# Tense complicated ... I fixed the window yesterday that had been broken last Sunday.



## jakartaman

Can I say the following sentense?

I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* last Sunday.
For some reason, to me last night, week, month, Sunday, etc have to go with the past tense no matter what. Am I right?

How about this?
I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* 3 days ago.
"*Was broken*" sounds better than "*had been broken*" and is grammatically correct, right? I hope so.

I always appreciate generous help given by great teachers.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Strictly I think you should say 'was broken', because it was broken on Sunday. If you said 'it hadn't been broken on Sunday' you'd mean that on Sunday it hadn't (yet) been broken, and that's not what you are saying at all.

Your instincts seem to me correct, jakartaman.

I know BE speakers who make the mistake, though.


----------



## nichec

jakartaman said:


> Can I say the following sentense?
> 
> I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* last Sunday.
> For some reason, to me last night, week, month, Sunday, etc have to go with the past tense no matter what. Am I right?
> 
> How about this?
> I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* 3 days ago.
> "*Was broken*" sounds better than "*had been broken*" and is grammatically correct, right? I hope so.
> 
> I always appreciate generous help given by great teachers.


 
Here's what I think: If we take "broken" as an adjective, a state of being, then why can't we say that: "I fixed the window yesterday that had been broken *since* last Sunday."?

Or, of course, you can always say that: "I fixed the window yesterday that *got broken* last Sunday." Here, "got broken" serves as the past tense verb.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

nichec said:


> Here's what I think: If we take "broken" as an adjective, a state of being, then why can't we say that: "I fixed the window yesterday that had been broken *since* last Sunday."?


No reason. You can say that. It's just not what we were asked about. Your last sentence was fine too, Nichec.


----------



## suttone2

I think the tense is fine, jakartaman, but I would put <yesterday> at the beginning of the sentence - it sounds less awkward that way.  Normally, adverbs fit well at the end of a sentence, but with the subordinate clause there, it doesn´t seem as natural.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

suttone2 said:


> I think the tense is fine, jakartaman, but I would put <yesterday> at the beginning of the sentence - it sounds less awkward that way. Normally, adverbs fit well at the end of a sentence, but with the subordinate clause there, it doesn´t seem as natural.


Hi, suttone, so you think it had been broken on Sunday, do you?  You don't think it was broken on Sunday?


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi, suttone, so you think it had been broken on Sunday, do you?  You don't think it was broken on Sunday?



I would say the window _was broken *on* Sunday_ and _had been broken *since *Sunday_. He fixed it yesterday. I agree that yesterday sounds much better at the beginning of the sentence than in the middle.

So I would say "_Yesterday, I fixed the window that had been broken since last Sunday."_


----------



## suttone2

The since definitely clarifies it - for me, the use of the past perfect (had been broken) works because it establishes that something (the window being broken) is further in the past than something else (the fixing).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tomandjerryfan said:


> I would say the window _was broken *on* Sunday_ and _had been broken *since *Sunday_. He fixed it yesterday. I agree that yesterday sounds much better at the beginning of the sentence than in the middle.
> 
> So I would say "_Yesterday, I fixed the window that had been broken since last Sunday."_


 
Yes, sure, so would I.  But that's not we are being asked about.  The issue is whether one would say:

'I fixed the window which *was* broken on Sunday.'

or

'I fixed the window which *had been* broken on Sunday.'

It's beside the point that we might try to find ways round the problem by adding since's and yesterday's.

I know lots of people say the second in BE, but it grates with me.  Suttone is suggesting that it's perfectly acceptable in AE.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> Yes, sure, so would I.  But that's not we are being asked about.  The issue is whether one would say:
> 
> 'I fixed the window which *was* broken on Sunday.'
> 
> or
> 
> 'I fixed the window which *had been* broken on Sunday.'
> 
> It's beside the point that we might try to find ways round the problem by adding since's and yesterday's.
> 
> I know lots of people say the second in BE, but it grates with me.  Suttone is suggesting that it's perfectly acceptable in AE.



I might actually say the first in general conversation, but the second seems more correct to me because you're referring to one event that happened further in the past than another. Someone broke the window before he fixed it on Sunday. I think the original poster is trying to use the passive voice, which sounds strange here because we would normally use "had been" referring to the duration of time the window spent in the state of being broken.


----------



## AngelEyes

Couldn't you just say:

_"I fixed the window yesterday that broke on Sunday."_

...which is still clumsy, so:

_"Yesterday, I fixed the window that broke last Sunday."_

If you just use the last part of that sentence, you would say:
"The window broke last Sunday." 

You wouldn't say, "The window had broken on Sunday." 
or

"The window was broken on Sunday." (Well, this one, yes, I can hear that under some circumstances, but for the sake of our sentence, it is complicating something simple and direct.)



*AngelEyes*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AngelEyes said:


> Couldn't you just say:
> 
> _"I fixed the window yesterday that broke on Sunday."_
> 
> ...which is still clumsy, so:
> 
> _"Yesterday, I fixed the window that broke last Sunday."_
> 
> If you just use the last part of that sentence, you would say:
> "The window broke last Sunday."
> 
> You wouldn't say, "The window had broken on Sunday."
> or
> 
> "The window was broken on Sunday." (Well, this one, yes, I can hear that under some circumstances, but for the sake of our sentence, it is complicating something simple and direct.)
> 
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
I don't see that it makes much difference to our problem if you change *the window was broken* to *the window broke*. 

 If I understand you right AngelEyes you're for 

I fixed the window that *was* broken on Sunday

rather than

I fixed the window that *had been* broken on Sunday

?


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't see that it makes much difference to our problem if you change *the window was broken* to *the window broke*.
> 
> If I understand you right AngelEyes you're for
> 
> I fixed the window that *was* broken on Sunday
> 
> rather than
> 
> I fixed the window that *had been* broken on Sunday
> 
> ?



I think the fact that we have yesterday in this sentence is changing our thinking about whether we should use "was" or "had been."


----------



## AngelEyes

Well, the name of this thread is "tense complicated..."

I wanted to change it to "tense simplified..." and solve his problem.

It seemed the best way to do that is to give jakartaman the simple past tense of his verb choice, _break_: broke

But Thomas, if I had to choose, yes, I'd choose "was broken." That's not what I would use to make a clean, more concise sentence, though.

jakartaman deserves simple and direct. That's what I'd like to give him. 


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tomandjerryfan said:


> I agree with what's been said, but we have "yesterday" in this sentence and we're assuming the window was already broken yesterday, when the decision was made to fix it. I think that "yesterday" changes the sentence.


You're going to laugh when I tell you I'd forgotten about that *yesterday; *I was concentrating so hard on the tenses.  I don't see why it ought to alter things - after all *I fixed* is already a past tense - but agree with you that it seems to.  I'll go to bed and think about it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I've had a think about this overnight, and, I'm sorry to say, I'm still not able to justify:

I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* 3 days ago.

I'm quite happy to put *yesterday* at the start of the sentence, but it must be:

Yesterday I fixed the window that *was* broken 3 days ago.

I'll try to explain why I think this. Look at the following series of events:

Sunday 1 May: The window was broken

Tuesday 3 May: I repaired the broken window.

Thursday 5 May: In talking about what happened on Tuesday I say (correctly, in my view): *on Tuesday I repaired the window which was broken on Sunday.*

Now, some people have argued that on Thursday I ought to say: *on Tuesday I repaired the window which had been broken on Sunday*, on the grounds that the window had already been broken when I repaired it.

This is to commit the same error as confusing *three days ago* for *three days earlier*, or, more glaringly, *yesterday* for *the day before*, or *tomorrow* for *the next day*.

The point is there is a proper place for *the window which had been broken on Sunday,* and you should only use the form in that proper place.

Suppose on the Friday, 6 May, I'm talking about what I said to people the day before (Thursday 5 May). I could correctly say: *I told them I had repaired on Tuesday the window which had been broken on Sunday.*

The tenses tell you at how many temporal removes you are.


----------



## AngelEyes

I can't help but wonder if we're not making this more complicated than we need to.

I'm going to look at it from a different perspective by using a different verb.

*Original:*
I fixed the window yesterday that had been broken last Sunday.

*My suggestion:*
Yesterday, I fixed the window that broke last Sunday.

Using other verbs:
1. Yesterday, I fixed the window that cracked last Sunday.
2. Yesterday, I fixed the window that shattered last Sunday.
3. Yesterday, I fixed the window that splintered last Sunday.

I don't see why simple past tense isn't enough. I'm not saying that _was broken_ doesn't work, but I guess I like the simple life best.

I wouldn't  say:
1. Yesterday, I fixed the window that was cracked last Sunday.
2. Yesterday, I fixed the window that was shattered last Sunday.
3. Yesterday, I fixed the window that was splintered last Sunday.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## dobes

You are right to use the Past Simple when you are talking about a definite time in the past. 'Last Sunday' and '3 days ago' both take the Past Simple. "...the window that was broken last Sunday' and "....the window that was broken 3 days ago' are both correct.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AngelEyes said:


> I can't help but wonder if we're not making this more complicated than we need to.


AngelEyes, We were given the problem with a verb (to break) in the passive.  I don't see that it helps when we've got used to using one verb to introduce others, and when we've got used to the passive to introduce active constructions.  Surely none of these things alters essential truths about the sequence of tenses.  They introduce complexities, which are just what you say you are decrying.

Now you may be addressing a post other than my last one, but everything you say here agrees with me; all the examples are in the form which I've been arguing should be used.

Yet you write as though you think you are not agreeing, and, more important, because you are an AE source, you don't say anything about the main point at issue: is it wrong to say - *I fixed the window that had been broken last Sunday?  *You say it's right to use the other form in the case; is it wrong to use this one?  If you can answer yes to that question I don't think we disagree about anything obvious.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dobes said:


> You are right to use the Past Simple when you are talking about a definite time in the past. 'Last Sunday' and '3 days ago' both take the Past Simple. "...the window that was broken last Sunday' and "....the window that was broken 3 days ago' are both correct.


Hi, dobes,  Do you think the other form  - *I fixed the window that had been broken on Sunday* - is wrong?


----------



## dobes

Well, Thomas, I was kind of avoiding that one! Of course, the past perfect is used to express the past before the past, and the breaking did happen before  the fixing! And, I think your sentence, which uses ON Sunday, is fine. But LAST Sunday, as in the original.... I'm afraid I have to go with the past simple on that one. "I fixed the window that had been broken last Sunday" doesn't sound HORRIBLE to me, but I believe the 'last Sunday' trumps the past perfect, and the simple is necessary. At least that's my take on it.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

dobes said:


> Well, Thomas, I was kind of avoiding that one! Of course, the past perfect is used to express the past before the past, and the breaking did happen before the fixing! And, I think your sentence, which uses ON Sunday, is fine. But LAST Sunday, as in the original.... I'm afraid I have to go with the past simple on that one. "I fixed the window that had been broken last Sunday" doesn't sound HORRIBLE to me, but I believe the 'last Sunday' trumps the past perfect, and the simple is necessary. At least that's my take on it.


 
That's very interesting.  Thank you.  People seem very reluctant to commit themselves to this question, which is strange if you consider how often the issue must arise in ordinary life.  If you could bear to read it, I'd very much like to know if you think my post 16 is correct or not.


----------



## kenny4528

This thread really let me learn a lot.
On first thought, I think that ''I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* last Sunday.'', undoubtedly, is a correct tense(what I learned at school). I am going to ask several friends on-line for their comments.


----------



## dobes

.. I'd very much like to know if you think my post 16 is correct or not. 

We are agreed!


----------



## AngelEyes

jakartaman said:


> I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* last Sunday.


 
Hi everyone,

I've read all the posts and they're all really helpful, interesting, and just great lessons in English. And Thomas, I laughed as I read through your posts...not *at *you, because I really respect your knowledge. No, I laughed at your frustration in trying to get us to listen to you. (Do you have any hair left on your head?)


*A.*I think this sentence structure is incorrect. It's using the *P**ast Perfect Progressive Tense* that is described as: _used to show the end of an on-going action that took place in the past._

*I fixed the window that had been broken last Sunday. *


*B.*What I think this sentence requires is the use of the past tense and the past perfect tense. After thinking about it, I don't think the use of the simple past tense is useful, as I stated in my two posts. I think I was wrong.

I looked up the definition of *Past Perfect Tense*: 
_...used to emphasize that an action which took place in the past was completed, usually before another past action took place._

I think the action of the window being broken qualifies and should be expressed in this sentence using the past perfect tense:

*Yesterday, I fixed the window that had broken last Sunday. *

The most recent action receives the simple past tense. The action that took place in the more distant past gets the past perfect tense.

Since I'm not perfect, I may be wrong again. 

I don't care if that happens, because in the long run, I just want a definitive answer.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## konungursvia

In habitual speech, we don't use the pluperfect unless we wish to stress the distinction between two different past moments which might otherwise be confused by the listener: "By 6:59 this morning he had already finished his lunch." Here the moment of finishing is distinct from the moments spent eating, and are kept separate by the tense. With the window breaking, however, it's obvious it was fixed after that, so it doesn't really add any specificity to use the pluperfect for one verb and the preterite for the ohter, we'd normally use the latter for both. Hope this helps.


----------



## liliput

jakartaman said:


> Can I say the following sentense?
> 
> I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* last Sunday.
> For some reason, to me last night, week, month, Sunday, etc have to go with the past tense no matter what. Am I right?
> 
> How about this?
> I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* 3 days ago.
> "*Was broken*" sounds better than "*had been broken*" and is grammatically correct, right? I hope so.
> 
> I always appreciate generous help given by great teachers.


 
"Yesterday I fixed the window that *was broken last Sunday*."
Here the past tense is appropriate because our point of reference is the present and we are referring to the last Sunday before _the present_.​ 
"Yesterday I fixed the window which *had been broken the Sunday before*." 
Now the point of reference has moved to the past and although we are referring to the same Sunday as in the first sentence, we are referring to it as the last Sunday before _yesterday_.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

liliput said:


> "Yesterday I fixed the window which *had been broken the Sunday before*."
> Now the point of reference has moved to the past and although we are referring to the same Sunday as in the first sentence, we are referring to it as the last Sunday before _yesterday_.


 
But if *the Sunday before* was actually *last Sunday*, you are being very perverse to call it *the Sunday before*, so I don't think your adroit little manoeuvre to justify the pluperfect works.  The sentence sounds even more precarious if you substitute *the previous Sunday* for *the Sunday before*.


----------



## liliput

Thomas Tompion said:


> But if *the Sunday before* was actually *last Sunday*, you are being very perverse to call it *the Sunday before*, so I don't think your adroit little manoeuvre to justify the pluperfect works. The sentence sounds even more precarious if you substitute *the previous Sunday* for *the Sunday before*.


 
What if yesterday was Sunday?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

liliput said:


> What if yesterday was Sunday?


 
Actually I don't think it makes any difference if the Sunday when the window was broken was a week ago or a year ago.  When you say I *fixed* the window and want to say which one, it has to be the one *which was broken*, not the one *which had been broken*.  It's when you are constrained to say *I had fixed the window* that the window becomes *the one that had been broken.*

I was at pains to point this out in my post 16 which has probably been buried with full military honours by now, but, if you can bear to read it, I still hold that position, and it covers, I think, any amount of temporal chicanery.  The key question for me is whether the main clause is *I fixed* or *I had fixed*.  

Do please point out where I'm wrong.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

I think we're confused about whether we should use "was/had been" as a passive voice or as a reference to the state of the window. The passive voice is very similar to the state of being but they have different usages - and very different meanings. The passive voice is known to cause confusion (just as it's doing now! ) For example (and I'll add an actor/doer to hopefully make the explanation clearer - try reading the passive voice omitting the actor/doer):

*Passive voice*

_"The window is broken (by the rock)."
"The window was broken (by the rock) yesterday."
"The window was broken on Sunday (by the rock)."_
*
The state of the window (To be broken)*

_"The window is broken." (the current state of the window)
"The window was broken yesterday ." (and it still is/but it's fixed now)
"The window was broken Sunday ." (and it still is/but it's fixed now)_

*Active voice (To break)*

_"The window broke." / The rock broke the window."
"The window broke yesterday." / The rock broke the window yesterday."
"The window broke Sunday." / "The rock broke the window Sunday."_

I'm sure we can agree on the above usages. Now, let's move on to the sentences provided by the original poster. Which one do you prefer to use? The active voice, the passive voice, or the state of being? Here's my take on it:

*Passive voice*

_"Yesterday, I fixed the window that was broken last Sunday (by the rock)."
"Yesterday, I fixed the window that had been broken last Sunday (by the rock)."_

The first sentence sounds okay to me but, if we add an actor, it becomes clear that something broke the window on Sunday before it was fixed yesterday. The second sentence sounds somewhat more appropriate to me for expressing that idea, especially if we specify some kind of actor/doer. I'm still not too partial to any of those sentences.
*
The state of the window (To be broken)*
_
"Yesterday, I fixed the window that was broken last Sunday."
"Yesterday, I fixed the window that had been broken last Sunday."_

Interpreting these sentences that way is highly unlikely.

*Active voice (To break)
*
_"Yesterday, I fixed the window that broke last Sunday."
"Yesterday, I fixed the window that had broken last Sunday."_

Both of these sentence sound fine as they are. The first sentence would probably be most common, but I believe the latter would be more accurate, since the window was broken _before_ it was fixed. They are also much clearer: there is no confusion between passive voice and state of being.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tomandjerryfan said:


> _"Yesterday, I fixed the window that broke on Sunday."_
> _"Yesterday, I fixed the window that had broken on Sunday."_
> 
> Both of these sentence sound fine as they are. The first sentence would probably be most common, but I believe the latter would be more accurate, since the window was broken _before_ it was fixed. They are also much clearer: there is no confusion between passive voice and state of being.


 
Hi, Fan, 

I've noticed that some AE speakers say *the window broke* where we BE people would, for something as inactive as a window, say the *window was broken*: *to break* seems more energetically transitive this side of the Atlantic. However, that's beside the point, which is to do with tense usage.

We've been fully aware all along that *was broken* can both be the preterite of *to be broken* and the imperfect of *to be in a state of being broken*. However, that issue is again beside the point, which is to do with tense usage.

I return to this issue of tense usage, because I know how easy it is for these forums to pick up side-issues and various irrelevancies, and lose direction and focus.

Bearing this in mind, I think this post of yours is telling us that you find perfectly acceptable the form:

*I fixed the window that had been broken on Sunday*.

Now some of us have been arguing quite energetically for some days that this is not strictly correct, and we've tried to give reasons to justify our view. I know how daunting a long list of posts can be, so I'm not surprised that you haven't addressed all the points we've made, but it would have been good had you given a little more explanation. You say that it becomes clear that something broke the window on Sunday before it was fixed yesterday and also that the pluperfect seems more accurate and appropriate to you.

Of course we had noticed that the window had been broken or it wouldn't have needed fixing. Any chance of a bit more justification and a bit more response to the points which have been made against the line you are taking?


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> Bearing this in mind, I think this post of yours is telling us that you find perfectly acceptable the form:
> 
> *I fixed the window that had been broken on Sunday*.



Yes, if you look at it from the standpoint of a *passive voice (preterite of to be broken), *implying that the window had been broken *by something*. That is why I keep referring to the passive voice - it can be confused with the imperfect *state of being*. I had deliberately understood that sentence to be in passive voice, while others had understood it to be imperfect, to which the latter I agree would be an incorrect and awkward use of the *past perfect progressive*. I feel if you are using the *passive voice* here, "had been broken" would be the *pluperfect tense* instead, and would be very acceptable.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I hope we are all agreed that *broken* here is acting as a past participle, rather than adjectivally to mean *in a state of being broken*.  We are taking *was broken* to mean that someone smashed it, rather than that it was *in a broken state*.

I'm pretty sure most of us have been taking this for granted, for the purposes of the discussion.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> I hope we are all agreed that *broken* here is acting as a past participle, rather than adjectivally to mean *in a state of being broken*.  We are taking *was broken* to mean that someone smashed it, rather than that it was *in a broken state*.
> 
> I'm pretty sure most of us have been taking this for granted, for the purposes of the discussion.



Yes, I'm quite sure we're very clear on "was broken," but I'm talking about "had been broken." I am considering the "broken" in "had been broken" as a past participle.


----------



## panjandrum

Thomas Tompion said:


> I hope we are all agreed that *broken* here is acting as a past participle, rather than adjectivally to mean *in a state of being broken*.  We are taking *was broken* to mean that someone smashed it, rather than that it was *in a broken state*.
> 
> I'm pretty sure most of us have been taking this for granted, for the purposes of the discussion.


I'm pretty sure, as an observer, that this is one source of the differing views.  The word *broken *slithers elusively from being a statement of a past event to a statement of a past ongoing condition.

In the midst of all this opinion, it would be interesting to discover a reference source in support of any of the varied viewpoints (sorry if I missed any listed above).

... or possibly all of them 

Could I suggest a different sentence that has, I think, the same structure but avoids the participle/adjective confusion.

On Tuesday I buried the body of the man who <had been/ was> killed on Sunday.


----------



## cheshire

I'm sorry, but this thread is long and the course of discussion is complicated.

Could I ask each poster to write first Yes or No?


----------



## liliput

jakartaman said:


> Can I say the following sentense?
> 
> I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* last Sunday.
> For some reason, to me last night, week, month, Sunday, etc have to go with the past tense no matter what. Am I right?
> 
> How about this?
> I fixed the window yesterday that *had been broken* 3 days ago.
> "*Was broken*" sounds better than "*had been broken*" and is grammatically correct, right? I hope so.
> 
> I always appreciate generous help given by great teachers.


 
The discussion has indeed become very complicated. My answer to the original post is: 
*Yes, it's better to use "was broken" (passive voice, simple past) because you're referring to what happened to the window last Sunday. *
You could use "had been broken" in the manner I suggested in a previous post (by referring to the Sunday before yesterday), but as you can see by one or two of the responses, it's a bit tricky (although not incorrect).


----------



## panjandrum

Cheshire said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but this thread is long and the course of discussion is complicated.
> Could I ask each poster to write first Yes or No?


It's not that simple.
You would need to allow for maybe, don't know, and it depends on the context - and in the end all you would have would be a small number of varied opinions.  

Still, now that I'm here, I'm almost convinced that on Tuesday I buried the body of the man who had been killed on Sunday.
So I am almost convinced that yesterday I fixed the window that had been broken on Sunday.

I wonder were the two events connected?

I can't tear my mind away from the sense that "the window that was broken on Sunday" is using broken as an adjective.  "That window was broken on Sunday!"


----------



## Thomas Tompion

panjandrum said:


> Could I suggest a different sentence that has, I think, the same structure but avoids the participle/adjective confusion.
> 
> On Tuesday I buried the body of the man who <had been/ was> killed on Sunday.


Good suggestion, Panj.

Then my BE view, it's wrong, though common, for people to say to their friend Alf, on Thursday, for instance:

On Tuesday I buried the body of the man who *had been* killed on Sunday.

We should say:

On Tuesday I buried the body of the man who *was* killed on Sunday.


It's right, however, explaining this to Burt after Thursday, to say:

On Thursday I told Alf that on Tuesday I had buried the body of the man who had been killed on Sunday.

What do people think?


----------



## cheshire

> I can't tear my mind away from the sense that "the window that was broken on Sunday" is using broken as an adjective. "That window was broken on Sunday!"


If that's so, is the sentence wrong?

(I know our Ripley is very good at summarizing a complicated discussion into a concise, simple sentences. I'm secretely expecting...)


----------



## panjandrum

Thomas Tompion said:
			
		

> Then my BE view, it's wrong, though common, ...


Can you explain why and give a reference in support.
As I suggested above, this thread is simply moving around in circles of opinion.
As we already know that there are differing opinions on this question, further expressions of opinion without references are not going to be of any help,


----------



## Thomas Tompion

panjandrum said:


> Still, now that I'm here, I'm almost convinced that on Tuesday I buried the body of the man who had been killed on Sunday.
> 
> But Panj, the man, whose body you buried, was the man who was killed on Sunday, surely?
> 
> So I am almost convinced that yesterday I fixed the window that had been broken on Sunday.  I thought we were trying not to break any windows for the time being.


----------



## panjandrum

I've just been looking for sensible sources that give guidance on this kind of situation.
I Googled for tense sequence English Grammar, so there is no guarantee that these are high-quality reputable sites, though I've found the first one good for balanced views on punctuation.

These are the first three relevant hits.





> Sequence of verb tenses.
> If the verb in the main clause is simple past:
> To show another completed past action, use the past tense.
> I _wanted_ to go home because I _missed_ my parents.
> To show an earlier action, use the past perfect tense.
> She _knew_ she _had made_ the right choice.
> Capital Community College Foundation





> *Remember:* when you see a sentence that contains two verbs, ask yourself if one of the actions occurred _before_ the other action. If this is the case, make sure that the verb that describes the first action is in the _past perfect tense_.
> Celebrity English





> In a sentence such as _Before I was introduced to her, I heard/had heard the rumor about her,_ 59 percent would require _had heard,_ while 41 percent would allow _heard._ Thus it seems likely that many readers will not notice the omission of _had_—that is, the use of the simple past in preference to the past perfect—in these situations.
> Bartleby


It seems to me that the comments in Bartleby explain very well why this thread has taken such a winding course.


----------



## Arrius

Originally Posted by *Thomas Tompion* 
I don't see that it makes much difference to our problem if you change *the window was broken* to *the window broke*. 

To me there is a semantic difference between the two: broke is something spontaneous or when a break occurs because of the strain put on something as in:
Just as the mountaineers were about to reach the summit of K2, the rope *broke* and the whole party fell into a crevasse.
If you substitute this by *was broken*, you have a case of mass murder on your hands: *was broken* always implies an agent whether human or otherwise.


----------



## liliput

panjandrum said:


> I've just been looking for sensible sources that give guidance on this kind of situation.
> I Googled for tense sequence English Grammar, so there is no guarantee that these are high-quality reputable sites, though I've found the first one good for balanced views on punctuation.
> 
> These are the first three relevant hits. It seems to me that the comments in Bartleby explain very well why this thread has taken such a winding course.


 
If I understand this post correctly, you have two sources which support the use of the past perfect:
"*Yesterday I fixed the window which had been broken last Sunday*"
and one which says that opinion is divided and most people wouldn't notice the difference.
*In other words the past perfect is correct but few people will complain or even notice the error if you use the simple past.*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Arrius said:


> Originally Posted by *Thomas Tompion*
> I don't see that it makes much difference to our problem if you change *the window was broken* to *the window broke*.
> 
> To me there is a semantic difference between the two: broke is something spontaneous or when a break occurs because of the strain put on something as in:
> Just as the mountaineers were about to reach the summit of K2, the rope *broke* and the whole party fell into a crevasse.
> If you substitute this by *was broken*, you have a case of mass murder on your hands: *was broken* always implies an agent whether human or otherwise.


 
Arrius,

I'm very sorry to have been misleading.  I agree with you absolutely on this point.  I said this because we were having a discussion about the *tense* we used, not about the* mood*.  As *the window broke* and *the window was broken *(preterite of the verb *to be broken* - NOT imperfect of the verb *to be* + broken (in a state of being broken)) are in the same tense (the simple perfect), it didn't matter for our purposes whether someone used the active or the passive mood.

I was NOT saying that the meaning and application of the two were identical, just that, being in the same tense, they were identical for our purposes at the time. 

If you look at the discussion you will see that at various moments people shifted moods to try to make their point.  I was trying to keep the discussion transparent by keeping the examples the same, with only moderate success.


----------



## panjandrum

liliput said:


> If I understand this post correctly, you have two sources which support the use of the past perfect:
> "*Yesterday I fixed the window which had been broken last Sunday*"
> and one which says that opinion is divided and most people wouldn't notice the difference.
> *In other words the past perfect is correct but few people will complain or even notice the error if you use the simple past.*


These are "my" sources only in the sense that I found them and brought them here.  They are the first three sources I found in a Google search for *tense sequence English grammar* that explicitly addressed this question.  They are from the first 10 hits listed.

Your understanding matches mine.
The implication of the wording in the Bartleby link is also a preference for the past perfect. 





> 59 percent would *require *_had heard,_
> while 41 percent would *allow *_heard._
> Thus it seems likely that many readers will not notice the *omission *of _had_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

liliput said:


> If I understand this post correctly, you have two sources which support the use of the past perfect:
> "*Yesterday I fixed the window which had been broken last Sunday*"
> and one which says that opinion is divided and most people wouldn't notice the difference.
> *In other words the past perfect is correct but few people will complain or even notice the error if you use the simple past.*


 
This suggests a ballot-box approach to language which I hadn't expected of you, Liliput.

I'm more interested in that example in Panj's post: *She knew she had made the right decision.*

Now I would regard this statement as obviously correct. Is the construction the same as *He fixed the window which was/had been broken on Sunday*? No; it lacks the relative clause.

Change it to a sentence with a relative: *She knew that the decision which she had taken was right. *Clearly still OK. You wouldn't, in these circumstances, say *She knew the decision which she took was right.*

Where's the difference now between this and *He fixed the window which was/had been broken on Sunday?*

The difference is that *the decision which was right was the decision which she had taken*, whereas *the window I fixed was the window which was broken on Sunday*. It was not *the window which had been broken on Sunday*.

That's why I find the form you seem to be advocating a little strange.


----------



## panjandrum

> This suggests a ballot-box approach to language which I hadn't expected of you, Liliput.


 I think that comment is very unfair to liliput.
I have been trying to find reference sources to shed some objective light on this topic.
All that I have been able to find, so far, tends to support the "past perfect" option.

So far, all that supports the "simple past" option is opinion.  I'm not suggesting that any opinion in this thread is wrong, simply that the thread will go on for ever on that basis and therefore I am suggesting that we stop posting opinion unless that opinion has something to back it up.


----------



## cuchuflete

Tomandjerryfan, in post #31, presented a range of possible interpretations of the original.  

I begin by choosing this one:



> *Passive voice*
> 
> _"Yesterday, I fixed the window that was broken last Sunday (by the rock)."
> "Yesterday, I fixed the window that had been broken last Sunday (by the rock)."_
> 
> The first sentence sounds okay to me but, if we add an actor, it becomes clear that something broke the window on Sunday before it was fixed yesterday. The second sentence sounds somewhat more appropriate to me for expressing that idea, especially if we specify some kind of actor/doer. I'm still not too partial to any of those sentences.


Suppose we share the assumption that 'broken' is a past participle, not an adjective.  On Saturday the window was intact. Something happened on Sunday that caused the window to break.

Should we say, from a perspective following the subsequent repair of the window, which took place yesterday,
that the window 'was broken' or 'had been broken' on a previous Sunday?

If we choose 'was broken', that creates possible confusion. Are we dealing with an action or a state? Does it mean that the act of breakage was on Sunday?  Certainly that's possible, even likely.  Does it mean that the condition of the window on Sunday was a broken condition?  That too is clearly possible, though the relative likelihood will depend on the reader's interpretation.  

If we select 'had been broken' on Sunday, this seems to point more directly to an act of breakage, rather than to a prior and continuing condition of the window.  

I don't see anywhere in this detailed discussion a justification to label either 'was' or 'had been' wrong or incorrect.  I believe that both are possible, and that they may mean different things.

Let's dispense with the non-contentious part:  Yesterday I fixed the window.
_

that was broken last Sunday. _ One logical interpretation: The condition of the window last Sunday, before I fixed it, was broken.  Another logical interpretation: Last Sunday the window, previously unbroken, suffered an action which caused it to break.

_that had been broken last Sunday.  _One logical interpretation: Last Sunday the window, previously unbroken, suffered an action which caused it to break. The tense selected is used to contrast this past action to a subsequent but later past action, the repair.  Another logical interpretation: The condition of the window last Sunday, before I fixed it, was broken.


Despite the rational admonition to avoid statements of opinion without backup, I offer the personal opinion that the lack of context in post #1 will forever prevent us from reaching a definitive conclusion based on persuasive logic.


----------



## AWordLover

Hi All,

I was very impressed with Thomas's most recent attempt (post 49) to bring clarity to his argument. I also agree with Panj that at this point we need to cite some references to further our argument.

Support for the simple past (preterite)
Here is the page from the English Club, explaining some reasons that the simple past is preferred


> In general, if we say the *time* or *place* of the event, we must use the simple past tense; we cannot use the present perfect.


 
Additionally they suggest custom in storytelling


> Note that when we tell a story, we usually use the simple past tense. We may use the past continuous tense to "set the scene", but we almost always use the simple past tense for the action. Look at this example of the beginning of a story:


which would make the context of the sentence relevant.

Support for past perfect:
One distinction between the example given by Thomas at the end of his post and the example sentence is that the example sentence refers to two times in the past, where one happens before the other. Since I'm citing references, we can go back to the English Club and see that that is when we use the past perfect.

In my opinion they both sound right (I realize that doesn't advance the cause of picking the correct one).

EDIT: I meant these statements of support to bear directly on the question Thomas is stating in the next post (post 53).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

cuchuflete said:


> Despite the rational admonition to avoid statements of opinion without backup, I offer the personal opinion that the lack of context in post #1 will forever prevent us from reaching a definitive conclusion based on persuasive logic.


Suppose it means that someone broke the window on Sunday, Cuchu, and you fixed it on Tuesday - which is what a lot of us have been assuming - which one of:

1.  On Tuesday I fixed the window which was broken on Sunday 

and

2.  On Tuesday I fixed the window which had been broken on Sunday

would you say, and why? - remember broken is a pp, not an adjective.

What depresses me mildly about all this is that not many of the posts have addressed this precise issue, which is not to say it's not an interesting and enjoyable discussion.


----------



## AngelEyes

Thomas Tompion said:


> *On Tuesday I fixed the window which had been broken on Sunday.*


 
Hi Thomas,

I'm addressing just this specific sentence, because I'm getting dizzy from this verbal roller coaster, and I'd like to keep it simple in my mind. Please comment, would you?

First of all here's the link I'm using:
HERE

*Here is the excerpt:*

The Past Perfect Progressive Tense

The past perfect progressive is used to indicate that a continuing action in the past began before another past action began or interrupted the first action.

Each of the highlighted compound verbs in the following sentences is in the past perfect progressive tense. 

_A. The toddlers had been running around the school yard for ten minutes before the teachers shooed them back inside. _Here the action of the toddlers ("had been running") is ongoing in the past and precedes the actions of the teachers ("shooed") which also takes place in the past. 

_B. We had been talking about repainting the front room for three years and last night we finally bought the paint. _In this example, the ongoing action of "talking" precedes another past action ("bought"). 

The reason I don't think your example works is because the action of the glass breaking is not an ongoing one. It happened and it's done. 

_________________________________________________________

That's why I think the correct sentence should be written using the past perfect tense: 

*Yesterday, I fixed the window which had broken last Sunday. *


Excerpted from the same site:
The Past Perfect Tense
*The past perfect tense is used to refer to actions that took place and were completed in the past. The past perfect is often used to emphasis that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition began.*



_Miriam arrived at 5:00 p.m. but Mr. Whitaker had closed the store._ All the events in this sentence took place in the past, but the act of closing the store takes place before Miriam arrives at the store. 

__________________________________________________________

The reason I favor the Past Perfect is because the window broke in the past and it's done breaking. The action is finished. 


Saying "had been broken" sounds like it's still breaking...it's still an ongoing action.

I think I need some Dramamine...


*AngelEyes*


----------



## cuchuflete

Thomas Tompion said:


> Suppose it means that someone broke the window on Sunday, Cuchu, and you fixed it on Tuesday - which is what a lot of us have been assuming - which one of:
> 
> 1.  On Tuesday I fixed the window which was broken on Sunday
> 
> and
> 
> 2.  On Tuesday I fixed the window which had been broken on Sunday
> 
> would you say, and why? - remember broken is a pp, not an adjective.



I believe that I have already addressed your questions in post #51, but I'll give it another shot.



> If we select 'had been broken' on Sunday, this seems to point more directly to an act of breakage, rather than to a prior and continuing condition of the window.



Assumptions --

1.  I fixed the window on Tuesday, and am describing that action and something previous after Tuesday.
2. There was a broken window.  The window went from being unbroken to being broken on Sunday, prior to my fixing it.

I would use the past perfect tense.  It's more comfortable and less ambiguous for me.  It refers to
a past action prior to a later past action.  

Here is one grammarian's definition of how it should be used:

"The past perfect tense expresses action in the past before another action in the past. This is the past in the past." You have insisted that we take 'broken' to be a past participle.  I happily agree.
Therefore there was an "action in the past before another action in the past".

We are now dealing with added constraints and assumptions not present in the original post.
That post, naked of context, would allow me to choose the simple past.  This would, as I explained in post #51, permit ambiguity about "was broken" as referring logically to either an action or to a state.  

Neither "was broken" nor "had been broken" is wrong or incorrect, if we limit ourselves to
what was presented in post #1.  If we restate the question, with limiting conditions and assumptions, we can probably force one of those to become preferable. Under these constraints,
participle as opposed to adjective, passive construction rather than a description of the state of the window, I prefer the past perfect tense.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

cuchuflete said:


> Tomandjerryfan, in post #31, presented a range of possible interpretations of the original.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Suppose we share the assumption that 'broken' is a past participle, not an adjective.  On Saturday the window was intact. Something happened on Sunday that caused the window to break.
> 
> Should we say, from a perspective following the subsequent repair of the window, which took place yesterday,
> that the window 'was broken' or 'had been broken' on a previous Sunday?
> 
> If we choose 'was broken', that creates possible confusion. Are we dealing with an action or a state? Does it mean that the act of breakage was on Sunday?  Certainly that's possible, even likely.  Does it mean that the condition of the window on Sunday was a broken condition?  That too is clearly possible, though the relative likelihood will depend on the reader's interpretation.
> 
> If we select 'had been broken' on Sunday, this seems to point more directly to an act of breakage, rather than to a prior and continuing condition of the window. [...]



This is _exactly _the point I was trying to make. Thank you, Cuchuflete.



Thomas Tompion said:


> Suppose it means that someone broke the window on Sunday, Cuchu, and you fixed it on Tuesday - which is what a lot of us have been assuming - which one of:
> 
> 1.  On Tuesday I fixed the window which was broken on Sunday
> 
> and
> 
> 2.  On Tuesday I fixed the window which had been broken on Sunday
> 
> would you say, and why? - remember broken is a pp, not an adjective.
> 
> What depresses me mildly about all this is that not many of the posts have addressed this precise issue, which is not to say it's not an interesting and enjoyable discussion.



I was _trying _to address that precise issue, but I guess I just haven't been clear enough. I'm not Cuchuflete but, answering this question alone, I personally wouldn't _say_ the second one but I wouldn't label it as incorrect either. Usually, whenever you have two actions, and you want to indicate that one happened in the past and had completed before another took place, you use the past perfect. I haven't been able to find any sources to verify if this changes due to how far in the past one event took place in relation to another (as liliput was saying), but I'm certainly not criticizing her reasoning.

 This is assuming that "broken" is the past participle of "had been broken," not an adjective.

 You may also look here for more information on the past perfect: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html


----------



## Thomas Tompion

AngelEyes said:


> Saying "had been broken" sounds like it's still breaking...it's still an ongoing action.
> 
> I think I need some Dramamine...
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
Hi AngelEyes,

Thank you very much for your post addressed to me, which I thought was excellent.

I hope you've got some more Dramamine handy because the sentence you thought I was defending, the one you call 'your example' is actually the one I think people ought not to say.

*1.  On Tuesday I fixed the window which had been broken on Sunday.*

There it is, 'my' example.  Someone broke the window on Sunday and I fixed it on Tuesday.  I fully agree that the breaking was over and done with by Sunday evening and that the pluperfect is used often when one action has preceded another.  But, and this is what I've been trying to persuade people, we have a relative clause here, and that makes a vital difference.  Which window did I fix on Tuesday?

*2.  I fixed the window which was broken on Sunday.*

Am I saying that it's always wrong to say *which had been broken*, as in 1?  Certainly not.  It's almost because I hold that it has a proper use that I'm arguing against 1, which is, to my ear, an improper one.

The proper use is in reported speech; some time afterwards you might easily want to say to someone: *I told them I had fixed the window which had been broken on Sunday.*


----------



## tomandjerryfan

AngelEyes said:


> Saying "had been broken" sounds like it's still breaking...it's still an ongoing action.
> 
> I think I need some Dramamine...
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*



I think you're thinking about "The window *had been breaking," *not "the window *had been broken."* "The window had been breaking" sounds like the window started breaking on Sunday, and was still breaking yesterday when you tried to fix it.



Thomas Tompion said:


> Hi AngelEyes,
> 
> Thank you very much for your post addressed to me, which I thought was excellent.
> 
> I hope you've got some more Dramamine handy because the sentence you thought I was defending, the one you call 'your example' is actually the one I think people ought not to say.
> 
> *1.  On Tuesday I fixed the window which had been broken on Sunday.*
> 
> There it is, 'my' example. Someone broke the window on Sunday and I fixed it on Tuesday. I fully agree that the breaking was over and done with by Sunday evening and that the pluperfect is used often when one action has preceded another. But, and this is what I've been trying to persuade people, we have a relative clause here, and that makes a vital difference. Which window did I fix on Tuesday?
> 
> *2.  I fixed the window which was broken on Sunday.*
> 
> Am I saying that it's always wrong to say *which had been broken*, as in 1? Certainly not. It's almost because I hold that it has a proper use that I'm arguing against 1, which is, to my ear, an improper one.
> 
> The proper use is in reported speech; some time afterwards you might easily want to say to someone: *I told them I had fixed the window which had been broken on Sunday.*



In this sentence we're only talking about one window. We're not referring to one window among many. Therefore, I don't think it matters whether we use "that" or "which." They mean the same thing here.

Information on relative clauses here: http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/rel2.cfm


----------



## Thomas Tompion

tomandjerryfan said:


> I don't think it matters whether we use "that" or "which." They mean the same thing here.


 
I fully agree.  I never thought it was an issue.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> I fully agree.  I never thought it was an issue.



Then what did you mean here?



Thomas Tompion said:


> But, and this is what I've been trying to persuade people, we have a relative clause here, and that makes a vital difference. Which window did I fix on Tuesday?



I noticed that "that" has been turning into "which" and then back into "that" again throughout this thread, and that's what I thought you were referring to.


----------



## liliput

Thomas Tompion said:


> This suggests a ballot-box approach to language which I hadn't expected of you, Liliput.
> 
> I'm more interested in that example in Panj's post: *She knew she had made the right decision.*
> 
> Now I would regard this statement as obviously correct. Is the construction the same as *He fixed the window which was/had been broken on Sunday*? No; it lacks the relative clause.
> 
> Change it to a sentence with a relative: *She knew that the decision which she had taken was right. *Clearly still OK. You wouldn't, in these circumstances, say *She knew the decision which she took was right.*
> 
> Where's the difference now between this and *He fixed the window which was/had been broken on Sunday?*
> 
> The difference is that *the decision which was right was the decision which she had taken*, whereas *the window I fixed was the window which was broken on Sunday*. It was not *the window which had been broken on Sunday*.
> 
> That's why I find the form you seem to be advocating a little strange.


 
I was attempting to summarize panj's post to make it clear for the non-native speakers who are finding the arguments complicated, not necessarily advocating the viewpoint.
Having said that, I do now agree with this viewpoint, having read the arguments and looked at other grammar resources.

Your argument fails to convince me because:
a) I find it hard to follow.
b) You appear to have made an error; if you are saying that the sentence should have the same structure as "the decision she had taken", i.e. past perfect, then the it should be "had been broken" because this is the past perfect of "to be broken". Similarly if we put the other sentence into the passive voice it becomes "the decision which had been taken".

The rule put forward in panj's references and which I have found in other books is clear and simple:
*We use the past perfect to talk about something that happened before the past time that we are talking about.*
In our original sentence last Sunday (when the window was broken) is clearly before yesterday (when the window was fixed) therefore;
"*Yesterday I fixed the window which had been broken last Sunday*."

Here is another example:
"*Last night I had a dream where I saw my mum, who had died when I was fourteen*."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

In reply to TomandJerryman's question:

 I just meant that if you asked me which window I fixed, I would say: the window which (or that - I'm not fussed) was broken on Sunday.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

liliput said:


> "*Last night I had a dream where I saw my mum, who had died when I was fourteen*."


 
And I'd think you should be saying *last night I had a dream where I saw my mum, who died when I was fourteen*.

After all, who did you see in your dream?  You saw your mum who died when you were fourteen.

That's my argument.  I don't believe it's hard to follow.


----------



## tomandjerryfan

Thomas Tompion said:


> And I'd think you should be saying *last night I had a dream where I saw my mum, who died when I was fourteen*.
> 
> After all, who did you see in your dream?  You saw your mum who died when you were fourteen.
> 
> That's my argument.  I don't believe it's hard to follow.



No, its not. I perfectly understand what you're saying. That's how we normally say it in speech, but according to most of the previous sources about the past perfect, I think we can also agree that "who had died" is also correct because your mom_ had died_ before you had the dream. It fits the rule: "The Past Perfect expresses the idea that something occurred before another action in the past (ENGLISH PAGE - Past Perfect)."


----------



## panjandrum

This thread is going round and round and round.
Threads that do that are going nowhere.
Threads going nowhere get closed.


----------

