Tense with "when"

Question

[The only thing Langdon understood at the moment was why Fache had looked so smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer by name.]

This is another sentence from "Da Vinci Code", and I'm wondering why the word "suggest" is in the past form. I mean, Landong suggested first and then Fache looked, isn't it? Is it something to do with the "when"?

I have no problem with "understand" and "look" - Fache had look smug before Langdon understood so the word "look" is in the form of past perfect.

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi,

[The only thing Langdon understood at the moment was why Fache had looked so smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer by name.]

This is another sentence from "Da Vinci Code", and I'm wondering why the word "suggest" is in the past form. It's because he suggested it in the past. What tense do you think it should be?

Best wishes, Clive

CalifJim · Answer

In actual practice, the use of the past perfect quite frequently violates the mathematically precise timelines set out for it in grammar books! It is merely an indicator that something happened in the context of something past. Now the problem is that this past point of view has to be established somewhere to begin with, so you can't just begin a conversation with a sentence in the past perfect tense! On the other hand, the past point of view does not even have to be in the same sentence with the past perfect verb. It may have been established earlier in the text. Also, in narrative fiction, just about everything is in the past tense, so what is past from the viewpoint of the story-teller may be given in the simple past, while what is past from the viewpoint of the characters of the story may be given in the simple past or in the past perfect, depending on how the author wants the reader to understand the time relationships in his story. These factors cause for a great deal of confusion.

In the sentence now under the grammar microscope, it seems to me that the when clause is used to establish the past point of view. A suggestion was made in the past -- past with respect to Langdon's understanding of the events surrounding that suggestion. Thinking back to the time of that suggestion, Langdon ('now') saw/felt/understood that Fache had looked smug ('then'). When? When the suggestion was made.
The author considers the reaction to the suggestion the main event - not the suggestion itself. The making of the suggestion is no more than a temporal signpost to which the reaction can be related.

Compare:
I recalled quite vividly how they had laughed when I told that joke.
Jerry was absolutely convinced that they had stolen the money when he left the room to answer the phone.
The Robertsons were shocked at how thoroughly their new puppy had destroyed the sofa when he was left alone for the day.

That said, all of these examples, including the one in the original post, could have had the verb in the whenclause in the past perfect tense! But it's unnecessary for understanding the time relationships, and it is somewhat inelegant stylistically -- too many "had"s, maybe?

CJ

Marius Hancu · Answer

IMO, this is all about tense simplification (Swan is a good reference on that).

The main phrase is:

Why Fache had looked smug was the only thing Langdon understood at the moment.

One can see there's a conventional, strict, tense sequence here.

When the extra information is introduced, the author had two choices:

1) use the past perfect in the subordinate introduced by "when":

Why Fache had looked smug when he had suggested Saunier would have accused his killer was the only thing Langdon understood at the moment.

2) use tense simplification with simple past in the subordinate introduced by "when":

Why Fache had looked smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer was the only thing Langdon understood at the moment.

The author preferred to use tense simplification.

Pastsimple · Answer

CalifJimIn actual practice, the use of the past perfect quite frequently violates the mathematically precise timelines set out for it in grammar books! It is merely an indicator that something happened in the context of something past. Now the problem is that this past point of view has to be established somewhere to begin with, so you can't just begin a conversation with a sentence in the past perfect tense! On the other hand, the past point of view does not even have to be in the same sentence with the past perfect verb. It may have been established earlier in the text. Also, in narrative fiction, just about everything is in the past tense, so what is past from the viewpoint of the story-teller may be given in the simple past, while what is past from the viewpoint of the characters of the story may be given in the simple past or in the past perfect, depending on how the author wants the reader to understand the time relationships in his story. These factors cause for a great deal of confusion.

In the sentence now under the grammar microscope, it seems to me that the when clause is used to establish the past point of view. A suggestion was made in the past -- past with respect to Langdon's understanding of the events surrounding that suggestion. Thinking back to the time of that suggestion, Langdon ('now') saw/felt/understood that Fache had looked smug ('then'). When? When the suggestion was made.
The author considers the reaction to the suggestion the main event - not the suggestion itself. The making of the suggestion is no more than a temporal signpost to which the reaction can be related.

Compare:
I recalled quite vividly how they had laughed when I told that joke.
Jerry was absolutely convinced that they had stolen the money when he left the room to answer the phone.
The Robertsons were shocked at how thoroughly their new puppy had destroyed the sofa when he was left alone for the day.

That said, all of these examples, including the one in the original post, could have had the verb in the whenclause in the past perfect tense! But it's unnecessary for understanding the time relationships, and it is somewhat inelegant stylistically -- too many "had"s, maybe?

CJ

That's a truly informative post and I agree with your observations. But you've left one question unanswered

:

Could the sentence contain all three verbs in the past simple?

The only thing Langdon understood at the moment was why Fache looked so smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer by name.

My comments as to why I'm convinced it's possible are in my first post.

Actually, what about:

I recalled quite vividly how they laughed when I told that joke.
Jerry was absolutely convinced that they stole the money when he left the room to answer the phone.
The Robertsons were shocked at how thoroughly their new puppy destroyed the sofa when he was left alone for the day.

Sounds completely OK to me but there's this I'm-not-a-native-speakerproblem.

CalifJim · Answer

You're right. I overlooked that question. The answer is yes, everything in the simple past is perfectly fine (on all of them). And I can certainly sympathize with your not-a-native-speaker anxiety! I have the same problem in other languages, where Iam the non-native speaker.

CJ

Tense with "when"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions