Past Perfect in main clause

Question

Can the general/main tense of a a peice of writing be in the past perfect tense?

a) I had refused to go, until I saw (had seen) all the pictures.

Is it only different from the sentence below by stating that 'I' refused in the past of the past instead of the past?

b) I refused to go, until I saw (had seen) all the pictures.

Thanks

BarbaraPA · Accepted Answer

There's no difference. After you saw all the pictures, you changed your mind about going.

I refused to go to Thailand, until I saw all the pictures from Mary's trip there. Then, I was quite eager.

My refusal preceded the viewing. I still may not have left.

Neither means "I wouldn't leave until I had accomplished the act of viewing all the pictures."
For that: I refused to go until I had seen all the pictures.

Then, the viewing precedes the leaving.

English 1b3 · Answer

Thanks, GG. I understand that the past perfect should be used in the subordinate clause to make the sentence mean that I wouldn't leave until I had accomplished the act.

But what is the difference between using the past perfect in the main clause. You say there is no difference, but since the past perfect is the past past, doesn't this mean that the refusal is in the past past?

I had refused=past past

I refused=past

English 1b3 · Answer

Oh, is the one with the past perfect unnecessary due to 'until' already specifying that that i refused before I saw? In other words, it can exist or it cannot?

BarbaraPA · Answer

Right, it's unnecessary because you can tell without question what the order was.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Technically speaking, if there are two events mentioned in a passage, the most remote past should take the past perfect; that how I have learned it. I.e. "He had tried many times to quit smoking but failed until he met his dream girl who is now his wife" So "he had refused to...until she saw..." would be my choice.

English 1b3 · Answer

Hi, guys and girls

I asked this elsewhere and was told that I shouldn't decide on the tense and aspect of the main clause by what the subordinate clause is. That is, the tense and aspect should be in relation to the greater text.

What do you have to say about this? Right or wrong?

Dimsumexpress · Answer

English 1b3 was told that I shouldn't decide on the tense and aspect of the main clause by what the subordinate clause is. That is, the tense and aspect should be in relation to the greater text.

What I said in the earlier post was a rule of thumb. There are always exeptions and special contexts to be considered. Based on your example, I would say using past tense in the most remote past event and past perfect tense in most recent would be illogical, if not incorrect.(Sorry I had my thought reversed when I wrote the thread, I stand corrected)

I am curious where you stand as far as this topic is concerned.
What is your preference between these two sentences:
1) I worked at Cisco for 5 years before I had started my own consulting business 3 years ago.
2) I had worked at Cisco for 5 years before I started my own consulting business 3 years ago.

I would consider the latter a better sentence, although no one would have problem understanding either one.

BarbaraPA · Answer

My preference is to not use the past perfect if the order of events is clear. Simple past is fine. When you have words that provide cues like "before" or "after" or "until" it's clear enough.

The past perfect is necessary when the sequence is NOT clear or simple past could lead to wrong meaning.

He ate dinner when she arrived. (He waited until she got there.)
He had eaten dinner when she arrived. (The act of eating was complete by the time she got there.)

Past Perfect in main clause

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions