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
Hi Peter
The man had been following the victim since she left school when she arrived home.
Is the sentence ok or redundant? Is “ when she arrived home “ essential to the sentence since the past perfect continuous verb in the main sentence requires it ?
Thanks in advance
Hi Tony1980,
I don't think 'when she arrived home' fits here. It suggests a closed the time reference rather than (as the perfect continuous form implies) an ongoing one. Obviously, the past perfect requires a second past time reference so if there is no other reference in the context of the sentence then I would suggest using two sentences rather than one.
The victim arrived home. The man had been following her since she left school.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello,
Sorry, couldn't find a decent answer online.
Source: MAG Hot Rod, Dealer's Diary, J. Greys, 2021.
Why is the use of the past perfect so inconsistent? In the second sentence the author is using "I'd run a check, and the system had found" (do we need the past perfect twice?), but in the fourth sentence "I'd bought a Copart subscription because I wanted." Why is it not "because I'd wanted"?
Hello Tony_M,
In a text like this you can choose one past time reference ('Last week I acquired...') and use it as the reference point for all other actions, resulting in the use of past perfect for all earlier actions - this is the approach in your first quoted example. Alternatively, you can keep the reference within the sentence, resulting in more variance with past simple and past perfect used within sentences as the actions refer to each other - this is the approach in your second example.
The author is inconsistent, as you say. Why? I don't know. Sometimes inconsistencies are the result of things being written over a period of time or being edited. You would have to ask the author, though I suspect they are not really aware of any inconsistency.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you, Peter.
Hello,
Thank you for the information. I'm wondering if there is a contradiction between the 2 meanings of past perfect:
For example, if I use the same example: "The Romans spoke Latin.", but I change it into: "The Romans had spoken Latin by 1100." (Not statistically accurate), will it violate any meanings of the 2 mentioned?
Hello HoangHuyVNOMG,
Those sentences are both grammatically (if, as you say, not factually) correct.
The first sentence contains only one past time reference: spoke as a past event. The second sentence contains two past time references: spoke and the year 1100.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Oh thank you, Peter! This kinda makes sense to me now.
I think I was confused about the word "event". I thought events needed to be some sort of actions (hence no actions in "1100"). So time references can also count here. Am I right?
Thank you in advance.
Hello again HoangHuyVNOMG,
Yes, that's right. We're really interested in anything which anchors the sentence in a past time so it can be an action, a state or a time reference.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello there,
I'm a bit confused about using the past perfect simple and past perfect continuous in these sentences :
Mr John (had worked - had been working) as a shop assistant before he decided to change his job.
Mr John (had worked - had been working) as a shop assistant before he was promoted.
Mr John (had worked - had been working) as a shop assistant before he owned the shop.
could you please notify me of the correct tenses with explanation