Here's what happens, T.J. I say to someone -- often an English teacher -- "what is the past perfect?" And they think, (he or she thinks), Hey, I know what the past perfect is. But then at the behest of the Little Voice,
they think, I better look it up, just to be sure.
The first definition they find is that it "denotes an action or state completed at of before a past time spoken of" <Webster's 11th Edition>. They think, hmmm. The battle of Hastings
had been fought before the Magna Carta was signed? That doesn't work, so maybe I should look elsewhere. (Webster's has agreed, by the way, to reconsider their entry for the
present perfect before the 12th Edition goes to press, as well they should; they made a mess of it.)
Next they find this one: "It is used to refer to a situation in the past that came before another situation in the past. (Hmmm, same problem.) The past perfect represents either the past of the simple past (well, hardly) or the past of the the
present perfect", which we all know isn't true. <English Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum, 1986>
Maybe since we got our language from the Latins, we should look there. Let's see. "The pluperfect tense indicates an action that takes place more in the past or prior to another
past action." Hey, are these people copying from each other? <Latin for Dummies, Hull, Perkins, et al.>
Quirk, Greenbaum, et al, don't try to define it, but they give, among other illustrations, "The goalkeeper had injured his leg and couldn't play", and "He had died in 1920,
before his son was born". <A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, 1985>
"The past perfect tense describes an action completed sometime in the past", <Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993>
"The past perfect tense indicates that one past event preceded another", <Handbook of Technical Writing, Alred, Brusaw & Oliu, 2003>
"The pluperfect is a compound tense conjugated with
avoir and etre and is used to say what had happened", <Teach Yourself French
Grammar, Sidwell & Haviland> (Isn't this a dandy?)
"The past perfect is a perfective tense used to express action completed in the past", <The Free Dictionary>
"The past perfect - An event or state started at one point in the past and ended at another point in the past", <Gareth Jones Website>
"The past perfect is often used to emphasis (sic) that one action, event or condition ended before another past action, event, or condition ended." <University
of Ottawa>
"The past perfect tense represents an action as completed at a past time. It may denote that an action occurred at an indefinite or definite time in the past." <Descriptive
English Grammar, Susan Emolyn Harman>
I better quit before I bore you right out of your chair, T.J. The point is that if you try to look it up, you will find a hodgepodge of meaningless and inconsistent definitions and explanations. You will think, whateverthehell are these people talking
about? Someone should sit down and try to figure out what it is and if it isn't anything, let's stop teaching it, or
trying to teach it, since no one seems to know what it is.
Of all the many people of whom I asked "what is it?", only two have been willing to answer. One said that "the past perfect is
had + the past participle", which is rather like saying a ladder is something with a rung or a train is something with wheels (as are lawnmowers and rickshaws). The other more recent try, which you may have seen, we should leave lying with the sleeping
dog, to not foment an unnecessary exchange of gunfire.
ALL the others, and that includes the most eloquent and talkative on this listserv, cannot do it. I feel certain they would if they could but they can't. They don't know it themselves and when they try to look it up, they get what you see a sample of above.
The "definitions" are all over the map and there are hundreds more like them.
Let me ask you, T-J, what is the past perfect?
If you either (a) rant and snort and call me names, or (b) not reply, you will, as any reasonable person would agree, prove my point.
Good hunting. Let me know what you think. I'm very much interested. I've been at this for a long time but a reasonable, coherent conclusion everyone -- including but not limited to novelists, journalists, and grammarians -- can accept still seems far away.
Maybe you can help us.
.brad.27dec10.