# EN: She started driving before he'd fastened his seatbelt



## Alephbethgimel

Being an English teacher I like to explain to my students any grammar point they don't understand. I am teaching the past perfect (simple and continuous) at this moment with a very good book "Complete first Certificate". In the grammar part it is well explained that this tense is used "to indicate that we are talking about something which happened BEFORE something which is described in the past simple + ex." But another example is given which seems contradictory : "She started driving before he'd fastened his seatbelt" how would you explain? "He started" happens before "he'd fastened" Thanks for your help.


----------



## Keith Bradford

First, in theory, *he fastened* his seatbelt. (Simple action in the past)
So then this action was in the past, so theoretically *he had fastened* his seatbelt. (What I was taught to call the pluperfect)
But in fact *she started* driving (simple action in the past) before all this could happen, so *"She started driving before he'd fastened his seatbelt" *


----------



## Alephbethgimel

Thank you Keith Bradford, but I have still  a problem: the starting of the car happened before so it should be in the present perfect, theoretically, since the pres. perf. is used to describe an event that takes place before another in the past!


----------



## Oddmania

If she started driving first, then he fastened (or at least tried to fasten), I guess we should use _Past Perfect_ for _To start driving_, I've been told one usually uses the _Past Perfect_ tense for the older event, the first one


----------



## Dr. Baha'i

Just to complicate things, I think it's an improper sentence on two counts: 

First, I think that the fastening of the seatbelt should not be in the pluperfect, or past perfect. Two simple actions, both in nearly the same place in time.

Second, there is a common mistake of stating an action that never had the chance to take place: "before he made his first cast, he drowned in the river." Taken at face value, this sentence says that despite having drowned, he still had the wherewithal to make his first cast. 

In the second case, and in your example from the book, I think it should be stated, "before he could" ... (this other thing happened). 

If I were teaching from the book, I'd give myself permission to rewrite the sentence and tell my students why I was doing it. But maybe that's why I'm not an English teacher.

Maybe "he had not fastened his seatbelt yet when she began driving." Or "Realizing that she had put the car in gear and was easing into traffic, he fumbled with his seatbelt, trying to fasten it."


----------



## Keith Bradford

There's nothing at all wrong or improper with the sentence, it's what most English people would say.

The starting of the car happened before so it should be in the present perfect, theoretically, since the pres. perf. is used to describe an event that takes place before another in the past! 


The starting of the car is in the past. _*She started the car*_. No problem there, I hope.
At that moment, what *had happened*? (pluperfect) _*Had he fastened*_ his seat belt? (avait-il attaché sa ceinture ?) No problem there?
No, in fact he _*hadn't fastened*_ it. (Still in the pluperfect, but negative this time) OK? So a thing hasn't necessarily happened for us to be able to talk about it. She started the car too soon.
Put these together: _*She started the car*_ before _*he had fastened*_ his seatbelt.
Sorry, I can't think of any easier way to explain it. It's the way we English say it; live with it. 
_______________________________________________________________________________

And, Dr Baha'i, you've cheated with your quote about the drowning fisherman, you missed a word out. "Before he *had* made his first cast, he drowned in the river" seems to me quite possible.

_______________________________________________________________________________

PS: What's all this in French?  _Elle démarra la voiture avant qu'il n'eût attaché se ceinture_ ? There's a pluperfect there too, I'm sure, even if it is in the (half-)negative subjunctive.


----------



## Oddmania

Keith Bradford said:


> PS: What's all this in French?  _Elle démarra la voiture avant qu'il  n'eût attaché se ceinture_ ? There's a pluperfect there too, I'm  sure, even if it is in the (half-)negative subjunctive.




Well actually it's the _Futur Antérieur tense._ It's correct, sure, but somehow I'd rather say _Elle avait démarré la voiture avant qu'il puisse attacher sa ceinture (puisse, _in the _Subjonctif Présent tense_, is used instead of _pût_, _Subjonctif Imparfait_). That's strange, for me :

...A time far past...   ------- Past -------   Present   Future

She started driving  He tried to fasten it  Present  Future


----------



## Rallino

Keith Bradford said:


> There's nothing at all wrong or improper with the sentence, it's what most English people would say.
> 
> The starting of the car happened before so it should be in the present perfect, theoretically, since the pres. perf. is used to describe an event that takes place before another in the past!
> 
> 
> The starting of the car is in the past. _*She started the car*_. No problem there, I hope.
> At that moment, what *had happened*? (pluperfect) _*Had he fastened*_ his seat belt? (avait-il attaché sa ceinture ?) No problem there?
> No, in fact he _*hadn't fastened*_ it. (Still in the pluperfect, but negative this time) OK? So a thing hasn't necessarily happened for us to be able to talk about it. She started the car too soon.
> Put these together: _*She started the car*_ before _*he had fastened*_ his seatbelt.
> Sorry, I can't think of any easier way to explain it. It's the way we English say it; live with it.


 
I don't understand your steps :S 

-Had he fastened before she started the car? No. *He fastened after she had started the car.*

You can say: *He had fastened his seatbelt before she started the car.*

Where you're using _past perfect_ for the first action (fastening the seatbelts) and _simple past_ for the next action (starting the engines)

How can you invert the sentence and still use the same tenses ? --> *She started the car before he had fastened his seatbelt *??

You're actually using _simple past_ for the first action; and _past perfect _for the more recent action ?


----------



## Woofer

I'm not sure if this will help, but I think a comparison to the French is useful here.  _Before_  is a little strange because you're trying to convey the sense that something has *not *yet happened.  French handles this with the _ne facultatif_, English handles this with the past perfect.  The idea the phrase conveys is:

*She started driving when he had not yet fastened his seatbelt.*

In other words, the "_not fastening_" happened _before_ the car started.  In French you'd say _avant qu'il n'attache la ceinture_, to get across the negative idea that at the time of the car starting, the the seatbelt was _not_ fastened.  In English, we keep the verb in past perfect to convey the same idea. 

*She started driving before he had fastened his seatbelt.

*I'd add that we're generally pretty slack about this construction.  The simple past here is perfectly acceptable as well, and perhaps even a bit more common.*
*


----------



## Keith Bradford

I see what's wrong, Rallino; you say: *He fastened after she had started the car.*
But you're reading something into this sentence that isn't there. Perhaps he never did fasten his seatbelt?  Nothing proves that he did.  All we know is that *he hadn't yet fastened it* (= _il ne l'avait pas encore attachée_ - pluperfect) at the moment the car started.

Woofer has understood this negative aspect and explains it perfectly.

Like I say, that's the way we do it in English.


----------



## Rallino

Woofer said:


> I'm not sure if this will help, but I think a comparison to the French is useful here.  _Before_  is a little strange because you're trying to convey the sense that something has *not *yet happened.  French handles this with the _ne facultatif_, English handles this with the past perfect.  The idea the phrase conveys is:
> 
> *She started driving when he had not yet fastened his seatbelt.*
> 
> In other words, the "_not fastening_" happened _before_ the car started.  In French you'd say _avant qu'il n'attache la ceinture_, to get across the negative idea that at the time of the car starting, the the seatbelt was _not_ fastened.  In English, we keep the verb in past perfect to convey the same idea.
> 
> *She started driving before he had fastened his seatbelt.
> 
> *I'd add that we're generally pretty slack about this construction.  The simple past here is perfectly acceptable as well, and perhaps even a bit more common.*
> *



All right, that made a little sense with "when". But how about the sentence:

_Before I noticed, it had become noon already_

With the same logic as in the example of _"she started the car.."_; shouldn't we then say:

*Before I had noticed, it became noon already  *?


----------



## Woofer

The mistake here is that we're just explaining one seemingly strange  usage of the past perfect.  The normal usage still exists. 

*She started driving before he had fastened his seatbelt.*
*She started driving before he fastened his seatbelt.
**She had (already) started driving before he fastened his  seatbelt.*

In the first, the negative aspect of the _non-fastening_ is why we use the past perfect, apparently breaking the  narrative rules governing its use.   However, the other two are still  acceptable. They represent the normal narrative usage of the past  perfect and so don't need special explanations.

The same is true in your examples, with one exception.

*Before I noticed, it had become noon already.*
*Before I had noticed, it became noon already. 
Before I had noticed, it became noon.

*The real problem with the second sentence isn't the past perfect,  it's because "already" is used incorrectly.  The sentence is a bit  clunky for reasons of prosody and semantics (e.g., before I noticed what, exactly?) but the verb tenses are fine.  

*Before I had finished, the clock struck noon.*


----------



## Rallino

Woofer said:


> The mistake here is that we're just explaining one seemingly strange  usage of the past perfect.  The normal usage still exists.
> 
> *She started driving before he had fastened his seatbelt.*
> *She started driving before he fastened his seatbelt.
> **She had (already) started driving before he fastened his  seatbelt.*
> 
> In the first, the negative aspect of the _non-fastening_ is why we use the past perfect, apparently breaking the  narrative rules governing its use.   However, the other two are still  acceptable. They represent the normal narrative usage of the past  perfect and so don't need special explanations.
> 
> The same is true in your examples, with one exception.
> 
> *Before I noticed, it had become noon already.*
> *Before I had noticed, it became noon already.
> Before I had noticed, it became noon.
> 
> *The real problem with the second sentence isn't the past perfect,  it's because "already" is used incorrectly.  The sentence is a bit  clunky for reasons of prosody and semantics (e.g., before I noticed what, exactly?) but the verb tenses are fine.
> 
> *Before I had finished, the clock struck noon.*



I guess I get it. Thanks for clearing that up =)


----------

