw a timeline... but I will try to explain what I have on my mind.
If the sentence was about the present: "He has been my friend since we were five", the FINISHING POINT is NOW and the STARTING POINT is "we were five" (that is to say: the action of being friends started at a specific point in the past (we were five) and continues until now.
If the sentence is talking about the past (yes, this is the case of my student's story. The story talks about the moment when the police came because he was missing. My student says that in the previous sentence, but I think that would be the finishing point. Then the story would be "It was the police. John was missing. John had been my best friend since we were five years old.". Therefore, in that story, the action of being friends started at the age of five and it continues until the moment when the police came. So the starting point is "we were five" and the finishing point is "the police came", right? And the action of be friends for many years happens before the police came, so the second action is in past simple (the police came) and the first action is in past perfect (had been friends) because it happens before the police came. Right? So far so good. I get that. Now this part is clear in my mind. The only thing that I still don't understand why "we were friends" is in past simple and not in past perfect because it happens BEFORE THE PAST PERFECT! The past simple never happens before the past perfect, that is the part that doesn't add up. The starting point is we were five, so if it is the starting point, of course it happens before. For example, if I say "I have been friends since we were five", the action of be five happens BEFORE the action of be friends, and the past simple happens before the present perfect, so it makes sense to put the verb "be five" in past simple and the verb "be friends" in present perfect because the action of be five happens BEFORE THE ACTION OF BE FRIENDS! Then, the past perfect happens before the past simple, for example "When I got home, I realised that I had left my keys at home." ---> the action of leave happens before the action of realise. So if the verb realise is in past simple and the action of leave happens before realise, the action of leave has to be in past perfect (had left). So here I am applying the same logic. The verb that we use with since is always the starting point, so it happens before the action in the perfect tense (I have been working here since I was 20 -- the action of be 20 is the starting point of work, so it happens before work, so the first action has to be in past simple and the second one in present perfect). In my student's case, the action of be 5 is the starting point of being friends, so it happens before being friends. So how is it possible that we use past simple for an action (be 5) that happens before an action in past perfect (be friends)? It is supposed to be the other way around: past perfect happens before past simple. That is the thing that doesn't add up to me... Do you know what I mean? Not sure if I managed to explain it well in writing...
Hello GrammarLover,
I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean. I think your mistake is in thinking that the 'since' clause is the reference point that the past perfect is referring to.
"It was the police. John was missing. John had been my best friend since we were five years old." For the sake of explanation, here is the timeline that I understand for this story, which is told in 2022 (after all of the events below). I've invented the exact years, obviously, and include them only in the hope that it helps clarify the timing.
1. we were five years old (1985)
2. we became best friends (later in 1985)
3. we were best friends for many years (1985-2020)
4. John went missing (2020)
5. the police came to ask about John (later in 2020)
All of the clause 'John had been my best friend since we were five years old', which has a past perfect verb as its main verb, takes 5 (the moment the police came later in 2020) as its reference point; 'had been' thus refers to 3 (1985-2020). In other words, 'John had been my friend' does NOT take 'since we were five years old' as its past reference point.
Does that make sense?
I admire your dedication to understanding this.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello,
I just gave a lesson on Past Perfect Continuous, and my student asked me why we don't use "didn't do" as a response, instead of "hadn't done"?
For example, "Sophie was tired because she hadn't been sleeping properly" as opposed to "Sophie was tired because she didn't sleep properly". My thoughts are, that the former example is talking over a longer period of time in the past, whereas the latter is just about last night.
I would be very happy if you could clear this up for me.
Many thanks,
Mat.
Hello Mat0,
I'm afraid I'm not completely sure I understand your question. What you say about the difference between the two sentences about Sophie is right -- the past perfect continuous form suggests that the sleeping problems have occurred on more than one night, whereas the second clearly expresses the idea of just one night.
What did you mean by 'didn't do' or 'hadn't done' as responses?
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Kirk,
Thank you for replying.
I realise my question is not completely clear, apologies for that.
If the question was "Why was Sophie tired?" then the response could be either of my two examples, is that right? It would just depend on if it happened more than once or just the one time that she had sleeping problems. The past perfect continuous would be used if the action was recent to the time of speaking too, correct?
The "do" or "done" is related to the action of sleeping. "She hadn't slept" or "she didn't sleep".
Many thanks,
Mat.
Hello Mat,
Thanks for clarifying your question. Yes, you have a good understanding of when to use which verb tense, though I would make one small adjustment: the past perfect continuous doesn't necessarily refer to a time that is recent in relation to the time of speaking, but rather recent in relation to the time of the other action (in this case, 'Sophie was tired').
For example, this sentence could be about events that occurred several years ago; 'hadn't been sleeping' then refers to Sophie's tiredness at that time several years ago, not to now.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Can you please explain for me this:
He had written three books and he was working on another one.
Why don't we use "he worked" instead of "he was working"? I just don't understand why we use "was working", what is the meaning in this sentence and can you tell me the difference when we use the past simple instead.
Thank you
Hello thg,
I'm afraid it's impossible to explain this properly without knowing the situation it's used in. It's certainly possible to use 'worked' here, but, for example, if the sentence is describing the writer's life situation at that time, then the continuous form is the best form since it expresses the idea of a period of time in progress.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Sokhom,
The verb 'go' has two past participles: been and gone. The difference is as follows:
The difference is the same for bother present and past perfect. Thus, the difference between the two sentences is as follows:
1.You are asking about something in her past, such as her experience of travelling.
2. You are asking about her location at the time of the phone call because presumably she was not there when you called (she had gone out).
Which verb form you use in the reply to a question is really context-dependent so it's not possible to give you a general rule. Note that we only use the past perfect when there is a clear connection - often a causal connection - between two past events. In your example I don't see any connection - they are simply two events. You might use the past perfect if the connection is clearer:
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
In most cases the past simple form is the best one here. The car was checked before you returned home, or perhaps while you were waiting and then you returned home.
In a very specific context, it could be possible to use the past perfect form, but it would be referring to some other past event that the context would explain. I'd need more information to make sense of it in that case.
Hope this helps.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ayn,
Neither option is wrong, grammatically speaking, but I think A is better. This is because we are interested in the result of the lack of eating (i.e. being hungry), not the ongoing process of not eating.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again Ayn,
As I said, both sentences are possible. However, when we focus on the result of an action (as opposed to the consequences of the activity) the simple form is more likely. Compare:
You can see 'not eating/being hungry' in either way, of course, but I think the simple form is the best and most natural-sounding option.
I wrote an answer to a similar question a little earlier on another page. You may find it helpful:
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/intermediate-to-upper-intermediate/present-perfect-simple-and-continuous#comment-161833
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello TatianaZ,
Here the past perfect shows a clear sequence of actions, i.e. that he pushed my bike home after we arrived at school. But in this and many cases, the past perfect is not completely necessary; you could say 'arrived' and it would mean the same thing.
Does that make sense?
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello DaniWeebKage,
Both the simple and the progressive are possible here. Both describe a past event which had an effect on a later past situation.
The simple form emphasises the action as a whole, while the progressive form emphasises the process. That can mean different things in different contexts. For example, the simple form may suggest that the action is completed, or at least the speaker is not considering that it may continue. The progressive may indicate that the action is incomplete, or at least that the speaker is aware that it may continue.
The differences are nuances rather than clear distinctions.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again DaniWeebKage,
'She had been crying' tells us that the speaker could see the evidence of her crying, but it does not tell us whether or not she had finished crying. The past perfect works in the same way as the present perfect in that sense. If I say 'She has been crying' then it does not tell you if she is still crying or not, but only that the evidence of her crying is still visible.
The correct form for your second question is 'Have you been smoking?' as the question is about the activity (smoking) rather than the result/achievement (how many cigarettes).
The third example works in the same way. If you want to talk about your achievements then the simple form is appropriate: 'I've worked on three projects today'. However, if you want to talk about the activity and its effects then the continuous form should be used: 'I'm tired because I've been working (all day).'
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello DaniWeebKage,
As you say, the past perfect requires two past time references. However, there must be a connection between the two past times/actions. This could be because one caused the other, or because one action changed or influenced a later action. Often the choice is up to the speaker and depends on how they see the two actions: as a simple sequence, in which case past simple + past simple is used, or as two related events, in which case past perfect + past simple may be preferred.
Both of your examples are fine. The version with the past perfect seems more likely to me as it helps to draw a connection between the two events/states - not a causal connection, of course, but a connection in terms of change which is relevant and important to our narrator.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again DaniWeebKage,
The choice of simple or continuous is often one of emphasis. In other words, often both are possible/correct.
In (1), both simple and continuous could be used. The simple form would suggest that the speaker has finished working/eating.
(2) The most important information in each sentence remains how the speaker feels at the moment.
(3) No. We do not use the present perfect when there is a finished time reference.
(4) The sentence does not tell us when the person left. It could be recently or long ago. We know only that she is no longer here. Of course, the context may provide additional information.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
Both sentences are grammatically possible.
The first (with had been) implies that the person was sick before school. It does not tell us whether or not the person was still sick when it was time to go to school. They may have been healthy by that point (but still weak or worried about making other people sick, for example).
The second sentence tells us that the person was sick when they were supposed to go to school
Neither sentence tells us anything about the present.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Anit Shrestha,
Both the past perfect (had lived) and the past simple (lived) are possible in this sentence.
However, if we use the past simple then we are describing two events which form a sequence and the reader or listener would understand that first she chose not to move and as a result spent her whole life in Liverpool.
If we use the past perfect then it is clear that the decision to not move comes after the act of living in the city. In other words we understand that she decided not to move because all her life up to that point had been in Liverpool, so she had an attachment to the city.
In other words, past simple + past simple here gives us two actions in sequence.
Past simple + past perfect makes it clear that the second action in the sentence happened before the first.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello angeeeeeeel,
There are so many situations in which 'I had never had' could be used that I can't possibly describe them all, but I'll give you one example sentence:
'I had never had butter in my tea before I went to Tibet.'
All the best
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Lexeus,
It's perfectly fine to put an adverb (once) between the auxilliary verb (had) and the past participle (snaked).
As far as the use of the past perfect in your example goes, it requires a past time reference point, but this may be included in the broader context in which the sentence appears. The use of the past perfect implies that the situation later (but still in the past) changed.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Dukul,
All of the sentences are grammatically possible. The first sentence suggests that the birthday was the worst day then, but may have since been superseded by something even worse. The second sentence tells us that the birthday is still the worst day and suggests that that fact will never change. The third sentence is similar to the second, but suggests that a worse day may still come along at some point.
In general, the choice of verb forms like this to use depends on the context in which you are going to use it and what you want to say. Is the sentence part of a narrative? Is it direct speech? Are there other events which form a context for the sentence?
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ahmed Imam,
The past simple is the best option here as the verb does not describe a particular action but rather a permanent fact about Jane - something which will always be true and for which we would use the present simple normally, or the past simple in a narrative.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Anubhav,
When we are going as a guest or to participate in the ceremony, we say 'to the wedding'.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team