# He <was><had been> driving at high speed



## JJXR

Hello to all,

Thanks for reading my post.


*Sample sentences:*

1. He was seriously injured after the accident. He <*was*><*had been*> driving at high speed when the brakes of his car failed.

2. He was seriously injured after the accident. He <*crashed*><*had crashed*> into the other car when the brakes of his car failed.

*Question:*

I think all four bolded options are correct. Am I right?


Thanks a lot for any comments, corrections or suggestions!

Regards,
JJXR


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, you could use any of them. But if you’re going to mention the end result first, it makes sense to backshift when explaining what brought it about. With the simple past version, I suppose there’s an understood “What had happened was…” at the beginning of the sentence.

The use of “the” [other car] reads a little oddly when no mention has yet been made of it. “Another” car would be better.


----------



## velisarius

Wy was he injured "after" the accident and not "in" the accident? 

I too would use the past perfect, even if he was injured in the accident and not after it.


----------



## lingobingo

velisarius said:


> Why was he injured "after" the accident and not "in" the accident?


Good point. (I think I must have read it as “He was left seriously injured after the accident”.)


----------



## JJXR

Thanks lingobingo and velisarius.


velisarius said:


> Wy was he injured "after" the accident and not "in" the accident?


I used the word "injured" as an adjective. This is how I see it: "He was injured in the accident, and therefore remained injured after it."


lingobingo said:


> if you’re going to mention the end result first, it makes sense to backshift when explaining what brought it about.


This is why I thought that "had been" and "had crashed" were correct.


> *Rule:*
> 
> In those cases where it is necessary to keep the expressions indicating specific time in the past in the subordinate clause (for example, yesterday, last year, a month ago, in 1995), the simple past usually remains unchanged in the subordinate clause. *This is also true of the other object clauses,* *not only of those in reported speech.*
> 
> *Example:*
> 
> He said, "I was watching TV when the telephone rang."
> He said that he was watching TV when the telephone rang.


This is why I thought that "was" and "crashed" were correct. Is the quoted rule applicable in my case?


----------



## lingobingo

It’s hard to see how the text under “Rule:” is relevant to your question, which is nothing to do with reported speech.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, lingobingo.


lingobingo said:


> It’s hard to see how the text under “Rule:” is relevant to your question, which is nothing to do with reported speech.


In my view, it is. For example, sentences *[X] *and *[Y]* below have one thing in common: we use the past perfect to show that one event happened before the other. *[Y]* is not reported speech, whereas *[X]* is:

*[X]* When I saw him 2 hours ago, he was tired and said that he *had done* a lot of work.

*[Y]* When I saw him 2 hours ago, he was tired. He *had done* a lot of work.

According to the rule provided in post #4, it is correct to use the simple past in *[X'] *because I've added the words "4 hours ago":

*[X']* When I saw him 2 hours ago, he was tired and said that he *did* a lot of work *4 hours ago*.

It appears logical that it is also correct to use the simple past in *[Y'] *because of "4 hours ago":

*[Y']* When I saw him 2 hours ago, he was tired. He *did* a lot of work *4 hours ago*.


----------



## lingobingo

If you want to talk about this, you need to start a new thread. And I suggest that if you want to test your “rule” about the simple past not needing to be changed in reported speech if you add a specific time reference (which, by the way, the examples of it don’t), then provide one full sentence with a relevant subordinate clause – not two discrete ones that won’t prove your point.


----------



## JJXR

Ok. Thanks.


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Hello to all,
> 
> Thanks for reading my post.
> 
> 
> *Sample sentences:*
> 
> 1. He was seriously injured after the accident. He <*was*><*had been*> driving at high speed when the brakes of his car failed.
> 
> 2. He was seriously injured after the accident. He <*crashed*><*had crashed*> into the other car when the brakes of his car failed.
> 
> *Question:*
> 
> I think all four bolded options are correct. Am I right?
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot for any comments, corrections or suggestions!
> 
> Regards,
> JJXR


They are all valid but unclear, and the first sentence is confusing and clouds the issue.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Forero.


Forero said:


> They are all valid but unclear, and the first sentence is confusing and clouds the issue.


The first sentence is the main event in a narrative description. The event described in the second sentence is earlier in time than the event described in the first.


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Thanks Forero.
> 
> The first sentence is the main event in a narrative description. The event described in the second sentence is earlier in time than the event described in the first.


Is the event the accident, or the injury?

Note that you also have a "when" clause, which seems to describe another event, and past perfect could be used to place something before that other event.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Forero.


Forero said:


> Is the event the accident, or the injury?


The main event is his state of being injured.


JJXR said:


> 1. He was seriously injured after the accident. He <*was*><*had been*> driving at high speed when the brakes of his car failed.


The order of events:
1. He was driving at high speed when the brakes of his car failed.
2. He was injured.


JJXR said:


> 2. He was seriously injured after the accident. He <*crashed*><*had crashed*> into the other car when the brakes of his car failed.


The order of events:
1. He crashed into the other car when the brakes of his car failed.
2. He was injured.


Forero said:


> Note that you also have a "when" clause, which seems to describe another event, and past perfect could be used to place something before that other event.


That is not my intention.


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Thanks Forero.
> 
> The main event is his state of being injured.


A state is not an event (because an event is a change of state).





> The order of events:
> 1. He was driving at high speed when the brakes of his car failed.
> 2. He was injured.


Some possibilities:

_He was in serious condition after the accident. He had been driving at high speed when the brakes of his car had failed.
He was in bad shape after the accident. His car's brakes had failed as he was driving at high speed._


> The order of events:
> 1. He crashed into the other car when the brakes of his car failed.
> 2. He was injured.
> 
> That is not my intention.


I find the "when" even more distracting in this one:

_He was in serious condition after the accident. His car's brakes had failed and he had crashed into another car.
He was in serious condition after the accident in which his car's brakes failed and he crashed into another car.
He was in bad shape after the accident. He had crashed into the other car after the brakes of his car_ (_had_)_ failed._


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Forero.


Forero said:


> _He was in bad shape after the accident. He had crashed into the other car* after *the brakes of his car_ (_had_)_ failed._


I have just read this thread which discusses the use of "when/after" for two consecutive actions. I don't understand why you don't want to accept "when". The meaning of "when" is close to the meaning of "after" (especially in conversation):
_
The ambulance took him to the hospital. He was in bad shape after the accident. He *had crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car_ *(*_*had) failed*.
_
The "had" in parentheses is optional because we understand that the brakes failure caused his car to crash.
_
_


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Thanks Forero.
> 
> I have just read this thread which discusses the use of "when/after" for two consecutive actions. I don't understand why you don't want to accept "when". The meaning of "when" is close to the meaning of "after" (especially in conversation):
> _
> The ambulance took him to the hospital. He was in bad shape after the accident. He *had crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car_ *(*_*had) failed*.
> _
> The "had" in parentheses is optional because we understand that the brakes failure caused his car to crash.


I find the "when" distracting. I can tolerate it in the sentence with "driving" because "driving" is a continuous state, but in the sentence with "crashed", "when" seems to put the crash before the accident and maybe even before the brake failure.

This becomes an even bigger mess if we think of being injured as an event that followed the accident. (Did the crash precede the accident, or was it between the accident and the injury?)


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Forero.


Forero said:


> Did the crash precede the accident, or was it between the accident and the injury?


As I see it, the words "crash" and "accident" refer to the same event that caused the injury.


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Thanks for the response, Forero.
> 
> As I see it, the words "crash" and "accident" refer to the same event that caused the injury.


This is why "had crashed" does not work.

I hope you also see that an injury caused by the accident after the accident would be unusual.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Forero.


JJXR said:


> As I see it, the words "crash" and "accident" refer to the same event that caused the injury.





Forero said:


> This is why "had crashed" does not work for me.


Does the following version work for you (the blue part is earlier in time than the red part):

_He was in bad shape after the accident. He *crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car_ _*failed*._


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Thanks Forero.
> 
> 
> Does the following version work for you (the blue part is earlier in time than the red part):
> 
> _He was in bad shape after the accident. He *crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car_ _*failed*._


As I understand you, there are really three times here: the brake failure came first, the crash was the accident, and the state "in bad shape" was observed later.

These two sentence are valid, but rather disconnected. This is why I am inclined to subordinate the second sentence to the first.

Past perfect makes sense here, to indicate that the crash came before that observation, and to indicate how the two sentences are meant to be related, but "had crashed ... when the brakes ... failed" seems to allow the crash before the brake failure.

This problem with "had ... when" is minor compared with the problem of "was injured after", but I am inclined to change "when" to "after" and use two "had"s.

I prefer my other options.


----------



## lingobingo

JJXR said:


> Does the following version work for you (the blue part is earlier in time than the red part):
> _He was in bad shape after the accident. He *crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car_ _*failed*._


Do you not realise, JJ, that if, for some reason, you want to convey a sequence of events in reverse chronological order, presenting them in two apparently unconnected sentences does not work? You need to establish the connection between them.

_He was in bad shape after the accident, in which he had crashed into another car when the brakes of his own car_ _failed._


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Forero and lingobingo.


lingobingo said:


> _He was in bad shape after the accident, in which he had crashed into another car when the brakes of his own car_ _failed._


Is it possible to connect the two sentences by a colon, like this (the blue part is earlier in time than the red part):

He was in bad shape after the accident*:* he *had crashed* into another car *when* the brakes of his own car *failed*.


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, you could use a colon or semicolon there, but it doesn’t do the job anywhere near as well. 

And the sentence still begs the question, why are you presenting the sequence of events the wrong way round? That would be alleviated slightly if it used the indefinite article (an accident) instead, because that would justify the explanation following the statement about the injury.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks lingobingo.


lingobingo said:


> And the sentence still begs the question, why are you presenting the sequence of events the wrong way round?


Because I'm learning how the past perfect works.


Forero said:


> _He was in serious condition after the accident in which his car's brakes failed and he crashed into another car._





lingobingo said:


> _He was in bad shape after the accident, in which he had crashed into another car when the brakes of his own car_ _failed._


Forero's sentence has "in which" and it uses the simple past "crashed". Can I use the simple past "crashed" in your sentence?
_
He was in bad shape after the accident, in which he *crashed* into another car* when* the brakes of his own car_ _*failed*._


----------



## lingobingo

I don’t like it. But if you did want to use the simple past, it would read better with *the* accident changed to *an* accident and with the comma moved:

_He was in bad shape, after an accident in which he crashed into another car when the brakes of his own car_ _failed._


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, lingobingo.


----------



## JJXR

Forero said:


> _He was in serious condition after the accident in which his car's brakes failed and he crashed into another car._


Can I use the past perfect in this sentence:

_He was in serious condition after the accident in which his car's brakes *had failed* and he *had crashed* into another car._


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Can I use the past perfect in this sentence:
> 
> _He was in serious condition after the accident in which his car's brakes *had failed* and he *had crashed* into another car._


Yes.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Forero.


Forero said:


> _He was in serious condition after the accident. He had been driving at high speed when the brakes of his car *had* failed._


Does the quoted sentence work without the bolded "had"?


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Thanks Forero.
> 
> Does the quoted sentence work without the bolded "had"?


Yes.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Forero.


lingobingo said:


> _He was in bad shape after the accident, in which he had crashed into another car when the brakes of his own car_ _failed._


Is it possible to use the past perfect "had failed" in lingobingo's suggested version, like this:

_He was in bad shape after the accident, in which he had crashed into another car when the brakes of his own car *had*_ _failed._


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Thanks Forero.
> 
> Is it possible to use the past perfect "had failed" in lingobingo's suggested version, like this:
> 
> _He was in bad shape after the accident, in which he had crashed into another car when the brakes of his own car *had*_ _failed._


Yes, and it makes more sense here than in the version with "driving at high speed when the brakes of his car *had* failed", which can seem to put the brake failure before the high-speed driving.

But I don't know why you want to add unnecessary _had_s.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Forero.


Forero said:


> But I don't know why you want to add unnecessary _had_s.


Because, in most cases, I have no way of knowing whether they are necessary or not. 


JJXR said:


> _He was in bad shape after the accident. He *crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car_ _*failed*._


Would the quoted sentence correspond to the following order of events:

1. The brakes of his car fail.
2. He crashes into another car.
3. He is in bad shape.

if it were presented in the form of reported speech:

He was in bad shape after the accident *and **said that* he *had crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car *failed*.


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> JJXR said:
> 
> 
> 
> _He was in bad shape after the accident. He *crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car_ _*failed*._
> 
> 
> 
> Would the quoted sentence correspond to the following order of events:
> 
> 1. The brakes of his car fail.
> 2. He crashes into another car.
> 3. He is in bad shape.
> 
> if it were presented in the form of reported speech:
> 
> He was in bad shape after the accident *and **said that* he *had crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car *failed*.
Click to expand...

The quoted red and blue sentences are disconnected and say nothing about a report.

The reported speech sentence is valid for the 1-2-3 order you suggest, and adding another _had_ before _failed_ would not serve to clarify anything.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Forero.

Would I be able to use "crashed" instead of "had crashed" for the 1-2-3 order suggested in post #33:

He was in bad shape after the accident and said that he *crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car *failed*.


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> Thanks Forero.
> 
> Would I be able to use "crashed" instead of "had crashed" for the 1-2-3 order suggested in post #33:
> 
> He was in bad shape after the accident and said that he *crashed* into the other car *when* the brakes of his car *failed*.


Yes.


----------



## JulianStuart

When there are other words (or simple logic) in the sentence that establish the order of events, the use of had usually becomes _optional_ : when it is required is when the rest of the sentence does _not_ make it unambiguous which events happened at which time and "had" serves that function - to place one event further in the past than another.  Many of your examples in the (long) series on past perfect have time indicators in them, and that's why there are quite a few options that all mean the same thing

Brakes fail, accident/crash happens/injury occurs.  We interpret this sequence without needing to specify by using had/not using had.

If we don't know what the events are, we can't intuitively place them in a time order:

Widget reached 10, wample started leaking, lajingle overheated

That's the kind of situation where _had_ and _time words_ (or then, next etc) are required to communicate the event sequence.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks Forero and JulianStuart.


JJXR said:


> He was in bad shape after the accident. He *had crashed* into another car *when* the brakes of his own car *failed*.


If I change the red part a little, do the red sentence and the blue sentence become connected as in my other thread?

He was now in bad shape. He *had crashed* into another car *when* the brakes of his own car *failed*.


----------



## lingobingo

I would love to know why we keep being asked to comment on disjointed sentences, out of their logical/chronological sequence?

_He was now in bad shape. He had crashed into another car when the brakes of his own car failed. 

He had crashed into another car when the brakes of his own car failed and was now in bad shape. _


----------



## JulianStuart

lingobingo said:


> I would love to know why we keep being asked to comment on disjointed sentences, out of their logical/chronological sequence?


It's a little obsession of JJXR's, torturing verb forms and tense sequences


----------



## lingobingo




----------



## JJXR

Thanks JulianStuart and lingobingo.


----------



## JJXR

JJXR said:


> The order of events:
> 1. He was driving at high speed when the brakes of his car failed.
> 2. He was injured.


This is the order of events for the sentence below:


Forero said:


> He was in serious condition after the accident. He had been driving at high speed when the brakes of his car *had* failed.


Is the quoted sentence correct if I take out the red "had"?


----------



## Forero

JJXR said:


> This is the order of events for the sentence below:
> 
> Is the quoted sentence correct if I take out the red "had"?


I don't think so. "*When* the brakes of his car *had* failed" means "*after* the brakes of his car *did* fail".


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the response, Forero.


JJXR said:


> He *was driving* at high speed when the brakes of his car *failed*.


As far as I understand, the quoted sentence implies three things:

(1) His speed was high before the brake failure.
(2) His speed was high when the brake failure happened.
(3) His speed was high after the brake failure.

In other words, he was in the process of driving at high speed when the brakes of his car failed.


Forero said:


> He was in serious condition after the accident. He *had been driving* at high speed when the brakes of his car *had failed*.


In this case, "was driving" becomes "had been driving" because his driving at high speed comes before his being in serious condition. But "when the brakes of his car failed" should not change to "when the brakes of his car had failed" if the speaker's intention is to convey this:

(1) His speed was high before the brake failure.
(2) His speed was high when the brake failure happened.
(3) His speed was high after the brake failure.

Where am I wrong?


----------



## Forero

Forero said:


> I don't think so. "*When* the brakes of his car *had* failed" means "*after* the brakes of his car *did* fail".


I think I "spoke too soon".

In your context, the quoted sentence is not only correct with plain "failed" instead of "had failed", but better.

The quoted sentence is not exactly wrong because "had failed" can be thought of as "agreeing" with "had been driving", with the failure happening during the driving.

But removing "had" makes the sentence better because it makes it both shorter and less confusing. Less confusing because "when they had" usually means "after they did".

"He was driving at high speed when his brakes failed" can be interpreted two different ways:

A. His speed was high at the moment his brakes failed.
B. His speed was high, and then his brakes failed.

"He was driving at high speed" just means his speed was high then. It is not about the time after the brake failure.


----------



## JJXR

Thanks for the explanation, Forero.


----------

