Look at these examples to see how the past perfect is used.
He couldn't make a sandwich because he'd forgotten to buy bread.
The hotel was full, so I was glad that we'd booked in advance.
My new job wasn't exactly what I’d expected.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
- Grammar test 1
Read the explanation to learn more.
Grammar explanation
Time up to a point in the past
We use the past perfect simple (had + past participle) to talk about time up to a certain point in the past.
She'd published her first poem by the time she was eight.
We'd finished all the water before we were halfway up the mountain.
Had the parcel arrived when you called yesterday?
Past perfect for the earlier of two past actions
We can use the past perfect to show the order of two past events. The past perfect shows the earlier action and the past simple shows the later action.
When the police arrived, the thief had escaped.
It doesn't matter in which order we say the two events. The following sentence has the same meaning.
The thief had escaped when the police arrived.
Note that if there's only a single event, we don't use the past perfect, even if it happened a long time ago.
The Romans spoke Latin. (NOT
The Romans had spoken Latin.)
Past perfect with before
We can also use the past perfect followed by before to show that an action was not done or was incomplete when the past simple action happened.
They left before I'd spoken to them.
Sadly, the author died before he'd finished the series.
Adverbs
We often use the adverbs already (= 'before the specified time'), still (= as previously), just (= 'a very short time before the specified time'), ever (= 'at any time before the specified time') or never (= 'at no time before the specified time') with the past perfect.
I called his office but he'd already left.
It still hadn't rained at the beginning of May.
I went to visit her when she'd just moved to Berlin.
It was the most beautiful photo I'd ever seen.
Had you ever visited London when you moved there?
I'd never met anyone from California before I met Jim.
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
- Grammar test 2
Hi Peter Piper,
Good question! It's because these two actions are independent of each other, so we understand them simply as two actions in a sequence (i.e., one thing happened, then another thing happened). In this case, it's normal to use the past simple for both, mention them in the same order that they occurred, and use words such as 'first' and 'then' to make the order of actions clear.
Normally, the past perfect is used when there is some kind of cause/effect or other logical relationship between the past perfect event and the past simple event. For example:
-- When the police arrived, the thief had escaped. (The thief escaped in order to avoid being caught by the police.)
-- She looked really sad but I didn't know what had happened. (The thing that had happened is the cause of her looking sad.)
-- I looked in the letter box yesterday and the letter still hadn't arrived. (Checking whether the letter had arrived is the reason why I looked in the letter box.)
Does that make sense?
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello lexeus,
Yes, it's correct to use the infinitive like that in the sentence you ask about. This is called an infinitive of purpose and in principle can be used with any tense.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again lexeus,
The sentence you ask about is correct -- very well written, in fact.
It looks to me as if you already know how to use the past perfect very well, but if you want to do more, I think the best thing you can do to become more familiar with it is notice how it's used when you encounter it in speaking and writing. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with any other resource that could serve as a 'definitive' guide.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello lexeus,
Yes, no worries -- I understood what you meant! Let me see if I can help you with this particular case.
In many situations, it's not absolutely necessary to use the past perfect. For example, the sentence you mention could be written with 'made sure' instead of 'had made sure'. (By the way, I'd recommend 'sure to cover' instead of 'sure of covering'.)
This means that when someone uses the past perfect, often they want to make it clear that one action in particular took place before others -- and these other actions aren't always described in the same sentence. Usually our background knowledge of a situation or reality in general will make it clear what the sequence of actions is, or other words will make it clear; by using the past perfect, we're drawing the reader or listener's attention to one action in particular.
This of course doesn't apply to all situations. An easy example of when this doesn't apply is when the past perfect is used to speak about an unreal past (e.g. 'If I had studied philosophy, I would have become a writer.') But in many other situations where someone is speaking about several actions or conditions in the past, they use the past perfect to single out one of them which they want to emphasise came before something else.
It's difficult to describe, but I hope that helps you a little. Please don't hesitate to ask again if anything I said wasn't clear.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello lexeus,
I'm glad that helped.
Since the meaning here seems to be that the man covered the tracks on purpose, 'made sure to cover' is correct and 'made sure of covering' is not. When you do something for a purpose, then 'make sure to do' or 'be sure to do' are the forms to use. 'be sure of something/somebody' is a correct phrase, but speaks about confidence, not purpose.
For example, if your brother asked you 'Did you lock the car?' and you were confident that you did, you could respond 'I'm sure of it'. On the other hand, if your brother wanted to emphasise that you should lock the car after you use it tonight, he could say 'Be sure to lock the car'.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Tony1980,
The continuous form describes an activity which is ongoing and unfinished at a particular moment, so we commonly use it to show a longer activity which happens around a shorter one. For example:
The phone call is in the middle of (and interrupts) my walk.
In your original example, wearing the red dress is a longer activity and the meeting happens during it. In other words, Laura comes to the meeting already wearing the red dress.
The second version does not seem to fit any context I can think of.
In your second example, is improving emphasises the ongoing current process, while improves suggests something which is generally or permanently true. Since the verb 'improve' implies a process of change there is little difference between the two, but if a different verb were used (one which does not imply change) then the difference would be clearer:
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Andi,
Generally, the continuous form in this kind of context suggests that something is seen as temporary while the simple suggest permanence. However, beyond that I wouldn't comment on the particular examples you provide. The reason is that the choice is dependent on the detailed context and the speaker's perspective. In other words, we would simply be speculating about how the speaker sees the situation and the discussion would devolve into a whole series of maybes: Perhaps he thinks... perhaps he is... and so on.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Andi,
You could use either the present perfect or past simple here. Both make sense.
I hope that makes sense :)
If you have more present perfect questions, it would be great if you could post them on our present perfect page.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Andi,
The past continuous shows an action that continued for some time, and it's often used to show a background action (i.e., one that provides a context) for another focal action (i.e., an action in the foreground). In these examples:
The focal actions are the past simple actions (underlined). The past continuous actions are a background or context for the past simple actions.
If you say When I was opening the door it was raining, it's unusual. The choice of the past continuous suggests that these actions both had a meaningful duration and are both a context for another focal action, but the sentence doesn't mention any other action.
It's possible to use the past continuous for two actions to emphasise that they both happened at the same time and both had duration. For example, if I say While I was sleeping, she was working, I emphasise the duration of both actions. (But this meaning doesn't fit the door example because opening a door normally has an insignificant duration, compared to rain falling.)
I hope that helps.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Jonathan R.
Thanks again for your response
We had been travelling / had traveled for over an hour when we realised we were going on the wrong direction.
I know that past perfect continuous is used to express duration and past perfect simple for a result. What I want is you interpreting why both tenses are possible here please. What do both of these tenses suggest in this context??
All the best
Andi
Hi Andi,
Both are possible because they both show actions that took place earlier than the second action ('we realised').
The past perfect continuous and simple are respectively used to emphasise, rather than express, duration and the result. (In fact, they both express an action that, logically speaking, had a duration and also some sort of result.) The difference between them is a question of what the speaker wants to emphasise. They aren't mutually exclusive.
If I say 'We had been travelling', I'm emphasising the duration over the result (i.e., I want to draw your attention to the fact that we'd been travelling for a long time). I might say this if I want, for example, to let you know how hard the experience was, or how tired I was - travelling for a long time is an explanation for the tiredness.
If I say 'We had travelled', I'm emphasising the fact that we'd travelled. I might say this if, for example, this is only one part of a longer story containing many other actions.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Jonathan R
Thanks again for your long response I really appreciate it and found it really helpful
I 1)swam as fast as I could to where I had seen the man but when I 2)got there he had disappeared completely.
Why past Continuous Is not possible in 1) and 2) If we say I swam to where…. This means that the action is completed and he reached the place where he had seen the man.
If we say I was swimming to where…. This means that he was in the middle of the process of reaching the place where he had seen the man.
So why past Continuous Is not possible??
Best regards
Andi
Hi Andi,
I'm glad it was useful! Actually, I think it IS possible to say 'I was swimming ...' in that sentence. I wouldn't say it is grammatically incorrect. However, this seems to be a part of a longer narrative sequence which extends beyond this particular sentence, and it's common for past simple to be used for actions in a narrative (i.e., to present actions one by one, sequentially).
I wouldn't use past continuous for 2) because the past perfect means that 'he had disappeared' took place BEFORE 'I got there'. If it happened in the middle of the process, it would be 'when I was getting there, he disappeared' (past simple, not past perfect).
Does that make sense?
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Jonathan
Thanks again for your response
It was a hot day so I decided to prepare salad for lunch.
We can’t say “ I was deciding “ as this tense puts emphasis on the action and it make it looks like the speaker was deciding whether to prepare salad or not that day and that the speaker put a lot of thinking for the process which is not what he wants to convey here.
I heard a loud voice so I ran outside to see what 1)happened /2) was happening .
1) means that the event now had finished and whatever caused the person shout now was over I mean this is what simple past highlights
While 2) means that the action was caught in the middle and that the person was still arguing or fighting someone
Sorry for being too long I just want you to tell me if the above reasonings are correct as I want to test my knowledges.
Best regards
Andi
Hi Andi,
Yes, exactly! I think you've explained the meanings well.
In the second sentence, 'had happened' (past perfect) is also possible, since this event happened before the other two actions in the sentence (I heard / I ran outside) and caused them. That's probably my preferred answer - but it's also true that people often simplify by using the past simple instead of the past perfect when the order of events is clear enough in the sentence.
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for your response
I’m really glad I’d explained the tenses well
For years 1)I’d told / 2)I’d been telling all my friends that I wanted to get away from the hustle and bustle of London.
2) is correct 1) not correct
I wonder why 1) is not possible here assuming that the speaker doesn’t want to emphasise duration “ for years “ can 1) be possible in this sentence?
3) I’ve discovered / 4) I’ve been discovering a taste of silence I didn’t know I had.
3) is correct 4) not correct
Here 3) is correct because the speaker wants to focus on the discovery of the taste (result) and and not on how long this discovery was and makes it look like he is continuously discovering tastes.
Am I correct??
Best regards
Andi
Hi Andi,
Actually, I think 1) is grammatically possible. But 2) is probably preferred because including the phrase 'for years' at the beginning of the sentence suggests that the speaker does want to emphasise the duration.
I agree with your comments on 3) and 4).
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Jonathan
Thanks again for your response
Heidi Hankins aged four sat an iq test after staff at her nursery 1)said / were saying / had said / had been saying she was so intelligent they 2)struggled / were struggling / had struggled / had been struggling to find activities to challenge her.
All answers are correct apart from were saying in 1).
My question is why “ were saying “ is not correct in 1). Isn’t it the same as “ were struggling “ in 2) which is correct.
I mean what is another way of emphasising that the staff was constantly saying and repeating that she was intelligent.
Best regards
Andi
Hi Andi,
It's because this action (saying she was so intelligent) occurred BEFORE the previously mentioned event (Heidi sat an IQ test) and directly caused it. You can use 'had been saying' to emphasise its duration, but not 'were saying' because the past continuous normally shows an action taking place at the SAME TIME as something else. So, in this example, the past continuous conflicts with the meaning of 'after' ('after staff at her nursery ....').
I hope that helps. If you have more questions, please start a new comment, as this thread is becoming narrow!
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Dear Peter,
I have a question here, because previously one of your team's responses to me was - "present perfect contonuous" can connote a temporary condition. You also affirm that (temporary condition of continuous form) by your answer here. So my understanding is all the continuous forms (present, past, future, present perfect and past perfect continuous) can also have a temporary form of action. Please let me know, whether I am correct in my understanding or not.
Thank you,
Regards,
kingson
Hello kingson,
That's correct. One common use of all continuous forms is to show that an action or state is temporary - or perceived as temporary - rather than permanent.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello kingson,
1. There a a number of phrases similar to this which we use to introduce opinions, beliefs, claims and so on:
The construction is a passive form and you can change the tense:
These phrases are followed by an infinitive form. This could be the bare infinitive for a present meaning:
Or you can use a perfect infinitive:
Other forms of the infinitive are also possible: passive infinitives, continuous finitives etc. The form used will depend on the context.
2. Yes, I think has been is more appropriate here as it describes an unfinished past time.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again kingson,
In your sentence 'want' is a normal and regular verb which is followed by an infinitive:
Some verbs, such as want, are followed by infinitives. Others are followed by gerunds. It's very useful to learn verb patterns such as this. You can read about different verb patterns in the relevant section of our grammmar reference:
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar-reference/clause-structure-and-verb-patterns
You'll see links to specific pages at the bottom of the page.
Perfect describes an aspect rather than a tense. Perfect forms are retrospective, meaning that they look back from one time to another: seeing the past from the perspective of the present, for example, or seeing the past from the perspective of a later past.
The present perfect describes actions and events which exist in an unfinished past time frame as we see them. This last phrase is important: it's how we see the actions and events that is key. The action may be complete, but we see it as unfinished because its results or effects are still relevant. For example:
This is a past event, complete and finished.
This is present in the sense that I'm telling you that I have knowledge or experience in my head now which is in some way relevant: I can give you advice, perhaps, or maybe I'm telling you that I'd prefer to go to another country as I've already been to Spain. The context will make clear why the knowledge is relevant; the present perfect simply tells us that it exists.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello kingson,
We don't comment on examples from sources we don't know as we have no way of knowing if the source is reliable in terms of language. However, I can comment on the general rule here and say that it is perfectly possible to use a present form after a past reporting verb if the present verb describes something which is still true or has a general time reference.
For example, this sentence is correct:
The words were said in the past (thus 'was said') but the comment itself is not time specific, so a present form is fine.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello kingsonselvaraj,
There is no fixed rule like that. The verb form in reported or indirect speech does not always change. For example:
Both forms are correct here. The second version makes it clear that tomorrow has not yet come; the first form could be used before tomorrow or after it.
In the example you gave, the form 'was said' has a past time reference: the comment was made in the past. However, the rest of the sentence does not necessarily have to contain a tense shift. It depends on the context and the speaker.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello kingonselvaraj,
As you say, 'when' with the past simple ('visited') denotes a finished past time, so the sentence is not coherent and is not correct.
You could use the past simple (I saw him...) or change the second half (I've seen him in our church / visiting our church)
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello kingson,
We call the omission of words 'ellipsis'. This can be done in many different ways and in general the best guiding principle is that we should avoid confusion. Usually the context will our meaning clear, but of course confusion can arise.
Your analysis of the first sentence makes sense to me. The auxiliary 'were' is understood to apply to both past participles.
In the second sentence, 'confused' is more likely to be an adjective than the past participle of a passive verb, but you're right in noticing that the second verb is understood to be active. In part this is because 'were' is understood to be a link verb, but also it would make the most sense in most contexts.
Note that there is nothing in the grammar of the second sentence that indicates what the sentence means. My interpretation above is just that -- that is, it is just an interpretation. In fact, it could be that 'were confused' is a passive verb, which would make it likely that 'asked' is actually an abbreviate form of 'were asked'. I chose the interpretation I explained above because, as a native speaker, I've seen or heard similar constructions in lots of different instances and know that my interpretation is more likely.
Part of what students of languages need to do is be exposed to large amounts of the language in question so that they can develop similar experience.
I hope this helps you make sense of this issue.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Samin,
All of these sentences are correct.
In the first pair, the present tells us about the situation now, but does not tell us anything else. The present perfect contains the additional information that the situation began before now and continues up to now. Presumably the context would make it clear if you are talking about a short time (since this morning, for example) or a long time (all your life, for example).
In the second pair, the first sentence tells us about a particular completed event in the past. The second sentence describes an event in the past before another event in the past, with the implication that in some way the two events are connected. Again, the context would make it clear what the other past event is.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello again Andi,
Stative verbs are not usually used in continuous tenses, but it is sometimes possible. If you follow the link, you'll see an example in the Verbs that are sometimes stative section of the explanation.
Hope this helps.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Tony1980,
As a teacher, I want to ask you what you think the answers are and why. If you try to work out the correct verb forms, you will learn a lot more and then we are happy to help you with the ones you find confusing.
I'm afraid we don't email our users responses to their comments, and our House rules prohibit you from sharing such personal information in your comments, which is why your email address has been deleted.
Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Andi,
Don't worry about including your email address! I just wanted to explain why we deleted it. Thanks also for explaining what you think the answers are. This helps us understand what our users are thinking and give more specific answers.
In this case, there's actually more than one answer for some of the gaps; which one is correct depends on the context and on how old the little girl is now. If, for example, this little girl is now 12 and her parents were thinking these things when she was 2, then the past simple or past perfect forms would be correct -- more specifically, for 1, 'always thought' or 'had always thought'; for 2, 'learnt' or 'had learnt'; and for 3 'tried' or 'had tried'.
There is very little difference between the past simple and past perfect forms if this is the situation, but the past perfect would suggest some other point of time in the past (not mentioned in this sentence, but understood from another sentence or the general context) that these events occurred before.
I hope this helps you make sense of it. Please let us know if you have any follow-up questions.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team