# 'before' with 'simple past' vs 'past perfect'



## Bob8964

Dear All,

Please kindly advise which following sentence is more natural:

He *was *caught before he had run half a mile
He *had been* caught before he had run half a mile

Thank you!


----------



## appatite

'Was' is definitely the word to use here.


----------



## Bob8964

Thanks! But I have got a sentence in which "past perfect" is used in main clause:

We *had spent* all our money before we had been there a week.



> Thanks! But I have got a sentence in which "past perfect" is used in main clause:
> 
> We *had spent* all our money before we had been there a week.


As "caught" happened before "run half a mile", I feel past perfect should be used in main clause, "He *had been* caught before he had run half a mile."
Please advise why past tense, "He *was *caught before he had run half a mile.", is better.


----------



## JamesM

The function of the past perfect is to indicate an event that was completed before another event. I'm not a grammar expert but I can give an explanation in layman's terms.

Two events have occurred:

1) He ran nearly half a mile.
2) He was caught.

The two events both happened in the past. To show the relationship between the two we need the past perfect only once:

He was caught before he had run half a mile.
OR
Before he had run half a mile he was caught.


----------



## cuchuflete

Bob8964 said:


> Please kindly advise which following sentence is more natural:
> 
> He *was *caught before he had run half a mile
> He *had been* caught before he had run half a mile


Either one of those sentences may be correct.  It depends on context. We ask for context to remove questions from the realm of guesses.


----------



## Bob8964

> Two events have occurred:
> 
> 1) He ran nearly half a mile.
> 2) He was caught.
> 
> The two events both happened in the past. To show the relationship between the two we need the past perfect only once:
> 
> He was caught before he had run half a mile.
> OR
> Before he had run half a mile he was caught.


 
If I don't want to emphasize the event of "He ran nearly half a mile", please advise whether it's also workable if I remove "had" from above sentence, i.e. "He was caught before he *ran* half a mile."


----------



## JamesM

Bob8964 said:


> If I don't want to emphasize the event of "He ran nearly half a mile", please advise whether it's also workable if I remove "had" from above sentence, i.e. "He was caught before he *ran* half a mile."


 
This sentence is ambiguous to me.  It could mean that he ran half a mile after he was caught (in the case of being caught and released for example, or caught to inform him of something).  It could also mean he ran nearly half a mile before being caught.


----------



## e2e4

Bob8964 said:


> Dear All,
> 
> Please kindly advise which following sentence is more natural:
> 
> He *was *caught before he had run half a mile
> He *had been* caught before he had run half a mile
> 
> Thank you!



I think that both of these sentences are not correct actually.

He was caught before he run half a mile. (Sounds good to me), (Not "had run" just "run", the Simple Past)

He had been caught before he had run half a mile after what they took him to the city and put him in prison.
(This one is also possible but in the context in which the writer continue explaining what happened after he had been caught.)

Correct?


----------



## JamesM

> He was caught before he run half a mile. (Sounds good to me), (Not "had run" just "run", the Simple Past


 
The simple past would be: "He was caught before he r*a*n half a mile."  I run, I ran, I have run, I had run.



> He had been caught before he had run half a mile after what they took him to the city and put him in prison.


 
This would need to be "after _which_", not "after what".  I would call this a run-on sentence and split it into two sentences.


----------



## Bob8964

So, if "He was caught before he had run half a mile." sounds better, if I want to change the position of "before", which following sentences is better? Can it give the same the meaning as the original one.

1. He hadn't run half a mile before/when he was caught.
2. He didn't run half a mile before he was caught.

Thanks again!


----------



## JamesM

Sentence 1 is very similar to your original sentence.  Sentence 2, to me, means that he didn't run at all.  In other words, someone has said he ran half a mile before he was caught and the speaker is contradicting this statement.


----------



## e2e4

JamesM said:


> The simple past would be: "He was caught before he r*a*n half a mile."  I run, I ran, I have run, I had run.
> 
> Yep. Thanks! As a learner I always make such mistakes.
> 
> This would need to be "after _which_", not "after what".  I would call this a run-on sentence and split it into two sentences.



<< second topic now has its own thread: after which / after what >> 			 		

In addition I agree with you that my the second sentence should be split to two simpler sentences. I just wanted to give my opinion to Bob8964 that we usually do not use the Past Perfect alone in a sentence but usually for pointing to the deep past which took place before the simple past and that the simple past can not happen before the deep past. (He *was *caught before he *had run* half a mile. ~ wrong)

Thanks


----------



## e2e4

Bob8964 said:


> 1. He hadn't run half a mile before/when he was caught.
> 2. He didn't run half a mile before he was caught.
> 
> Thanks again!



Bob8964, I think we usually do not use the Past Perfect Aspect to denote a first action which is in continuance with the second (next) action (event) but two the Simple Past forms, especially with the adverb of time "before" which connects these two actions (events). 

So

He was caught before he ran half a mile.

There was no any time passing between the two events. (running and catching)

Might be working

He couldn't run half a mile before he was caught.

Please note that I am a learner like you and don't take my opinions by way of taking opinions of teachers and natives.
But it isn't a bad idea to think about what I've said about the matter for it also helps you make the right conclusion after all.
And this helps me as well but a lot!


----------



## Bob8964

Thanks everyone!



> Two events have occurred:
> 
> 1) He ran nearly half a mile.
> 2) He was caught.
> 
> The two events both happened in the past. To show the relationship between the two we need the past perfect only once:
> 
> He was caught before he had run half a mile.
> OR
> Before he had run half a mile he was caught.


 
Now I have got another similar sentence:

_Before we had been there 3 days we had spent all our money._

Please kindly check if I can divide it into following two events:

1. We* were* there nearly 3 days.
2. We *spent* all our money.


----------



## JamesM

You could have been there more than three days, but before you had been there three days you had spent all your money.

So it would be more like:

1) We spent all our money.
2) We had been there less than three days at that point.

to me.


----------



## Katejo

Bob8964 said:


> Dear All,
> 
> Please kindly advise which following sentence is more natural:
> 
> He *was *caught before he had run half a mile
> He *had been* caught before he had run half a mile
> 
> Thank you!


 
Both of these sentences are perfectly correct but the 2nd one is a step further back in the past. To the 2nd one you could add something like

and had then been taken to the police station. The police then interviewed him and charged him...


----------



## Bob8964

Thanks for such helpful advice! 

Now I have got another sentece with "before" from a book:

_They *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal._

However, I feel past perfect should be used in stead of simple past in above sentence:

They *had* *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal.

My reasons:

1. If an act has lasted for a period, we usually use the present perfect, for example, "Up to now, they *have worked* long hours for several weeks."

2. In above sentence, there are 2 acts which both happened in the past, and the first act(they *worked* long hours) lasted for several weeks untill the happening of the second act(everything returned to normal)

Please kindly check my understanding.


----------



## Katejo

Actually both of these are correct although I can see why you have found it confusing.

_They *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal_

_In this case you are describing a completed event in the past. The people worked for a specified period of time_

They *had* *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal.

This suggests that you are going to add an additional clause to complete the sentence.

eg. 
They *had* *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal and *they then held a party to reward themselves for all the hard work.*

Katejo

<< For a more detailed discussion of this post, see: simple past and past perfect with "before" >>


----------



## Bob8964

Katejo said:


> They *had* *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal.
> 
> This suggests that you are going to add an additional clause to complete the sentence.
> 
> eg.
> They *had* *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal and *they then held a party to reward themselves for all the hard work.*
> 
> Katejo


 
Thanks again! So, can I figure out, in above sentence, "had" is also used as what you mentioned before, "a step further back in the past"?


----------



## Katejo

Yes exactly!


----------



## e2e4

I still do not understand English grammar.

"He was caught before he *had been running* half a mile"

could be the right sentence for me but not

"He was caught before he had run half a mile."

The Past Perfect Continuous Tense is used for an action which started before the other actions in the sentence and  continued for some time or had intention to continue.

The Past Perfect Tense is used for an action which *happened and finished* before other actions in the sentence.


----------



## JamesM

As you say, the continuous tense implies that the action continues.  If I heard "he was caught before he had been running half a mile" I would assume that he was allowed to continue running after he was caught.  I doubt that was the intent of the communication.


----------



## e2e4

What about 

He was caught before run of half a mile.


and the word run here isn't the simple past but what?


----------



## xqby

It's incorrect.  The sentence is nonsensical as written.


----------



## e2e4

Would you explain for me how can the Simple Past be before the Past Perfect in the sentence 

He *was caught* *before* he *had run* half a mile.

Is it an anomaly or what?


----------



## xqby

I don't think it happens before the past perfect.

1. He had run a distance of less than half a mile.
2. He was caught.

His capture happened before he did run half a mile--it prevented it--but the running began at a time prior to the catching.


----------



## JamesM

e2e4 said:


> Would you explain for me how can the Simple Past be before the Past Perfect in the sentence
> 
> He *was caught* *before* he *had run* half a mile.
> 
> Is it an anomaly or what?


 
No, I don't think it's an anomaly. It describes the relationship of two events.

Maybe a different example might make it less confusing:

1) He was arrested before he was fed.
2) He was arrested before he had been fed.


In sentence 1) he was arrested and then fed. 

In sentence 2) the action of being arrested kept him from being fed. There was an intention of feeding him but the intention was thwarted by the arrest. 

In other words, Sentence 2) is the equivalent of:

He had not yet been fed when he was arrested.


Your original sentence could be re-stated as:

He had not yet run half a mile when he was caught.

In other words, he had an intention of running away.  That intention was thwarted by the act of being caught.


----------



## Forero

Past perfect is used in relation to a particular time in the past and tells what was or was not behind us at that particular time:
_
He had not run half a mile when he was caught.
__When he was caught, h__e had not run half a mile.
__He was caught before he had run half a mile.
_
At the time he was caught, half a mile was not yet behind him.

 You can use two past perfects, for example using "when we saw him" as a particular time in the past:

_When we saw him he had been caught before he had run half a mile.

_In the above sentence, being caught was behind us at the time we saw him, but half a mile was not yet behind him.

Does that make sense?


----------



## e2e4

Forero said:


> Past perfect is used in relation to a particular time in the past and tells what was or was not behind us at that particular time:
> _
> He had not run half a mile when he was caught.tick: for me)
> __When he was caught, h__e had not run half a mile.tick: for me)
> __He was caught before he had run half a mile. (still not familiar with this one)
> _
> At the time he was caught, half a mile was not yet behind him. You haven't used hadn't been yet behind him here. I agree with this.
> 
> You can use two past perfects, for example using "when we saw him" as a particular time in the past:
> 
> _When we saw him he had been caught before he had run half a mile.tick:for me)
> 
> _ Does that make sense? Mostly but not that one with "was caught" on the left side of "before" and "had run" on the right side of "before"



Before he was caught he hadn't  run half a mile.

He was caught before he got running half a mile. (this one might be grammatically correct but might not simple enough)


----------



## JamesM

Here are a few more examples:

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cg...=HNS19090614.2.3&l=mi&e=-------10--1----0-all
Mr. Wallace, K.C., said that fortunately for the prisoner he was stopped before he had committed a graver crime than that to which he he had pleaded guilty, otherwise he would have been sent to penal servitude.

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cg...ZTR19300123.2.11&l=mi&e=-------10--1----0-all
"Well, he was stopped before he had taken anyone down this time", said Mr. Hunt, "so I will let him off lightly."


Living With Liszt
http://books.google.com/books?id=061oajYshcgC&pg=PA209&dq=%22he+was+stopped+before+he+had%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1975&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=2009&as_brr=0&ei=GxPiStezJIjokATOx_TaCw#v=onepage&q=%22he%20was%20stopped%20before%20he%20had%22&f=false
The young man started in; but he was stopped before he had played two measures.


----------



## e2e4

After fifty times of having read the sentence I will remember it forever.

One more try

He was caught before his half-a-mile running away.

Thanks anyway!


----------



## JamesM

> He was caught before his half-a-mile running away.



No, that doesn't really make sense, e2e4.


----------



## e2e4

He was caught before (his) running half a mile.
He was caught before (his) having run half a mile.

Any of these?


----------



## Forero

e2e4 said:


> He was caught before (his) running half a mile.
> He was caught before (his) having run half a mile.
> 
> Any of these?


These are good sentences without the _his_.


----------



## e2e4

This time I prefer the second one (for the first one doesn't have a clear meaning)

So

He was caught before having run half a mile. 

It means (for me)

He was caught while he was running. In the middle of the first action (running).

"Having run" is a good choice that  I prefer this sentence

He was caught before having run half a mile.

The sentence

He was caught before he had run half a mile., has a grammar conflict for me.


----------



## Bob8964

> Now I have got another sentece with "before" from a book:
> 
> _They *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal._
> 
> However, I feel past perfect should be used in stead of simple past in above sentence:
> 
> They *had* *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal.
> 
> My reasons:
> 
> 1. If an act has lasted for a period, we usually use the present perfect, for example, "Up to now, they *have worked* long hours for several weeks."
> 
> 2. In above sentence, there are 2 acts which both happened in the past, and the first act(they *worked* long hours) lasted for several weeks untill the happening of the second act(everything returned to normal)


 



Katejo said:


> Actually both of these are correct although I can see why you have found it confusing.
> 
> _They *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal_
> 
> In this case you are describing a completed event in the past. The people worked for a specified period of time
> 
> They *had* *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal.
> 
> This suggests that you are going to add an additional clause to complete the sentence.
> 
> eg.
> They *had* *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal and *they then held a party to reward themselves for all the hard work.*
> 
> Katejo


 

I want to make a further discussion about above question, and I listed some sentences from my books as below:​ 

_He had come to Europe before the *outbreak* of the war._​ 
_I had never had a ride on an elephant before I *went* to India._​ 
_I had not waited 10 minutes before he *appeared*._​ 
In each sentences, the past perfect is used in front of "before", the reason given in books is: the first acts in main clauses happened in advance of the second acts(bolded) in related "before" clauses/phrases. So,​ 
1. Regarding "_They *had* *worked* long hours *for several weeks* before everything returned to normal."_​ 
I feel there is no need to add an additional clause after this sentence, becasue the second act(everything returned to normal) has been included into it.​ 
2. Regarding "_They *worked* long hours_ _*for several weeks*_ _before everything returned to normal."_​ 
For the past simple tense(_*worked* long hours_ _*for several weeks*_)in main clause, it seems more reasonable to me to complete it by adding a sentence in *present tense* to indicate above act has lasted for a period and stopped in the past. For example, "_They *worked* long hours *for several weeks* before everything returned to normal. Their business is now running smoothly."_

Please kindly check my points. 

Thank you very much!


----------



## Ynez

> He was caught before he had run half a mile



I've been trying to find a good explanation for this, but was not successful. We just need to think that this is not a normal Past Perfect, and that is why the grammar rule that says "Past Perfect is used for a completed action before something in the past" does not apply. 

If you think of it, that description does not fit either a sentence like:

_If you *had gone* to the party, you would have had a great time._

There it is *Past Perfect Subjunctive* (I have seen that it is sometimes called Pluperfect). In my Spanish mind, I see the verb in question (had run) like the one in the sample conditional sentence (had gone). I see it that way simply because I would use a subjunctive form in both sentences in Spanish.

I hope someone else can explain it better or give examples, but it is clear that this sentence does not follow the normal description for Indicative Past Perfect. 



You also need to see that "before" is in a different position. Normal use of Past Perfect:

_Something had happened before something else happened._

In our sentence it is:

_Something happened before something else had happened._


----------



## ptetpe

Ynez said:


> In my Spanish mind, I see the verb in question (had run) like the one in the sample conditional sentence (had gone). I see it that way simply because I would use a subjunctive form in both sentences in Spanish.


You hit the nail on the head.

Unlike the until-clause, which is generally presupposed to be true,some before-clauses may be interpreted as either factual or nonfactual: 

I sent a donation before I was asked to.

This could mean someone did ask me to send a donation (factual) and I sent it,or it could mean no one really asked me to sent a donation ( nonfactual),but I sent it anyway.

A case in point:
(1) I saw him before he had seen me. 
(2) I had seen him before he had seen me.

Both (1) and (2) mean "he didn't get a chance to see me,because I evaded him.(nonfactual) The difference is that in (1) the speaker's time is "now", while in (2) the speaker's time is in the past---like telling a story.


----------



## e2e4

Friends let me say how do I see the matter now.

I recalled something I'd seen reading a novel and now checked it out in a grammar book.
There was a sentence in the novel in which the Past Perfect was used to express a fact.

Actually the Past Perfect is the past equivalent of the Present Perfect.

The Present Perfect
Mike has just gone.

The Past Perfect
Mike had gone just before I arrived.

The Present Perfect is used to express an action that has recently happened or been happening (let me say from past to present, and some result (fact) may exist at present)

The Past Perfect can be used the same way but for an action which happened in the deep past. 

Mike had gone just before I arrived.

At time of my arriving the fact was that Mike had just gone and there was no Mike there.

I now think I understand that in the sentence "He was caught before he had run half a mile." the Past Perfect Tense is used to express the way of how he was caught but my problem was (is) how an adverb of time "before" can be put in front of "had run".

Seems to me that we can then also say

I arrived just before Mike had gone.

The Past Perfect Tense is used for an action which began before the time of speaking in the past and:

1. was still continuing at that time
2. stopped long time ago or just before the second action
3. stopped by the second action.
*
But it could  be also used to express  somebody's intention before the second action happened or interrupted the first one.
* 
I arrived just before Mike had gone.
Mike had been to go, but my arriving interrupted his leaving.

The most important thing is that the Past Perfect can be stopped or even disabled at time of speaking (at time of happening of another action).

I think I am now getting to be familiar with the sentence 

He was caught before he had run half a mile.

 Please someone now mentor my thinking about the matter.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

_He arrived just before Mike had gone_ is not analogous to_ He was caught before he had run half a mile._

We couldn't easily say_ he was caught just before he had run half a mile._

We can say _he arrived before Mike had gone,_ or _before Mike left_.

_The point is, I suppose, that_ _Mike had gone_ is not describing something which happened in a moment, it describes rather a state in the past: we can say that something happened before that state was established, but, for some reason we don't seem to say that it happened just before it was.

We can, of course, say _he arrived just before Mike left._


----------



## e2e4

If I've understood you properly 

I arrived before Mike had gone. (is OK) and
I arrived just before Mike had gone. isn't OK

and

I arrived before Mike had gone., is a grammatical analogous to 
He was caught before he had run half a mile.

No place for "just" in such sentences!

Right?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

e2e4 said:


> If I've understood you properly
> 
> I arrived before Mike had gone. (is OK) and
> I arrived just before Mike had gone. isn't OK
> 
> and
> 
> I arrived before Mike had gone., is grammatically analogous to
> He was caught before he had run half a mile.
> 
> No place for "just" in such sentences!
> 
> Right?


That puts what I was trying to say very well, e2e4.


----------



## e2e4

Thank You!


----------



## Ynez

ptetpe said:


> A case in point:
> (1) I saw him before he had seen me.
> (2) I had seen him before he had seen me.
> 
> Both (1) and (2) mean "he didn't get a chance to see me,because I evaded him.(nonfactual)



I like very much your explanation showing why it is subjunctive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Ynez said:


> I like very much your explanation showing why it is subjunctive.


The problem is that it isn't a subjunctive, in my view.  We don't say_ He puts on a tie before he see me_.  I don't think _before_ takes a subjunctive in English.


----------



## e2e4

As to my knowledge the word before can be an adverb of time, preposition or conjunction.

What is the word _*before*_ in the sentence

_*He was caught before he had run half a mile.

*_After a lot of thinking my opinion is that *before* is a preposition only here in the sentence.
Also I think that _*before he had run half a mile *_is a phrasal adverb of manner in the sentence.


----------



## Ynez

Thomas Tompion said:


> The problem is that it isn't a subjunctive, in my view.  We don't say_ He puts on a tie before he see me_.  I don't think _before_ takes a subjunctive in English.



Thomas, I must first say that I am not totally sure of what I am saying here. But the idea is to help Bob understand why the past perfect is used in some sentences even when the definition does not fit.

Now, do you feel the verbs in the following sentences could be subjunctive?:

I put on a tie before he *could* see me.
I put on a tie before he *saw* me.


But I guess you cannot say:

I'll put on a tie before he *see* me.
 (that's what we'd say in Spanish)

EDIT: Thomas, I went to books.google.com and there are entries in old books with "before he see"/"before he be", but I am not prepared to analyse this...



Anyhow, the definite explanation is that most sources do not cover all the uses of Past Perfect in English.


----------



## e2e4

There was no answer that I would like to try to answer the last Ynez question (modified)

Could the verbs in the following sentences be subjunctives?:

I put on a tie before he *could* see me.
I put on a tie before he *saw* me.

Nope.

I think that the word _*see*_ in the first sentence took the Bare Infinitive form and is not subjunctive because it is used in combination with could which is a modal.

The second sentence should be written this way

I had put a tie on before he saw me.

In the sentence, the Past Perfect Tense is used to express the result that the tie was on me before he saw me.
The Simple Past is not usually used that way, I think.
The Simple Past Tense is usually used to say *when* something happened in the simple past but one of definite adverbs of time must be used with the Simple Past Tense.


----------



## JamesM

I can think of several sentences where I would use the simple past:

I ducked around the corner before he saw me.
I preheated the oven before I put the roast in.
I walked away before I said something I would regret.
I spent six years in college before I earned my degree.


I think it's quite common to use the simple past in this way.


----------



## Forero

e2e4 said:


> If I've understood you properly
> 
> I arrived before Mike had gone. (is OK) and
> I arrived just before Mike had gone. isn't OK
> 
> and
> 
> I arrived before Mike had gone., is a grammatical analogous to
> He was caught before he had run half a mile.
> 
> No place for "just" in such sentences!
> 
> Right?


Use of a perfect tense has nothing to do with how recently something happened, and _just_ does not change the implied time sequence:

1. _I arrived _(_just_) _before Mike had gone._
2. _He was caught _(_just_) _before he had run.
_
Both of these sound a little strange to me without context, but the original sentence, with or without _just_, is fine:

3. _He was caught _(_just_) _before he had run half a mile.

_Here we are dealing with a question of logic and context rather than grammar. What happened first?

In sentence 1, Mike had not gone when I arrived. The normal sentence is "I arrived before Mike went." In sentence 2, he had not run when he was caught, and we would normally say "He was caught before he ran." Seeing past perfect in sentence 1 or 2, I look for more context to anchor the perfect.

But in sentence 3, he had run less than half a mile when he was caught. In other words, he started running before he was caught, so he was not caught before he ran, but when he was caught he had less than half a mile of running behind him.

You can find "before (that)" followed by a subjunctive in many respectable old books, but nowadays we generally use only indicative and omit the _that_.


----------



## e2e4

Seems to me that between all other its usages, the Pluperfect Tense is also used in phrases for expressing either possible or even imaginary intention that could happen before the second action happened at time of speaking and by way of interrupting or disabling the intention.

I picked up the flower before some other had done it.
I got out before the bomb had exploded.


----------



## panjandrum

Sorry about this, but the topic has been niggling at me since it began and I finally got around to reading through it carefully.  It seems to me, based mostly on what's been said above, that we have four structures, indicated here without any grammatical justification for the explanation, only an explanation based on usage.

1. _X happened before Y happened._
It is likely that both X and Y happened, in that order.
It is possible that Y did not happen.

2. _X happened before Y had happened_.
X happened.
At the time X happened, Y was anticipated, but Y did not happen.

3. _X had happened before Y happened._
Similar to (1) except that X's action is in past perfect to indicate sequence of action relative to an action outside this sentence.

4. X had happened before Y had happened.
Similar to (2) except that X's action is in past perfect to indicate sequence of action relative to an action outside this sentence.

EDIT to add:
_This post contains observations and should not be considered in any way a firm statement of grammatical truth.
It is not intended to be universal in application.
Challenging examples are welcome _

_____________________________________________

This is based on the following notes from the preceding posts 

Post #1​ _He *was *caught before he had run half a mile.
He *had been* caught before he had run half a mile_.​ Both of these are correct, in isolation.​ In context, it would have to be one or the other.​ Past perfect is the only possibility for “run”.​ The second, with “had been caught”, might be required if the wider context requires this action to be set at a time before some other action and there are no other time indicators.
​ Post #6​ _He was caught before he *ran* half a mile._​ This sentence does not mean the same as those in post #1.​ Although illogical, it tells me that first he was caught, then he ran half a mile. Others may understand the sentence differently.
​ Post #10​ _1. He hadn't run half a mile before/when he was caught.
2. He didn't run half a mile before he was caught._​ (1) has more or less the same meaning as the post #1 sentences, though I prefer it with “when”.  I feel that with “before” the sentence is denying that he ran half a mile rather than telling me that he was caught while running and before he had run half a mile.​ (2) appears to be contradicting someone else who claimed that he ran half a mile before he was caught.​ <This is more or less what James said in post #11.>
​ Post #14​ _Before we had been there 3 days we had spent all our money._​ We have no idea how long you were there, though you were there for at least three days.​ You spent all your money before the end of the third day.​ <Agree with James again.>
​ Post #17​ _They *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal._
_They *had* *worked* long hours for several weeks before everything returned to normal._​ Both sentences are correct. As with the sentences in post #1, context will determine which is appropriate.​ The second, with “had worked”, more strongly suggests a causal relationship between their working and things returning to normal.



Post #27​ Thanks James J  for a very helpful explanation of the sequence of events, and hence tenses.
​ Post #28​ Thanks Forero J especially for the example of “had been caught” in context.
​ Post #37​ An interesting observation by Ynez.​ _You also need to see that "before" is in a different position. Normal use of Past Perfect:
Something had happened before something else happened._​ _In our sentence it is:
Something happened before something else had happened._​ It’s worth pointing out that past perfect is not necessary in the first  sentence because the sequence of actions is indicated by “before”.  But this post points out very nicely the difference between.​ _A happened before B happened. _
... B may or may not have happened.​ _A happened before B had happened. _
... B did not happen.
​ Post #38​ _(1) I saw him before he had seen me. 
(2) I had seen him before he had seen me._​ Another useful distinction between these two structures, indicating that context determines which is used.  (2) is used in a narrative if past perfect is required to place this action in time, like telling a story.
​ From all of these, I am left with a very important distinction that crystallised at around post #37. 
_A happened before B happened._​ B may or may not have happened.​ Context will probably be enough to tell whether it did or not.​ _A happened before B had happened._​ B did not happen.​


----------



## e2e4

panjandrum said:


> Post #10​ _1. He hadn't run half a mile before/when he was caught.
> 2. He didn't run half a mile before he was caught._​ (1) has more or less the same meaning as the post #1 sentences, though I prefer it with “when”.  I feel that with “before” the sentence is denying that he ran half a mile rather than telling me that he was caught while running and before he had run half a mile.​ (2) appears to be contradicting someone else who claimed that he ran half a mile before he was caught.​ <This is more or less what James said in post #11.>​


​ 
#1 He hadn't run half a mile before/when he was caught.
#2 He was caught before he had run half a mile.

In my opinion these two sentences are very sensible to what we want to emphasise!

With #1 we've said that he couldn't have run half a mile before he was captured. We focused on *his bad running* away.

With #2 we've focused on *excellent capturing*.

I've recalled that English grammar recognise so called "fronting".
Fronting is used to emphasise *esential* meaning of the sentence.

At length, even at first having been completely unfamiliar with the sentence (especial usage of the Past P) but thinking a lot about the matter and having heard the sentence for more than 20 times and having heard some of your opinions as well, now I think that this form can not be substituted with any other form. (I've been suggesting a lot.)

So,

_*He was caught before he had run half a mile.*_,

has its specific meaning and I, at the moment, can not recall any other substitution for this one.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm not terribly happy with a general application of Panjandrum's conclusion, because I think the context can make a difference as well as the verbs which one is using. For instance, the verbs _to_ _start_ and _to finish_ don't necessarily follow the normal patterns.

I agree that _I saw him before he had seen me_ suggests that he didn't see me, but consider

_I saw him before he had finished:_

I don't think this is emphatically suggesting that he didn't finish, and I don't even see that _I saw him before he had caught the fish_ means emphatically that he didn't catch the fish. It seems to me that once he caught the fish we enter into a time such that he had caught the fish, and I'm saying that I saw him before that time began. The meaning can be very similar to _I saw him before he caught the fish, _though here the possibility of his not having caught the fish looks to be closed, so the usage is not entirely the same.

Of course, if my action would have prevented his catching the fish, _I killed him before he had caught the fish_, then he clearly didn't catch the fish, though the sentence suggests he would have had I not intervened.

I'm not even sure that_ I killed him before he caught the fish_ is entirely out of the question. The suggestion is that he would have caught the fish had I not killed him.

I'm afraid I'm unhappy with the general statement that _A happened before B had happened_ means that B did not happen.


----------



## ptetpe

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm afraid I'm unhappy with the general statement that _A happened before B had happened_ means that B did not happen.



Would it be more appropriate to change  "B did not happen" to "matters in B unfulfilled at the time of speaking in respect of the main clause" ?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ptetpe said:


> Would it be more appropriate to change "B did not happen" to "matters in B unfulfilled at the time of speaking in respect of the main clause" ?


I was concerned with the distinction made by Panjandrum at the end of his post 52 -



panjandrum said:


> [...]I am left with a very important distinction that crystallised at around post #37.
> 
> _A happened before B happened._
> B may or may not have happened.
> Context will probably be enough to tell whether it did or not.​
> 
> _A happened before B had happened._
> B did not happen.


 As you can see, he is saying _B did not happen. _This is the inference to be drawn when those tenses are juxtaposed like that.

I'm interested in your proposed change, Ptetpe, but am just a little unclear as to what you are saying.


----------



## panjandrum

Post #52 contains observations and should not be considered in any way a firm statement of grammatical truth.
It was not intended to be universal in application.
Challenging examples are welcome


----------



## ptetpe

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm interested in your proposed change, Ptetpe, but am just a little unclear as to what you are saying.


I meant "before-clauses may imply preference, as in (1), or implausibility, as in (2):

(1) He'll beg for food before he'll ask his parents for money. ['He won't ask his parents for money'; 'He would rather beg for
food than ask his parents for money.']
(2) Pigs will fly before he'll become a mathematician. ['He'll never become a mathematician.']

Or the situation in the main clause may prevent that in the before-clause from taking place: 

Sally stopped Ted before he had a chance to reply." 

(excerpt from CGEL by Quirk et al. P.1081)

IMHO, in the absence of context,

A happened before B had happened.

is tantamount to "matters in B unfulfilled at the time of speaking in respect of the main clause", which means preference, implausibility, or prevention.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Certainly _A happened before B had happened_ means that A occurred at a time when B had not yet occurred.

The question we've been discussing in recent posts, I think, is whether that formula implies that B did not occur at all.

Let's look at your three cases, Ptepte:

Preference: example - _He'll beg for food before he'll ask his parents for money. _Notice how different the tenses are in your example. In _He begged for food before he had asked his parents for money_ I can sense no such feeling of preference.

Implausibility: example - _Pigs will fly before he'll become a mathematician. _Again, the tenses are very different.

Prevention: example - _Sally stopped Ted before he had a chance to reply_. Here the tenses are the same as in the sentences we've been considering and the example is valid - the formula suggests that Sally prevented Ted from replying; and, what's more, that sense of prevention can be achieved without a verb like _stop_, in which it is explicit - e.g. _Sally saw Ted before he had a chance to reply_ suggests that Sally's seeing Ted prevented him from having a chance to reply. For me this is a current use of the formula, and thank you for pointing it out.

But there are other cases where no such obvious causal link applies:_ I saw him before he had seen me_ does not imply that my seeing him prevented him from seeing me.


----------



## e2e4

e2e4 said:


> As to my information the word "before" can be an adverb of time, preposition or conjunction.
> 
> What is the word _*before*_ in the sentence
> 
> _*He was caught before he had run half a mile.
> *_



Would anyone at length answer the question please!


----------



## panjandrum

e2e4 said:


> e2e4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to my information the word "before" can be an adverb of time, preposition or conjunction.
> 
> What is the word _*before*_ in the sentence
> 
> _*He was caught before he had run half a mile.
> *_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would anyone at length answer the question please!
Click to expand...

I believe "before" is an adverb in this sentence; it introduces an adverbial clause "before he had run half a mile".


----------



## Ynez

Thomas Tompion said:


> _He begged for food before he had asked his parents for money_



Is this a normal sentence?


I think "before" is a conjunction in these sentences. If we check the word "before" in dictionary.com, we see these examples:

*Preposition*

_She stood before the window_

(used before a noun or pronoun)


*Adverb*

_Begin at noon, not before_

(alone)


*Conjunction*

_Send the telegram before we go_

 (linking clauses)



panjandrum, I think your explanation gives the idea, but it will not apply in all occasions (as in Thomas' example with "finish"). 

ptetpe's explanation seems to be more accurate, but also more difficult to understand.

I still could not think of a better way to explain it.


----------



## Cagey

<< A discussion of "after which / after what / afterwards" has been split off and now has its own thread: after which / after what 

Cagey, moderator. >>


----------



## Ynez

panjandrum, checking books now to reply to you in another thread, I found this:



> With _before_, the past perfect is sometimes used in a rather special way. It can refer to a later action which was not completed, or which was not done in time.
> _She went out before I'd realized what was happening_ (Or:..._before I realized_)



Michael Swan. Practical English Usage. 1980, Oxford University Press


It is under the heading for "Past Perfect". First it explains the other (normal) use.

So it is more or less what you said. And, by the way, it would be no surprise if this use disappears in the future (this is just my opinion).


----------



## JamesM

> With _before_, the past perfect is sometimes used in a rather special way.




This makes it sound like it's an uncommon occurrence, Ynez. It isn't.


Here are some examples from articles and comments on the New York Times website:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/nyregion/12pilot.html
The pilot was hired by American Eagle just days before he had been forced to quit by another airline because of poor performance, but American Eagle did not know that.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/28/nyregion/mayor-moves-to-combine-police-units.html
But aides to Mr. Taylor, speaking on condition they not be named, said he was being pressed into retirement months before he had planned to leave. 

http://community.nytimes.com/commen...yregion/04hostage.html?sort=editors-selection
He knew me well enough to know that I'd shoot him before he had a chance to hurt me. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/30/w...g-focus-to-relations-among-the-republics.html
The Russian republic's President, they said, learned of the policy move before he had been fully briefed and assured that the United States was prepared to wait for his government to recognize an independent Ukraine before Washington followed suit.

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30kristof.html
Dad had to retire on disability before he had reached age 60. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/18/us/a-scam-investigator-tries-his-own-hand.html
He was not charged because his scheme was uncovered before he had actually mailed any letters.


----------



## Ynez

JamesM, this is the problem with quoting...that comment saying "a rather special way" is in relation to the other previous description and examples, which deal with the "normal" Past Perfect.

But your examples might show that my personal opinion could be totally wrong and it is not about to disappear.


----------



## Forero

I have been thinking off and on about this type of sentence and have come to the conclusion that the construction is not really special at all.

The past perfect and past simple are not acting as different tenses in the sentences in question but as one tense, past, in different aspects.

Some kinds of subordinate clauses allow different tenses:

_I said that he runs._ 
_He says that I ran. _

But in a _before_ clause the leading verb will, with few exceptions, have the same tense (past or present) as the leading verb in the main clause:

_x happens before y happens._ 
_x happened before y happened. _
_x happens before y happened._ 
_x happened before y happens. _

The few exceptions are the notoriously tense-ambiguous modal auxiliaries:

_x could happen before y happens._ *OK*
_x happens before y could ever happen._ *OK*

_Could_ here means something more like "would be able to", present conditional, rather than "was able to", past tense.

When auxiliary verbs are used, it is the first one that provides the tense for the clause:

_He will be caught before he has run half a mile._ [_Will_ and _has_ are present tense forms.]
_He would be caught before he had run half a mile._ [_Would_ and _had_ are past tense forms.]
_He is caught before he has run half a mile._ [_Is_ and _has_ are present tense forms.]
_He was caught before he had run half a mile._ [_Was_ and _had_ are past tense forms.]

"Before he ran half a mile" might mean practically the same thing as "before he had run half a mile", but it might mean before he even started to run half a mile. "Before he had run" means before he had half a mile of running behind him.

Just as "I was eighteen before I had a car" means that I did not have a car before I was eighteen, "He was caught before he had run half a mile" means that he had not run half a mile before he was caught.

I suspect it is this relationship with negatives that gives the _before_ clause a "subjunctive" feel, and that this type of sentence is why the Latin pluperfect came to mean the same as past subjunctive in Spanish, but to me there is nothing special about the perfect aspect in a _before_ clause in English.


----------



## Ynez

Forero, this is the normal definition of Indicative Past Perfect:



> *The Past Perfect expresses the idea that something occurred before another action in the past. It can also show that something happened before a specific time in the past.*



http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html


That definition does not apply in the example on this thread.


----------



## Forero

Hi, Ynez.

That description is not a complete definition of past perfect. Consider the sentence (from the same webpage as that description):

_She had never seen a bear before she moved to Alaska._

It does not say something happened or occurred but that seeing a bear was not something in her experience.

_Had seen_ means the same thing in this sentence:

_She moved to Alaska before she had ever seen a bear._
(= She moved to Alaska before seeing a bear was something in her experience.)

In both sentences, her moving to Alaska precedes her ever having seen a bear. The time order of things and the verb forms are the same in both sentences.

Both sentences refer to the time before she moved to Alaska and say nothing about the present. In particular, neither sentence says whether she has or has not ever seen a bear.

I disagree with "Englishpage" that past perfect is required in such sentences. To me, past perfect is less ambiguous here but past simple is not wrong:

_She never saw a bear before she moved to Alaska._
_She moved to Alaska before she ever saw a bear._


----------



## Ynez

She had never seen a bear before she moved to Alaska = normal past perfect

The Past Perfect expresses the idea that something occurred before another action in the past. It can also show that something happened before a specific time in the past.

In this case, the something occurring before is in particular "her all life never seeing a bear". That was the past.

Then, after that past, something in particular happened: she moved to Alaska (another action in the past).


I don't know what else to say.


----------



## Forero

Do you see that the past perfect has the same meaning in both of the following sentences?

_She had never seen a bear before she moved to Alaska._
_She moved to Alaska before she had ever seen a bear._


----------



## JamesM

Forero said:


> Do you see that the past perfect has the same meaning in both of the following sentences?
> 
> _She had never seen a bear before she moved to Alaska._
> _She moved to Alaska before she had ever seen a bear._


 
To me these have very different implied messages. The first one implies that she saw a bear for the first time after moving to Alaska. The second implies, to me, that there were bears to be seen where she was and she never saw one of them before she moved to Alaska. It is ambiguous, in my opinion. I can also read it with the same meaning as the first but I think it's open to a very different interpretation.

For example:

"Growing up in Montana, she had always thought she would see plenty of bears because of the large bear population there, but she moved to Alaska before she had ever seen a bear."


----------



## wonderwhy

JamesM said:


> To me these have very different implied messages. The first one implies that she saw a bear for the first time after moving to Alaska. The second implies, to me, that there were bears to be seen where she was and she never saw one of them before she moved to Alaska. It is ambiguous, in my opinion. I can also read it with the same meaning as the first but I think it's open to a very different interpretation.
> 
> For example:
> 
> "Growing up in Montana, she had always thought she would see plenty of bears because of the large bear population there, but she moved to Alaska before she had ever seen a bear."



She had never seen a bear before she moved to Alaska.
She moved to Alaska before she had ever seen a bear.

I don't understand, James, why or how we can draw that particular implication that bears existed in the place described by the second example and we can't draw such an implication from the first. It seems like an implication too far.

EDIT: Rethinking, maybe implications are never too far. I guess that it's what people discern that makes something an implication.


----------



## JamesM

Using another example might make my assumption a little more obvious:

She had always wanted to tell Steve how she felt about him, but she moved to Alaska before she had ever found the nerve.


To me this means that Steve is (most likely) someone where she used to live and that she failed to speak to him before she left. I suppose it could be read the other way as well, which is what makes it ambiguous in my eyes.

[edit]

Looking at it a little more, I wonder if I'm transposing this in my mind. I think what I'm reading (in my mind) is:

She had always wanted to tell Steve how she felt about him, but she *had *moved to Alaska before she had ever found the nerve.


----------



## Forero

Ynez said:


> She had never seen a bear before she moved to Alaska = normal past perfect
> 
> The Past Perfect expresses the idea that something occurred before another action in the past. It can also show that something happened before a specific time in the past.
> 
> In this case, the something occurring before is in particular "her all life never seeing a bear". That was the past.
> 
> Then, after that past, something in particular happened: she moved to Alaska (another action in the past).
> 
> 
> I don't know what else to say.


Hi, Ynez.

To me, this sentence ...

A.  _She had never seen a bear before she moved to Alaska.
_
... is a negation of this sentence ...

B. _She had seen a bear before she moved to Alaska.
_
I would not say that her having never seen a bear in sentence A was something occurring before. Instead I would say that her having seen a bear was unreal before, whereas in sentence B, her having seen a bear is a reality. It is as a negation of B that I meant to use A to explain C:

C. _She moved to Alaska before she had seen a bear._

To me, "_y_ before _x_" opposes "_x_ before _y_" (they can never both be true), so sentence C, like sentence A, directly contradicts sentence B.

The relationship between _before_ and sentence negation is the same with or without a perfect tense:

A2.  _She was not familiar with bears before she moved to Alaska.
_B2. _She was familiar with bears before she moved to Alaska.
_C2. _She moved to Alaska before she was familiar with bears.

_A3. _You cannot have a car before you are eighteen.
_B3. _You can have a car before you are eighteen.
_C3. _You will be eighteen before you can have a car.
_
To me, your being able/allowed to have a car has the same meaning in C3 as in A3, her being familiar with bears has the same meaning in C2 as in A2, and her having seen a bear has the same meaning in C as in A.

Something else clouding the issue is the inconsistent way we use time information with perfect tenses:

D. _I have been to Europe before._ ["Before" refers to the past, when I went to Europe.]
E. _Now I have been to Europe._ ["Now" refers to the present, when I have already been to Europe.]

Thus a time clause like "when I have been to Europe" sometimes refers to the time(s) I went to Europe (before) and sometimes refers to when I already have the experience (now). In sentences A and C, we are talking about whether and when she already had a particular experience, as in E, not as in D.

In sentences A2 and C2, we are not talking about whether and when she became familiar with bears but about whether and when she was already familiar with them. Similarly, in sentences A and C, we are not talking about whether and when she saw a bear but about whether and when she already had bear-seeing experience.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> Thus a time clause like "when I have been to Europe" sometimes refers to the time(s) I went to Europe (before) and sometimes refers to when I already have the experience (now). [...]


 In BE it usually refers to a time in the future when my visit to Europe will be in the past, an idea for the clarification of which many languages use the future perfect.

_When I have been to Europe,_ i.e. at the end of next year, because I'm planning a visit from May to September next year.

In these circumstances, _before I have been to Europe_ would refer to a moment in the future between now and May next year.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> In BE it usually refers to a time in the future when my visit to Europe will be in the past, an idea for the clarification of which many languages use the future perfect.
> 
> _When I have been to Europe,_ i.e. at the end of next year, because I'm planning a visit from May to September next year.
> 
> This interpretation of _have been to Europe _is as in sentence E, i.e. "have the experience/history of a round trip to Europe".
> 
> In these circumstances, _before I have been to Europe_ would refer to a moment in the future between now and May next year.
> 
> I would expect _have been to Europe _to mean the same thing here (have the experience/history of a round trip to Europe), but you seem to be taking it to mean something more like "have been in Europe".


Perhaps "I have been to Europe" is a poor example, because I am not sure it can be called "true" or "false" during the time I am in Europe for the first time.

But _before he has run half a mile_ means "before he has the experience/history of running half a mile". "He has run half a mile" is false before he completes a run of half a mile:

_He gets caught before he has run half a mile._ = He gets caught before he completes a half-mile run.
_He will be caught before he has run half a mile._ = He will be caught before he completes a half-mile run.

When he gets caught, he may have run, but he has not run half a mile yet. And the same thing works in past tense: _Before he had run half a mile_ means before he had the experience/history of running half a mile:

_He was caught before he had run half a mile._ = He was caught before he completed a half-mile run. 

My point is that the meaning of the sentence does not depend on a special meaning of the past perfect or of the conjunction _before_ when the two are used together. The meaning of the combination follows from the ordinary meanings of both.


----------

