2

Could anyone please explain me why we use past perfect instead of past simple before “that” in the sentence below? As I understand, we use past perfect in a sequence of events to show that the action expressed with that tense was before the other one, expressed with past simple. In this example, I do not understand how the fact that something was proved could precede the thing it proves. Should not it be expressed with the same tenses?

Her business had proved that it was possible to be sustainable and profitable at the same time.

Improve this question
3
  • 4
    If the sentence is isolated, one could substitute "had proved" with its simple past equivalent "proved" and it would be grammatical and make sense. So why was the past perfect used instead? To answer that we would need to see what preceded that statement.
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Apr 17, 2021 at 11:56
  • coursehero.com/file/40029732/…
    – Mari-Lou A
    Commented Apr 17, 2021 at 11:59
  • 1
    The only justification for using Past Perfect (it had proved) rather than Simple Past (proved) is if this sentence appears within a narrative context that's already set in the past (where this act of proving occurred earlier than the current "narrative reference time"). Since you haven't provided any such context, this question is meaningless.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Apr 17, 2021 at 12:09

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

The idea that "we use past perfect in a sequence of events to show that the action expressed with that tense was before the other one" is an unhelpful simplification.

We use the past perfect when we are referring to an event from the perspective of a later time in the past. That later time may be another event, but (especially in narrative) there may not be any particular later event, but the speaker is choosing to set the temporal focus to that later point.

Usually when we use this form, this later focus will already have been established; but there is a common narrative convention to start a story or a chapter with a past perfect, and set the focus. So in your example, the writer is choosing to set a particualr temporal focus at some time after her business has proved those things (it tells us nothing about whether her business is still operating or not). The expectation is that the next sentence will be set at that later time, rather than set when she started the business, or set in the present.

Improve this answer
4
  • If I add the first part to this sentence, will it be correct to say this way? «Initially it was believed that nothing was about to change, but her business had proved that it was possible to be sustainable and profitable at the same time». Or do I need to refer to the events (the fact that it has been believed; the fact that it has been proved) from a later past twice and to change “it was believed” to “it had been believed”?
    – Triol
    Commented Apr 18, 2021 at 10:36
  • 1
    It is rarely required to use a past perfect: most times it is a choice that the speaker/writer makes. It was believed in your amended example is fine: you are not choosing to set a temporal focus at that point. The had proved in the following sentence establishes the temporal focus.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Apr 18, 2021 at 13:06
  • If it is possible, could you please clarify the last thing for me on that topic? If the result of the second part is effective as of today, is it correct to change the sentence to «Initially it was believed that nothing was about to change, but her business has proved that it is possible to be sustainable and profitable at the same time»?
    – Triol
    Commented Apr 18, 2021 at 17:00
  • 1
    @Triol: yes, that's perfectly good. In it you are choosing to set the temporal focus to now, rather than to some (otherwise unidentified) point in the past. One consequence of that change is that it suggests that the business has proved that very recently. (That's a suggestion, not a definite implication).
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Apr 18, 2021 at 17:23
1

The past perfect is optional in your example. The simple past would be equally acceptable.

You would be more likely to use the past perfect if the business had closed or if she had since retired or died. Here the proof is in the past while the conclusions remain current.

The simple past might fit better if she was still running the business.

There are no hard rules here. The choice depends on context and personal preference.

Improve this answer
0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .