Timeline for "before + past perfect" vs "before + simple past"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Aug 27 at 12:23 | vote | accept | James Mathai | ||
| Jul 30 at 23:13 | vote | accept | James Mathai | ||
| S Aug 27 at 12:23 | |||||
| Jul 23 at 19:33 | comment | added | TimR | @JamesMathai: You're reading into the situation to think that they left "without waiting to listen". Perhaps the speaker hadn't gotten up the nerve to speak to them or hadn't managed to get free to speak to them. The past perfect doesn't entail the idea that they somehow truncated the conversation and didn't let the speaker finish. That would be "before I'd finished speaking to them". | |
| Jul 23 at 19:32 | comment | added | Lambie | The British Council thing states: 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. So, the general idea I was referring to can be seen here: The action or lack thereof precedes the other one. | |
| Jul 23 at 19:28 | comment | added | TimR | @Lambie: How can an action "precede" an event that did not take place, that never happened? | |
| Jul 23 at 19:26 | comment | added | Lambie | @TimR Yes, and you manage to get in words like tepid and dismissive. | |
| Jul 23 at 18:27 | comment | added | Lambie | Yes, they left [precedes] before I'd spoken to them. That is the main point of the past perfect. It works every time. | |
| Jul 23 at 18:13 | history | edited | James Mathai | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 367 characters in body
|
| Jul 22 at 4:57 | comment | added | James Mathai | The website britishcouncil.org is a well known website for English language learners and I feel they are doing a good job. In the sentence - "They left before I'd spoken to them." - it may be understood that the speaker wanted to convey something important or may have wanted to resolve an issue. The group walked away without waiting to listen. | |
| Jul 22 at 0:17 | history | edited | James Mathai | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 22 at 0:05 | answer | added | Lambie | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 21 at 15:41 | comment | added | Lambie | You use the past perfect If you want to signal one action preceding another and it is your choice to do so. Only in some rare cases, it is necessary. Mostly: When I arrived, they had left. IS NOT When I arrived, they left. They mean different things. | |
| Jul 21 at 15:40 | comment | added | TimR | @Lambie But that point in the past is never reached. Perhaps you miss the point being made in your desire to speak ex cathedra? Frankly, I'm growing tired of your dismissive comments that begin with the word "No." | |
| Jul 21 at 15:19 | comment | added | Lambie | No, they express an action up to a point in the past. That's what the British Council webpage says. | |
| Jul 21 at 14:59 | history | edited | James Mathai | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Jul 21 at 14:53 | history | edited | James Mathai | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 139 characters in body
|
| Jul 21 at 13:27 | comment | added | TimR | @JamesMathai Not all verbs express an act that has a clear end, like run. "He ran as fast as he could." They're "atelic". But an atelic verb can be telic in context: "He ran the 100m dash." | |
| Jul 21 at 13:21 | comment | added | TimR | @JamesMathai: I think the BC means the action is one that can be completed. | |
| Jul 21 at 13:19 | comment | added | TimR | The first sentence makes no sense to me, nor do these: I donated the money before I had wasted it. I gave it away before I had eaten it. She died before she had sung the national anthem. | |
| Jul 21 at 7:32 | comment | added | James Mathai | @KateBunting As per the website britishcouncil.org use before + past perfect to show that an action was not done. Both their sentences are unfinished actions. learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/b1-b2-grammar/…. | |
| Jul 21 at 6:57 | comment | added | Kate Bunting | Also, in the first two the intended action didn't happen. "They left before I spoke to them" would sound (to my British ears, at least) as though I spoke to them after they had left, which is obviously nonsense. | |
| Jul 21 at 5:28 | answer | added | swmcdonnell | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 21 at 5:18 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | The reason why Past Simple is used in 3. is stated in the excerpt. The time between the two actions is short, the act of giving presents happened (just) before she left (the wedding reception). | |
| Jul 21 at 3:18 | history | asked | James Mathai | CC BY-SA 4.0 |