I found this sentence in Persuasion by Jane Austen:
Till he came and had examined the child, their apprehensions were the worst for being vague; they suspected great injury, but knew not where; but now the collar-bone was soon replaced...
I am surprised by the use of he came next to had examined in this sentence. I am puzzled because different tenses (or aspects, or whatever they are) usually indicate different times. Looking at this reference question, we see the following explanations:
- Past simple (e.g., "he came" or "I ate"): "at a point in the past."
- Past perfect (e.g., "[he] had examined" or "I had eaten"): "before a point in the past."
If anything, Austen's sentence is backwards, because the tenses suggest that "he" examined the child before he came, which (in this context) seems impossible.
Could someone explain the grammar? Having read all the comments, I hope to get new ones to explain this grammar issue.