# FR: he had thought she was putting it in the suitcase



## wster

Jean and Marie went to Italy but Jean had not put his dictionary in the suitcase because he had thought Marie was putting her dictionary in the suitcase (at the same moment that Jean was not putting his in!).  

Jean et Marrie sont allées en Italie mais Jean n'avait pas mis sa dictionnaire dans la valise parce que il avait pensé que Marie *mettait/avait mis??* sa dictionnaire dans la valise.

I'm trying to understand the sequence of tenses for a principal in the plus que parfait.  Perhaps it is not a fair question because I may not even understand it in English!  But anway, you get the idea.  At some point in the past, Jean and Marie go to Italy.  At some point prior to that, three things happen at the same time: Jean does not pack (1) his dictionary, Jean thinks (2) that Marie is packing (3) her dictionary.

Usually, we are told that if the verb is passé, then one uses the imparfait to mark simultaneity in the subordinate.  But what if the verb is plus que parfait?  Does that still hold true?

Thanks and good luck!


----------



## Misanthrope

"Jean et Marie sont *allés* (masculine plural) en Italie mais Jean n'avait pas pris *son* (masculine) dictionnaire avec lui car il *avait cru* que Marie avait pris *le* sien".
It sounds better like this to me.

Hope it helped!


----------



## wster

Misanthrope said:


> "Jean et Marie sont *allés* (masculine plural) en Italie mais Jean n'avait pas pris *son* (masculine) dictionnaire avec lui car il *avait cru* que Marie avait pris *le* sien".
> It sounds better like this to me.
> 
> Hope it helped!



Well, yes and no.  Thanks for the corrections.  But you are changing the meaning at the end by putting Marie's action even further in the past by changing the verb from mettre to prendre.  I am asking a specific question about an event in the final subordinate clause that is *simultaneous* with the event in the principle clause that governs it.  Jean's belief is happening at *the exact same time *as Marie's putting her dictionary in the suitcase.  Normally, such *simultaneity* is expressed with the *imparfait *when the principle is in the passé.  *My question is about what happens when we replace the passé with the plus que parfait.*


----------



## Misanthrope

Oh ok, sorry.
Then it should be "Jean et Marie sont allés en Italie mais Jean *n'a pas* mis le dictionnaire dans la valise parce qu'il *pensait* que Marie le *mettait* dans la valise".

However, this doesn't sound "native": may I suggest you to say "parce qu'il pensait que Marie *l'y mettait*"?


----------



## wster

My question is about the plus que parfait.  You can cook up another example if you don't like mine.  I want a principal verb in the *plus que parfait* and a *simultaneous* action in the subordinate.


----------



## Misanthrope

The problem is that the plus-que-parfait is used for anteriority purpose, not simultaneous. Another problem is that "il avait pensé qu'elle avait mis le dictionnaire..." implies she actually *didn't *(so it can't be simultaneous).
Keeping your example:

"Jean et Marie *étaient** allés* en Italie mais Jean *n'avait *pas* mis *le dictionnaire dans la valise car il *avait* *pensé* que Marie l'y *mettait*."

It implies the main text is in the past and that you are referring to the past. Here, Jean's belief happens at the same moment as Marie _supposedely_ putting the dictionnary in the suitcase.


----------



## wster

Misanthrope said:


> The problem is that the plus-que-parfait is used for anteriority purpose, not simultaneous.


The subordinate clause is simultaneous with the action in the plus-que-parfait.  This is possible in every language including French.  


Misanthrope said:


> Another problem is that "il avait pensé qu'elle avait mis le dictionnaire..." implies she actually *didn't *(so it can't be simultaneous).


Depends on the context.  I haven't specified.  And it doesn't matter.


Misanthrope said:


> Keeping your example:
> 
> "Jean et Marie *étaient** allés* ...



You don't need to rewrite the first part.  I put it in the passé composé in order to make clear the need for the plus-que-parfait.



Misanthrope said:


> en Italie mais Jean *n'avait *pas* mis *le dictionnaire dans la valise car il *avait* *pensé* que Marie l'y *mettait*."
> 
> It implies the main text is in the past and that you are referring to the past. Here, Jean's belief happens at the same moment as Marie _supposedely_ putting the dictionnary in the suitcase.



OK, so you have finally taken a position on the question asked.  If you go back to #1, you will see that I wrote:

"Usually, we are told that if the verb is passé, then one uses the  imparfait to mark simultaneity in the subordinate.  But what if the verb  is plus que parfait?  Does that still hold true?"

That was my original question.  It wasn't a question about what sounds better.  Nor was it an invitation to re-imagine the facts of the example.

Your position is that the subordinate always takes the imparfait to mark simultaneity even if the principal is in the plus-que-parfait.  I think that is correct, but I wanted confirmation.   Hopefully some of the regulars will show up and confirm it also.

Can anybody else weigh in?


----------



## Nem'o

If I may, I will use another example because it is true that the one you chose was not the most simple one given the fact that there are many different tenses. 

So if I understood well, your question was: can it be possible to use the imparfait to mark simultaneity when the verb of the principle is plus que parfait (and not passé, as it normally is with an imparfait in the subordinate)?

Ex. Quand Jean *rentra*, Marie *était* au téléphone.
- Quand Jean *était rentré, *Marie *était* au téléphone.

It seems to me that it sounds weird in French because, normally, in this situation, we will simply do it the other way around:
Marie était au téléphone quand Jean était rentré. 

I found another example which is :
_*L'homme *__*parlait*__* quand Jean *__*s'était levé*__*.
quand Jean *__*s'était levé*__*, l'homme *__*parlait*__*.*_ 

Actually, it is not really usual to use the plus que parfait in this context, that's why I think it sounds weird to most French people.
Besides, I think we would tend to say something like "Quand jean était rentré, Marie était en train de téléphoner" instead.
But I think everything is grammatically correct though.  
Yet, I think it is not so quite a "simultaneity" that we've got here, but a slight "anteriority" because in each of my example, the actions had started before Jean arrived or stood up.

Hope it is clearer...

But I think it would be good to have the opinion of someone else too.


----------



## Maître Capello

wster said:


> But you are changing the meaning at the end by putting Marie's action even further in the past by changing the verb from mettre to prendre.


No, changing _mettre_ to _prendre_ doesn't change anything as far as the meaning is concerned: both verbs indicate the packing of the dictionary.

Anyway, since both the thinking and the packing take place before the main time frame in the past (their going to Italy), they should be  both in the pluperfect to mark the anteriority:

_Jean n'*avait* pas *mis* son dictionnaire dans sa valise parce qu'il *avait cru* que Marie l'*avait fait* pour lui._


----------



## wster

Maître Capello said:


> No, changing _mettre_ to _prendre_ doesn't change anything as far as the meaning is concerned: both verbs indicate the packing of the dictionary.
> 
> Anyway, since both the thinking and the packing take place before the main time frame in the past (their going to Italy), they should be  both in the pluperfect to mark the anteriority:
> 
> _Jean n'*avait* pas *mis* son dictionnaire dans sa valise parce qu'il *avait cru* que Marie l'*avait fait* pour lui._



Well, this thread keeps getting dragged into re-imagining the events.  I guess I should have come up with something even better.  The problem with using _faire_ here is that this is exactly what one would say if Jean thought that Marie had packed the dictionary even earlier.  I was trying both in the example and in my several clarifications of the example, to make clear that Marie's (possibly-non) action was simultaneous with Jean's believing, perhaps he had his back to her when they were packing the suitcase.  

As Nem'o points out, "en train de" will often make an appearance.  English I believe is somewhat similar.  

But so far, we seem to have 2-1.  Misanthrope and Nem'o seem to believe the rule is that the imparfait marks simultaneity.  Maître Capello, assuming he is not just rearranging the facts, seems to believe that the rule is that the the plus-que-parfait is needed to mark simultaneity when the principal in in the plus-que-parfait.

So let's see if we can squeeze a bit more with a different example.  
_
Marie was not at the station at 5pm, but at 4pm she had called and had said that her train *was* on time._

How do we translate that into French?

English seems to require _*was*_.  It doesn't seem to allow _*had been*_ as that would tell us about an even earlier time, say when it left the original station at 3pm.


----------



## Maître Capello

wster said:


> Well, this thread keeps getting dragged into re-imagining the events.  I guess I should have come up with something even better.  The problem with using _faire_ here is that this is exactly what one would say if Jean thought that Marie had packed the dictionary even earlier.


Using _faire_ or any other verb doesn't change the meaning nor the sequence of events. You're indeed missing an important point here: when using "nested" clauses in the pluperfect as in your example, you can't tell to what time of frame the anteriority refers to. In other words, _parce qu'il *avait cru* que Marie l'*avait fait* pour lui_ is ambiguous: _avait fait_ can refer to an event that is either simultaneous with _avait cru_ or anterior.



> _Marie was not at the station at 5pm, but at 4pm she had called and had said that her train *was* on time._


This is a different kind of example because it is a reported speech whose direct speech equivalent is indeed in the present…

_Marie n'était pas à la gare à 5 heures, mais elle avait appelé à 4 heures et elle avait dit que son train *était* à l'heure._

Indirect speech: _Marie avait dit que son train *était* à l'heure._
Direct speech: _Marie avait dit : « Mon train *est* à l'heure. »_


----------



## Nem'o

My translation:

Marie était à la gare à 17h, mais à 16h, elle avait appelé et avait dit que son train était à l'heure.

Therefore, it is the same as in English I guess.

Well... actually it really depends on the context... Because "elle avait appelé et avait dit que son train avait été à l'heure" works too, but doesn't mean the same thing.

Translation 1 (with "était à l'heure") can mean that she has called to say that she was at the station and she had seen on a board somewhere that the train was not delayed, and therefore she called to say it would arrive on time. 
Translation 2 (with "avait été à l'heure") can mean that she took her train and only after she got on the train, called to say something like "I am on the train, it was on time".

Do you see what I mean?


----------



## wster

Indirect speech is just a special case of the sequence of tenses.  

And I don't see what is different about it.  Croire and dire should come out the same.

But OK, how about:

Marie was not at the station at 5pm, but at 4pm Jean had believed that her train *was* on time.

Again, English seems to require *was.*


----------



## wster

Nem'o said:


> My translation:
> 
> Marie était à la gare à 17h, mais à 16h, elle avait appelé et avait dit que son train était à l'heure.
> 
> Therefore, it is the same as in English I guess.
> 
> Well... actually it really depends on the context... Because "elle avait appelé et avait dit que son train avait été à l'heure" works too, but doesn't mean the same thing.
> 
> Translation 1 (with "était à l'heure") can mean that she has called to say that she was at the station and she had seen on a board somewhere that the train was not delayed, and therefore she called to say it would arrive on time.
> Translation 2 (with "avait été à l'heure") can mean that she took her train and only after she got on the train, called to say something like "I am on the train, it was on time".
> 
> Do you see what I mean?



Yes, I understand.  And I think it is much as in English.  But I was imagining that Marie was speaking about the train's status while it was en route, perhaps she was looking at the other stations and checking the train's progress with the schedule for all the stops, maybe even using a GPS.  In other words, in English, "on time" can refer to when it left the station, but is more typically a statment about the progress of the train, it's leaving the original station on time and it's remaining on time throughout the trip.


----------



## Nem'o

Ok then... Well, I think French and English work more or less the same then.

As for the last sentence: Marie n'était pas à la gare à 17h, mais à 16h Jean avait cru que son train était à l'heure.


----------



## wster

Thanks Nem'o for the help.  But be warned.  Tomorrow, I think I will have a related question about the conditionnel passé.


----------

