# FR: passé simple + plus-que-parfait / passé antérieur



## csx17

Can you set up an example of the passé antérieur. Is it used?

*Moderator note: *multiple threads merged to create this one.


----------



## Callysto

It is really hardly used... I can't even think of a example right now..

Edit : found an example
"Dès qu'elle eut vérifié la grammaire, elle donna un exemple." (as soon as she had checked on the grammar, she gave an example... )
Passé antérieur is for the action before the action written in simple past.


----------



## arundhati

Dès que j'eus fini ma soupe, je partis me coucher ;-)
"eus fini" est au passé antérieur.


----------



## csx17

Thank you very much for the explanation.
I think le Passé Anterieur corresponds to this:

I had visited Miami before I visited New York.
The action that happened in first place must be used in the Passé Anterieur?


----------



## alex19

is it ever spoken? i thought it was only used in writing?


----------



## Daremo

It is indeed most of the time used in writing, you can speak using this tense but you will be said to be snobbish.


----------



## Donaldos

That's right. Almost never used in speech.


----------



## geostan

The _passé antérieur_ is the equivalent of the _plus-que-parfait_ when the main verb is in the _passé simple_. As such, it is usually literary in nature, although some politicians might use it in a highly formal speech.

Cheers!


----------



## janpol

Si le passé simple n'est pas utilisé à l'oral et si le passé antérieur n'apparaît qu'en corellation avec ce temps, il est logique qu'il ne soit guère utlisé qu'à l'écrit. Ceci dit, il n'est pas plus difficile à utiliser qu'un autre temps et l' on peut voir une belle rigueur logique dans l'utilisation, dans une phrase, d'un temps simple et, exprimant l'antériorité, dans celle du temps composé correspondant.


----------



## Fred_C

Oui, mais le passé antérieur peut aussi être utilisé en corélation avec le passé composé :
"Dès qu'elle eut vérifié la grammaire, elle a donné un exemple".
Dans le langage moderne, on dira : 
"Dès qu'elle a vérifié la grammaire, elle a donné un exemple", ce qui n'est pas vraiment juste au niveau de la concordance des temps.
Pour rétablir la concordance des temps, on pourra dire :
"Dès qu'elle a eu vérifié la grammaire, elle a donné un exemple", ce qui est juste au niveau de la concordance des temps, mais utilise un barbarisme morphologique : l'usage du passé "surcomposé", qui utilise l'auxiliaire "avoir" au passé composé.


----------



## xaipete

If the bulk of the narrative is in the passé simple, do I use the plus-que-parfait or the passé antérieur to express earlier events? 
I am translating an autobiography, using the passé simple.  There are many passages like "I had never seen anything like it", "I had forgotten what my grandfather said", and the like.  I've been cheerfully putting these in the passé antérieur ("j'eus oublié la parole de mon grand-père").  But now I'm reading something that says the passé antérieur is used only in clauses introduced by "après que", "aussitôt que", and a few others.  The same text seems to contradict itself in saying "the passé antérieur is used with the passé simple as the plus-que-parfait is used with the passé composé."   
Do I use passé antérieur with that handful of time-related conjunctions, and plus-que-parfait otherwise?


----------



## tilt

_Passé antérieur _sounds very literary to me, and I'd try to avoid it.
Moreover, it is probably true that it should show only in some kinds of clauses. I can't remember I ever learnt such a rule, but it makes sense to me.

In my opinion, you can use _plus que parfait _with _passé simple _just like with _passé composé_: _Il partit car il avait fini._


----------



## geostan

xaipete said:


> Do I use passé antérieur with that handful of time-related conjunctions, and plus-que-parfait otherwise?


Yes.


----------



## nayyan

"I had never seen anything like it", 
= je n'avais jamais rien vu de tel.
"I had forgotten what my grandfather said"
= j'avais oublié ce que mon grand-père (me) disait.

DO NOT use "j'eus oublié la parole mon grand-père" !!

*Le passé antérieur* exprime un fait *passé,* par rapport à une autre exprimée au passé simple. Peu importe le temps écoulé entre les deux faits, mais souvent ils se succèdent :
- Dès que la sirène *eut sonné*, les ouvriers quittèrent l'usine. (L'action de la sirène est antérieure à l'action des ouvriers qui s'en vont).

But I am really doubtful that a book entirely written in the French "Passé antérieur" would attract many french readers !


----------



## mrs.dengler

Hi
I'm writing a short story in French, and most of it is in the passé simple. But there's a long passage (about a page or so) that talks about what happened to the main character before we meet him- about where he grew up etc. Should I use the passé antérieur? It's things like he had grown up here, he had gone to school, then he had left home etc.


----------



## La Canadienne-française

Bonjour!

Pour ma part, j'utiliserais le plus-que-parfait. 
Par exemple:

Il en *vint *à se remémorer son passé. Il *avait été *un brillant journaliste et *avait connu* un certain succès jusqu'à ce fameux entretien...


----------



## janpol

L'emploi du PA en relation avec le PS est envisageable aussi :
Après qu'il eut été durant des années un brillant journaliste et qu'il eut connu un certain succès, il eut, un jour, un entretien...


----------



## mrs.dengler

ah merci...mais je ne comprends pas exactement...le plus-que-parfait exprime le meme chose que le passé antérieur, sauf que le passé antérieur s'emploie dans les contextes littéraires ou historiques, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## janpol

Ils expriment l'antériorité, le passé antérieur en rapport avec le passé simple (quand il eut fini...., il partit), le PQP en rapport avec l'imparfait (il portait un pull-over que sa mère avait tricoté)


----------



## anastasialapersonne

This sentence is taken from a narrative in the passé simple. I want to indicate that this had been going on before. Should I use the passé antérieur?

"The spouses fought frequently, and when my aunt couldn't tolerate him anymore, she banished him from the house."

*-->* "Les maris eurent se disputé fréquemment, et quand ma tante n’eut le supporté pas plus, elle eut le banni de la maison."


----------



## jann

Without context, it is very difficult to understand why you would want to use the _passé antérieur_ in this sentence when a combination of _imparfait _and _passé simple_ covers all your needs.    The _passé antérieur_ is rather literary and we don't need it very often. 

If you really wanted to, you use the _passé antérieur_ for the verb _bannir_, because the banishing was a one-time event.  But habits (arguing) and states of mind (not tolerating) are expressed in the _imparfait_, even if they happened before other past events.

[…]

PS. The passé antérieur is no different from any other compound tense when it comes to pronoun placement and choice of the auxiliary!   Ils eurent se disputé  --> Ils se furent disputés // Elle eut le banni  --> elle l'eut banni


----------



## beaujohn

I can't find a thread on Wordreference.com explaining the difference between the plus-que-parfait and the passé anterieure.
Could someone explain it to me, or direct me to a thread?
Thanks!
~ beau


----------



## Ellea1

Hi,

Plus-que-parfait = The past perfect tense refers to something completed futher back in the past than some other past action. Examples : J'avais parlé, j'étais allé. (auxiliary verbs 'être' or 'avoir' in the imperfect) + past participle

Passé antérieur = Ditto, only it is conjugated differently, and it is only for reading. Examples j'eus fini, je fus parti. Auxiliary verbs 'être' or 'avoir' in the simple past (passé simple) + past participle.


----------



## Wordylady

I think they both do the same thing, in that they both express an action that happened before a more recent action in the past. 

But the plus-que-parfait is used in everyday language and the passé anterieure is just used in written texts, in literature.

Plus-que-parfait is constructed with the auxiliary verb (avoir or etre) in the imperfect + the past participle 
*J'avais fini*

Passé anterieure is constructed with the auxiliary verb (avoir or etre) in the simple past (passé simple) + the past participle 
*J'eus fini*

Someone more knowledgable on these things can probably give you a better definition than that though.


----------



## Keith Bradford

You want a short answer? Forget the passé antérieur and stick to the plus-que-parfait.

For the long answer, here's what my grammar book says:

(i) The pluperfect is used in French as in English, e.g.:
_- Je croyais qu'il avait terminé son travail_
- I thought that he had finished his work.

(ii) The past anterior... is practically unknown in conversation. It is a literary form used principally:
(a) with temporal conjunctions, such as _quand, lorsque, dès que_... to indicate that one thing happened immediately after something else had happened, e.g.:
_- Dès qu'ils eurent mis le nez dehors, l'orage éclata_
- The storm burst the instant they put their noses outside.
(b) Occasionally in a main clause ... to express the speed with which something happened, e.g.:
_- Ils eurent rejoint la chasse en un instant_ (Mérimée)
- In a moment they had caught up with the hunt.


----------



## Wordylady

Found this explanation which might help too:

The French past anterior (passé antérieur) is the literary equivalent of the past perfect (plus-que-parfait). It is used in literature and historical accounts to indicate an action in the past that occurred before another action in the past. Because it is a literary tense, you don't need to practise conjugating it, but it is important for you to be able to recognise it.


----------



## soul2soul

In the following sentence

_ Quand il eut diné, il fit une partie de cartes. Il était arrivé à 17 h et avait pris l'apéritif en attendant_, 

why is PQP used in the 2nd sentence? Is it ok to replace the PQP with PA? 

ex - Il fut arrivé à 17 h et eut pris l'apéritif en attendant. 

Thank you.


----------



## Maître Capello

To describe *circumstances* in the past, the imparfait is used, not the passé composé or the passé simple. Likewise, to describe circumstances in an *earlier past*, the plus-que-parfait is used instead of the passé antérieur.


----------



## soul2soul

Ah! Finally I have the answer to my question! Thank you! 
So is it safe (& correct) to say that the PA is used "in combination" with the PS, usually with expectations like, "lorsque", "quand" etc, else PQP is used to describe isolated, independant circumstances in the past?


----------



## Maître Capello

That's about it, but I'd rather put it this way:

The passé antérieur is literary and is used almost exclusively in correlation with the passé simple, typically after _quand, lorsque_, etc., while the plus-que-parfait is common and is typically used in correlation with the passé composé or passé simple. Anyway, the plus-que-parfait and imparfait are usually used in a different clause within the same sentence like the passé antérieur, but it is also possible to have them in a separate sentence.

_Quand il *eut fini* _[passé antérieur]_ de préparer le poulet, il le *mit* _[passé simple]_ au four._
_Il *avait acheté* _[plus-que-parfait]_ un poulet au marché et *était* _[imparfait]_ en train de le préparer quand le téléphone *sonna* _[passé simple]_._


----------



## Fred_C

soul2soul said:


> In the following sentence
> <<Quand il eut diné, il fit une partie de cartes. Il était arrivé à 17 h et avait pris l'apéritif en attendant>>,
> why is PQP used in the 2nd sentence?


According to Keith’s explanations, because there is no conjunction (neither quand, nor dès que, nor après que)



> Is it ok to replace the PQP with PA?


According to Keith’s explanations, no.


----------



## Donkeydude40

Bonjour à tous!

Je faisais un exercice dans lequel il faut conjuguer les verbes d'un petit texte, c'est une histoire dans le passé qui commence "Nous nous mîmes en route" donc je sais qu'il faut utiliser le passé simple, pas de souci là.  Cependant, quand j'ai corrigé l'exercice, où j'avais mis "se fut écroulée" selon mon livre la réponse est "s'était écroulée".  ma question, c'est est-ce que les deux sont possibles, ou s'agit-il d'une règle que je ne connais pas?  Je vous donne le contexte de mon exemple:

"Nous nous mîmes en route. Lorsque nous arrivâmes devant l'église abandonnée, le jour tombait.  La toiture S'ÉTAIT/SE FUT ÉCROULÉE il y a des années déjà et un énorme sycomore AVAIT POUSSÉ à l'ancien emplacement de l'école.

En fait je vois qu'il y a deux exemples du choix entre passé antérieur/plus-que-parfait.

Merci en avance pour avoir pris le temps de m'aider!


----------



## geostan

J'aurais mis le plus-que-parfait. Je réserve le passé antérieur  pour les subordonnées temporelles (quand, dès que après que..., etc.) ou les principales avec des mots comme _à peine, bientôt, vite_.


----------



## Maître Capello

Le passé antérieur ne s'emploie guère qu'en corrélation directe avec le passé simple, donc dans la même phrase. Or dans votre phrase, il n'y a aucun passé simple. Le corrigé de votre exercice est donc correct : il faut le plus-que-parfait dans ce cas.

_La toiture s'*était écroulée*… et un énorme sycomore *avait poussé*…_


----------



## MmefrancaisRES

I'm trying to use the literary old style writing involving the passé anterieur, passé simple, etc. 
The context of the phrases in total is "the wind that had howled during the day, that had made the waves crash on the rocky beach, has settled ..."

I feel like it should be " Le vent qui eut hurlé dans la journée, qui eut fait les vagues se briser à la plage rocheuse, s'apaisa..." 
but I was wondering if I have structured the verbs in the correct tenses and placements around "les vagues"?

Merci en avance


----------



## Maître Capello

I'm afraid the passé antérieur is inappropriate in your context, even in a literary style. You *must* use the plus-que-parfait instead. By the way, your use of the present perfect "has settled" is unexpected. Did you intend to use the simple past "settled" or the pluperfect "ha*d* settled"? What is the time frame of that event? Does it refer to the present or to a past event?

_Le vent qui *avait hurlé* pendant la journée, qui *avait fait* se briser les vagues sur la plage rocheuse, s'apaisa/s'était appaisé_.

[…]


----------



## MmefrancaisRES

Thank you!!! Yes, I believe the pluperfect "had settled" makes more sense. ( I am describing my last recollection of this island therefore i would assume it would be all in the past.)
Also, I am confused with the PQP vs. passé antérieur, I thought when several actions occur in the past, the most recent uses Passé simple, and the ones that happened before this would be passé antérieur. (ex. the wind was howling, and crashing the waves BEFORE it "died down"?)


----------



## Maître Capello

Even in English you don't need to indicate the sequence of events by different tenses:

_The wind that *had howled* during the day, that *had made* the waves crash on the rocky beach, *had settled*._​
The same is true in French:

_Le vent qui *avait hurlé* pendant la journée, qui *avait fait* se briser les vagues sur la plage rocheuse, *s'était appaisé*._​

Anyway, to make it simple, the passé antérieur is mainly used with temporal clauses introduced by _quand_, _lorsque_, or _dès que_, and almost never otherwise, in which case the pluperfect is typically used to indicate anteriority.


----------



## MmefrancaisRES

Super! Thanks so much!!! I feel like I may have to re-read and edit the whole essay now! But better now then after grading! 
Encore, je vous prie!!


----------



## coloboc66

Why may not I use here the Indicatif Passé antérieur:
--------------
Nous *eûmes* fini de manger quand elle est rentrée.
We had finished our meal when she came home.
--------------
What difference?


----------



## Maître Capello

The passé antérieur is typically only used in conjunction with the passé simple. It is therefore odd to use it with the passé composé in your example. The natural way to say it is to use the plus-que-parfait:

_Nous *avions fini* de manger quand elle *est rentrée*._


----------



## Gérard Napalinex

Maître Capello said:


> The passé antérieur is typically only used in conjunction with the passé simple.


So that "nous eûmes fini de manger quand elle rentra" is ok, right ?


----------



## Maître Capello

Using that tense together with the passé simple is no guarantee that it is appropriate, even in a literary context. I would indeed strongly prefer the pluperfect in coloboc66's sample sentence. The passé antérieur is however perfectly natural – in a literary context – when used in a temporal clause introduced by _quand/lorsque/après que_, etc.

_Quand nous *eûmes fini* de manger, nous *sortîmes* prendre l'air._


----------



## coloboc66

So we should use:
the Indicatif Plus-que-parfait - with the Indicatif Passé composé
 and
the Indicatif Passé antérieur - with the Indicatif passé simple
Right?


----------



## Maître Capello

It really depends on the exact context. There is not universal rule.

For more details, please read the beginning of this thread.


----------



## kdm2580

Hello ! I am trying to translate the following sentence from English to French and am not sure whether to opt for the _passé antérieur_ or the _plus-que parfait_. The sentence is as follows:

They tried, to begin with, St Briac-sur-Mer, which had been recommended to them in Paris.

And my attempt is:

*Ils commencèrent par essayer St-Briac-sur-Mer, que l'on leur eut recommandé à Paris. *

I am not sure whether the use of the _passé antérieur_ is suitable here, as I read that it is usually only used with conjunctions of time. But as the action of recommending took place before the action of starting (which took place in the passé simple) I thought it might work? Thank you so much in advance for any advice; I would be so grateful for any insight.


----------



## Maître Capello

Here you need the plus-que-parfait. The passé antérieur doesn't work because, as you suggested, there is no temporal clause introduced with a conjunction (e.g., _quand, lorsque_).

_Ils essayèrent d'abord St Briac-sur-Mer qu'on leur *avait recommandé* à Paris._


----------



## kdm2580

Ok, thank you. That makes perfect sense!


----------



## Lessuh

So it looks like this is an old thread, but I thought I’d share what I’ve found.

_Plus-que-parfait_ is used in modern French anywhere _passé antérieur _had been employed when not using _passé simple, _and I often see novels otherwise mostly written in passé simple failing to use the passé antérieur where appropriate and simply using plus-que-parfait instead.

That said, if you understand the ordinary differences between _passé simple and imparfait_, the same sort of logic applies to the _passé antérieur _and the_ plus-que-parfait_. *The passé antérieur describes a completed event that occurred at a defined moment in time (perfect aspect), before another event in the past; whereas the plus-que-parfait describes an event that lasted in time (imperfect aspect), before another event in the past.*

_“Il avait fait très chaud avant que la nuit ne tombât.”
(It had been quite hot before night fell.)_

Here, it was hot for a duration of time before the night fell. For the same reason you’d say “il faisait chaud,” and _not_ “il fit chaud” (or “il a fait chaud in modern French), you use the _imparfait_ for the auxiliary (avait) to make the _plus-que-parfait_.


_“J’eus déjà dîné quand il m’invita.”
(I had already had dinner when he invited me.)_

Here, the action of having had dinner refers to a specific, completed action that occurred in the past (perfect aspect), so you use the _passé simple_ for the auxiliary (eus) to make the _passé antérieur_.

If you are to write with the passé simple, these rules should be respected. Do realize, however, that it is completely correct to just write with the passé composé and opt to only use the plus-que-parfait.


----------



## Maître Capello

Lessuh said:


> [The passé simple] can be found in literature, however its modern use is somewhat artificial, and much like the imperfect subjunctive, even the best authors make mistakes in employing it.


I beg to disagree. Unlike the imperfect subjunctive, which is indeed dated nowadays even in literature, the passé simple is still very common in novels or similar writings. Anyway, this thread is not meant to discuss the use of the passé simple. (For that topic, see FR: passé simple - past historic tense.) This thread is meant to discuss the choice between plus-que-parfait and passé antérieur when used with the passé simple.



> Likewise, _plus-que-parfait_ is now used in modern French anywhere _passé antérieur _had been employed


I'm afraid this is incorrect. You cannot always replace the passé antérieur with the plus-que-parfait. Sometimes the plus-que-parfait is out of the question and the passé antérieur is replaced with the passé composé or surcomposé. But then you normally also need to change the tense of the main verb from the passé simple to the passé composé.

Example:
_Quand il *eut terminé* son repas, il alla prendre une douche._ (common in literary writing)
_Quand il *avait terminé* son repas, il alla prendre une douche._  (The plus-que-parfait wrongly suggests it was a habit, which is incompatible with the passé simple.)
_Quand il *termina* son repas, il alla prendre une douche._ (This suggests he took a shower right away after finishing his meal.)
_Quand il *a (eu) terminé* son repas, il est allé prendre une douche._ (You need to change the tense of the main verb; it cannot remain in the passé simple.)



> The _passé antérieur_ describes a completed event that occurred at a precise moment in time, before another event in the past; whereas the _plus-que-parfait_ describes an event that lasted in time sometime before an event in the past.


The passé antérieur *usually* describes a completed event that occurred at a precise moment in time, but not always.

Example: _En l'espace de trois mois il *eut dilapidé* toute la fortune de sa femme_. In this case the passé antérieur indicates completion.

Likewise, the plus-que-parfait doesn't necessarily describe lasting events. It can also describe events occurring at a precise moment.

Examples:
_Il *avait pris* son repas avant d'aller prendre une douche.
Quand il *avait terminé* son repas, il *allait* prendre une douche_. (habit)



_Il *avait fait* très chaud avant que la nuit ne tombât/tombe._  The plus-que-parfait is appropriate here. Please however note that _avant que_ requires the subjunctive. The passé simple is therefore out of the question.

_J'eus déjà dîné quand il m'invita_.  As you are describing a state, the plus-que-parfait should be used here. Moreover, the passé antérieur is typically used in the *temporal clause*, not in the main clause.

_J'*avais* déjà *dîné* quand il m'*invita*.
Quand j'*eus dîné*, il m'*invita*._


----------

