The Opium War had begun. The Opium War began.

Question

Hello,could you help me with the past perfect usage issue. Why did the author use past perfect instead of past simple in the sentence in bold?  This casuistry was unlikely to convince anybody and Palmerston did not allow it to delay his fixed determination to bring matters to a head: in light of the “urgent importance” of the matter and the great distance separating England from China, the British government was ordering a fleet immediately to “blockade the principal Chinese ports,” seize “all Chinese Vessels which [it] may meet with,” and seize “some convenient part of Chinese territory” until London obtained satisfaction. The Opium War had begun. {the end of paragraph} thank you

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

In a historical sequence of events, we use simple past.

A happened, then B happened, and then I was born, and then I grew up, and then I went to school ....

But this paragraph does not have that narrative style. The events which started the Opium War are described before the sentence "The opium war had begun." So the past perfect is used to show that the start of the war was connected to the events: blockade of the ports and seizure of territory.

CalifJim · Answer

marix998past perfect

There is really nothing that can be added to A. Stars's excellent reply.

I think it bears repeating, though, that the past perfect is used quite naturally here to "go backwards" in time. Events which amount to the beginning of a war are told first, and then, as if looking back at what was just said and recognizing the pattern as the signs of war, a summary is given of what those events must have meant -- in the past perfect.

The pattern is: Evidence, evidence, evidence. | What this is evidence of.

Similarly,

Little green shoots poked out of the soil. Leaves appeared. The leaves grew larger. | The seeds had germinated.

CJ

Fivejedjon · Answer

AlpheccaStarsThe events which started the Opium War are described before the sentence "The opium war had begun." So the past perfect is used to show that the start of the war was connected to the events: blockade of the ports and seizure of territory.

I don't think that the events mentioned, the blockade of the ports, and the seizure of the vessels and territory had happened. The British government was taking immediate steps to see that they did happen -- in the future.

I like CalifJim's, "The pattern is: Evidence, evidence, evidence. | What this is evidence of", though in his seed example, "Little green shoots poked out of the soil. Leaves appeared. The leaves grew larger. | The seeds had germinated", the germination of the seeds clearly preceded the three other actions. In the original example, the beginning of the war did not clearly precede the actions mentioned. That example is more like this:

John wrote the final words, "..with immediated effect." He added his name, hesitated for a moment and then clicked on SEND. He had resigned!

In my opinion, the past perfect in 'He had resigned', like that in 'The Opium War had begun', stresses the irrevocable nature of the action. One second after clicking on SEND, John had resigned; one second after the British government ordered action, the Opium War had begun. This is more dramatic than, "John resigned the moment he clicked on SEND" or "The Opium War began when the British government ordered ...".

CalifJim · Answer

fivejedjonI don't think that the events mentioned... had happened.

...CalifJim's, "The pattern is: Evidence, evidence, evidence. | What this is evidence of", ... the germination of the seeds clearly preceded the three other actions. ...

That example is more like this:

John wrote the final words, "..with immediate effect." He added his name, hesitated for a moment and then clicked on SEND. He had resigned!

... the irrevocable nature of the action. ... more dramatic ....

I think each of the three examples is different from the others in some way, especially if we engage in some hair-splitting, and I concede that your example is closer to the original poster's. In any case these kinds of patterns remind me of John Searle's 'constitutive definition'. What is it that constitutes 'beginning a war'? What is it the constitutes 'germination of a seed'? What is it that constitutes 'resigning'? In each case those elements that constitute the entity of interest are more or less listed or narrated first. (Exactly how closely they follow a temporal order is not the most important point in my opinion.) Then comes the past perfect with the very term that names this entity of interest. You might even call this a typical rhetorical device of English.

After thinking about this in terms of 'constitutive definitions' I'm inclined to think that in my earlier post, "evidence" may be a misnomer.

CJ

Edit: My apologies. Searle's term is "constitutive rule". Fortunately, nothing crucial in my discussion above hinges on the exact second term. "constitutive" is my focus.

The Opium War had begun. The Opium War began.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions