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 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
Thank you very much, Peter.
I see. Sorry for being annoying, but you haven't mentioned anything about "when" in your explanation. Would the sentence with "when" also be valid? Would "when" require the past perfect?
Hello again Tony_M,
Before removes any ambiguity and the verb form choice is one of style or, perhaps, emphasis;
In this sentence it's clear that you are talking about two separate times and the choice of past perfect or past simple does not change the meaning.
In the first example it's also clear that you are talking about two separate times because the past perfect is used; the meaning is the same as the sentences above.
The second sentence has a different meaning, however, and is now about what you saw when you went, not what was seen before.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Thank you, Peter.
Hello Mike8143,
It's not clear whether or not the dogs stopped barking. You could add some more information to make it clear:
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi,
I came across these two sentences, and I wish to know which one is more grammatical:
He realized he had forgotten his wallet after he had paid for the meal.
I think both could work well knowing that "after" can be followed by either "past perfect" or "past simple" if the sequence of the actions is clear, I mean when it's clear which action took place first as I understood from Advanced Grammar in Use, by Martin Hewings.
I'll be much obliged if you could guide me, sir.
Hello anymanme2,
I would consider the first sentence to be correct. The second sentence doesn't sound incorrect to me, but the first sentence looks a lot more natural.
Thank you.
Shetu Yogme
Hi aymanme2,
Both are possible. I think the first is better because the past simple 'paid' makes it clear that the realisation and the payment happened almost at the same time. The past perfect 'had paid' in the second sentence would be more likely if the action were some time earlier rather than effectively simultaneous.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team