Past perfect
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 after before
We can also use before + past perfect 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
Hello,
Source: Fic: Haveans King, Rachel Baker, 2013
The clause beginning with "before" sets the later event, it follows "they agreed to meet up." The only thing that confuses me a little is the presence of the past perfect in the before-clause. It looks like the correct sequence here is: Agreed to meet up -> had been taken ill -> found out.
So, is the past perfect in this example used to indicate something that happens after an event indicated by the past simple? Is this use possible/idiomatic?
Thank you
Hello Tony_M,
The past perfect here is used to show the relation between the two events in the subsidiary clause (finding out and being taken ill). I agree it would be more consistent and clearer to use the past perfect in the main clause but I think the conjunction before does the heavy lifting in terms of establishing the sequence of finding out being earlier than agreeing to meet.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello, dear teachers and team!
Could you please help me with the following:
He arrived just five minutes before the ceremony.
Is it possible to say He had arrived just five minutes before the ceremony. (in the meaning before the ceremony started)
Thank you very much indeed!
Hello howtosay_,
When we want to show a sequence of actions in the past there is no need for past perfect. For example:
This morning I had a shower and brushed my teeth. Then I drank a coffee and went for a walk.
These actions are listed in chronological order but we can change the sequence and still use past simple:
I went for a walk to day. Before that I drank a coffee and before that I had a shower and brushed my teeth.
The past perfect is used when one action in the past is before another action and the two actions are connected in some way. In other words, the earlier action influences, changes or causes the later action. For example:
I drank a coffee at home. I didn't drink a coffee at work. [two actions]
I didn't drink a coffee at work. I had drunk a coffee at home. [two connected actions - I didn't drink a coffee because of the earlier one, which was enough]
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Peter!
Thank you very much for your answer! So, as far as I understood, Past Perfect is not only about an earlier action, but about connection, so could you please clarify which of the following (if any) are correct:
When Sarah came to the party, John had already left. (I used to think this one was correct, but I don't see any connection / causual relation between these two events. That is, John didn't want to avoid Sarah, so he left, to me it sounds like events that just happened without any influence/connection.)
3. He arrived just five minutes before the ceremony.
4. He had arrived just five minutes before the ceremony.
5. I had made a breakfast before my family woke up yesterday.
6. I made a breakfast before my family woke up yesterday. (Now I am inclined to think this one is correct)
Thank you very much for your help!
Hello again howtosay_,
Like continuous, perfect is an aspect and so is very often context-dependent. In other words, in many cases both past simple and past perfect are possible and the choice depends on the broader context, as well on the speaker's intentions.
If there is no connection between the events then the past perfect is not needed. However, the sequence of events is confusing here. I understand that the sequence is (1) John leaves then (2) Sarah arrives, but if you use past simple in each clause then there is no way to tell this. Therefore you need to indicate it in some way. You could do this with a time phrase such as 'before' or 'then': John left the party before Sarah came / John left the party. Then Sarah came.
Using the past perfect removes this ambiguity, but also suggests a connection. This does not have to be causal. For example, Sarah might want to see John, so his leaving the party has an effect on her. Or she might want to avoid him - this also connects the actions.
The context is key here. If you are simply describing the times of two actions then there is no need for past perfect. You would use past perfect, for example, if the other guests thought he was absent and their mistake is explained (a connection) by his last-minute arrival.
Again, context is key. Perhaps this is an explanation of why the fridge is empty, or why the speaker is not hungry, or why the family were delighted when they got to the kitchen and found a nice surprise there. If there is no such connection, there is no need for perfect aspect.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello,
Situation #1
My friend is telling me about his weekend, "I was at the cinema with my nephew, we went to see "Zootopia 2," the cartoon is really funny." If I ask him, "Had you seen the first part?", it'll mean "before going to the cinema," and if ask him, "Have you seen the part?", it'll mean "in general, before now." Does it make sense?
Situation #2
I friend of mine told me that he had ascended Mont Blanc, and it wasn't really difficult. -> Should I backshift "wasn't" to "hadn't been"?
Hello Tony_M,
Situation #1
Yes, that's technically correct, but we would generally use the present perfect (have seen) here because seeing the film is a state which is permanent. In other words it is about your knowledge of the first film rather than the act of seeing it.
Situation #2
Both forms are acceptable here. The past simple suggests the statement is still true - in other words, the speaker is making a general statement about the climb rather than a statement about a particular climb on a particular day which may not be representative.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello and thank you, Peter.
If I wanted to use the past perfect, would I have to create two separate timeframes using “before” or “when” in my sentence?
Which one would you use: simple or perfect?
On the other hand, “when” is a bit different. Since it doesn’t clearly separate two timeframes, the past perfect makes more sense in this case.
2. Had you seen the first part when you went to the cinema with your nephew?
Does it make sense to you?
Hello again Tony_M,
The past perfect requires two distinct past time points but one can be implied by the context or by an earlier reference by the speaker or someone else; it's not necessary to always state both in the sentence.
Very often the past tense can be used instead of the past perfect. It can be ambiguous in some contexts, whereas the past perfect always signifies an earlier related action. For example:
In sentence 2 the sequence is clear: first Apple and Microsoft, later Bob's. In sentence 1 the sequence is not clear and the listener can only guess that the actions happened in the order stated. To make it clear a time word such as after or before is needed.
Since you have 'before' in your example both the past simple and past perfect are fine and there is no ambiguity. The only difference I would say is that the past perfect shows a stronger connection between the two events. In other words, 'Did you see...' may simply be a question about chronology, whereas 'Had you seen...' makes it very clear that seeing or not seeing the first part influences the second action - in this case, changes the experience of seeing the second part.
Just a note on the names of the forms: it's past or past perfect - both can be simple or continuous.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team