Tense with "when"

   Share on Facebook  
Bamtori  #255335  Sun, 13 Aug 06 06:37 AM

[The only thing Langdon understood at the moment was why Fache had looked so smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer by name.]

This is another sentence from "Da Vinci Code", and I'm wondering why the word "suggest" is in the past form. I mean, Landong suggested first and then Fache looked, isn't it? Is it something to do with the "when"?

I have no problem with "understand" and "look" - Fache had look smug before Langdon understood so the word "look" is in the form of past perfect.

  
Top 500 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Jul 25 2005
Full Member (104)
Clive  #255340  Sun, 13 Aug 06 07:12 AM

Hi,

[The only thing Langdon understood at the moment was why Fache had looked so smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer by name.]

This is another sentence from "Da Vinci Code", and I'm wondering why the word "suggest" is in the past form. It's because he suggested it in the past. What tense do you think it should be?

Best wishes, Clive

  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Oct 28 2004
Canada
Veteran Member (22,575)
ModeratorTeachers
El tango argentino es un pensamiento triste que se puede bailar (The tango argentino is a sad thought which can be danced) Enrique Santos Discépolo
Pastsimple  #255414  Sun, 13 Aug 06 12:23 PM
 Clive wrote:

Hi,

[The only thing Langdon understood at the moment was why Fache had looked so smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer by name.]

This is another sentence from "Da Vinci Code", and I'm wondering why the word "suggest" is in the past form. It's because he suggested it in the past. What tense do you think it should be?

Best wishes, Clive



Hi Clive,

if I got Bamtori's post right, she's confused because the timeline goes like this:

TIME flows in this direction ----->
suggesting ---- looking ---- understanding

My explanation would be:

1) the past perfect places the looking before the understanding ("The only thing Langdon understood at the moment was why Fache looked..." would force the reader into thinking that both actions were happening simultaneously. However, after reading the whole sentence, reader would change his mind, in my opinion - see the note below)
2) the suggesting doesn't need the past perfect because it's obvious from the context that it took place before the looking

Actually, could all three highlighted verbs be in the past simple? I think everyone could get the proper sequence of events even without the past perfect. Reason: if you have two actions described in the past simple, the one in the clause with when happened first.


P.S. Off-topic: I think the "he" (when he suggested) refers to Langdon. However, is the "he" in that position really unambiguous? Could it refer to Fache as well?

  
Top 200 Contributor
Joined on Thu, Feb 16 2006
Czech Republic, Europe
Full Member (303)
If you are a native speaker and find any grammar or stylistic mistakes in my posts, don't hesitate to tell me! I will really appreciate that.
CalifJim  #255488  Sun, 13 Aug 06 04:15 PM
In actual practice, the use of the past perfect quite frequently violates the mathematically precise timelines set out for it in grammar books!  It is merely an indicator that something happened in the context of something past.  Now the problem is that this past point of view has to be established somewhere to begin with, so you can't just begin a conversation with a sentence in the past perfect tense!  On the other hand, the past point of view does not even have to be in the same sentence with the past perfect verb.  It may have been established earlier in the text.  Also, in narrative fiction, just about everything is in the past tense, so what is past from the viewpoint of the story-teller may be given in the simple past, while what is past from the viewpoint of the characters of the story may be given in the simple past or in the past perfect, depending on how the author wants the reader to understand the time relationships in his story.  These factors cause for a great deal of confusion.

In the sentence now under the grammar microscope, it seems to me that the when clause is used to establish the past point of view.  A suggestion was made in the past -- past with respect to Langdon's understanding of the events surrounding that suggestion.  Thinking back to the time of that suggestion, Langdon ('now') saw/felt/understood that Fache had looked smug ('then').  When?  When the suggestion was made.
The author considers the reaction to the suggestion the main event - not the suggestion itself.  The making of the suggestion is no more than a temporal signpost to which the reaction can be related.

Compare: 
I recalled quite vividly how they had laughed when I told that joke.
Jerry was absolutely convinced that they had stolen the money when he left the room to answer the phone.
The Robertsons were shocked at how thoroughly their new puppy had destroyed the sofa when he was left alone for the day.


That said, all of these examples, including the one in the original post, could have had the verb in the when clause in the past perfect tense!  But it's unnecessary for understanding the time relationships, and it is somewhat inelegant stylistically -- too many "had"s, maybe?  Smile [:)]

CJ
  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member (17,794)
ModeratorProficient Speaker
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
Marius Hancu  #255505  Sun, 13 Aug 06 05:25 PM
IMO, this is all about tense simplification (Swan is a good reference on that).


The main phrase is:

Why Fache had looked smug was the only thing Langdon understood at the moment.

One can see there's a conventional, strict, tense sequence here.


When the extra information is introduced, the author had two choices:

1) use the past perfect in the subordinate introduced by "when":

Why Fache had looked smug when he had suggested Saunier would have accused his killer was the only thing Langdon understood at the moment.

2) use tense simplification with simple past in the subordinate introduced by "when":

Why Fache had looked smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer was the only thing Langdon understood at the moment.

The author preferred to use tense simplification.
  
Top 10 Contributor
Joined on Wed, Apr 26 2006
Montreal, Canada
Veteran Member (11,673)
Proficient Speaker
Pastsimple  #255530  Sun, 13 Aug 06 07:13 PM
 CalifJim wrote:
In actual practice, the use of the past perfect quite frequently violates the mathematically precise timelines set out for it in grammar books!  It is merely an indicator that something happened in the context of something past.  Now the problem is that this past point of view has to be established somewhere to begin with, so you can't just begin a conversation with a sentence in the past perfect tense!  On the other hand, the past point of view does not even have to be in the same sentence with the past perfect verb.  It may have been established earlier in the text.  Also, in narrative fiction, just about everything is in the past tense, so what is past from the viewpoint of the story-teller may be given in the simple past, while what is past from the viewpoint of the characters of the story may be given in the simple past or in the past perfect, depending on how the author wants the reader to understand the time relationships in his story.  These factors cause for a great deal of confusion.

In the sentence now under the grammar microscope, it seems to me that the when clause is used to establish the past point of view.  A suggestion was made in the past -- past with respect to Langdon's understanding of the events surrounding that suggestion.  Thinking back to the time of that suggestion, Langdon ('now') saw/felt/understood that Fache had looked smug ('then').  When?  When the suggestion was made.
The author considers the reaction to the suggestion the main event - not the suggestion itself.  The making of the suggestion is no more than a temporal signpost to which the reaction can be related.

Compare: 
I recalled quite vividly how they had laughed when I told that joke.
Jerry was absolutely convinced that they had stolen the money when he left the room to answer the phone.
The Robertsons were shocked at how thoroughly their new puppy had destroyed the sofa when he was left alone for the day.


That said, all of these examples, including the one in the original post, could have had the verb in the when clause in the past perfect tense!  But it's unnecessary for understanding the time relationships, and it is somewhat inelegant stylistically -- too many "had"s, maybe?  Smile [:)]

CJ


That's a truly informative post and I agree with your observations. But you've left one question unanswered Smile [:)]:

Could the sentence contain all three verbs in the past simple?

The only thing Langdon understood at the moment was why Fache looked so smug when he suggested Saunier would have accused his killer by name.

My comments as to why I'm convinced it's possible are in my first post.

Actually, what about:

I recalled quite vividly how they laughed when I told that joke.
Jerry was absolutely convinced that they stole the money when he left the room to answer the phone.
The Robertsons were shocked at how thoroughly their new puppy destroyed the sofa when he was left alone for the day.

Sounds completely OK to me but there's this I'm-not-a-native-speaker problem. Smile [:)]

  
CalifJim  #255635  Mon, 14 Aug 06 05:49 AM
You're right.  I overlooked that question.  The answer is yes, everything in the simple past is perfectly fine (on all of them).  And I can certainly sympathize with your not-a-native-speaker anxiety!  I have the same problem in other languages, where I am the non-native speaker.  Smile [:)]

CJ

  
AddThis Feed Button RSS Feed: ESL General English Grammar Questions
© 2008 MediaCET Ltd.
Terms and Conditions & Terms of Service