Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I had seen a documentary on the Whydah before we visited it in Providence.
Sir Francis Drake had worked for the British Navy before he became a pirate.

These two sentences seem quite awkward to me because of the use of the Past Perfect. If Past Perfect clarifies which of two past events occured first, does the word before render it unnecessary, and could they simply be written in past tense?

I saw a documentary on the Whydah before we visited it in Providence.
Sir Francis Drake worked for the British Navy before he became a pirate.

share|improve this question
    
I expect more to come after a past perfect sentence, e.g., "But I was still unprepared for what I saw" and "That's why he knew he'd never be captured". Simple past tense just states a fact and promises nothing more. –  user21497 Nov 6 '12 at 9:07
add comment

2 Answers 2

With before, you could change past perfect to simple past in some cases but not all. If the event that happened before another event in the past took place at a specific time, then you could use simple past instead of past perfect with no difference in meaning. For example:

I had visited my uncle once in 1999 before I left the country.

I visited my uncle once in 1999 before I left the country.

But,

I had never seen my uncle before our family moved to CA.

*I never saw my uncle before our family moved to CA.

Your sentences seem to fall under the second category, so changing the past perfect to simple past would make them lose their meanings.

share|improve this answer
    
Moving to CA is an "event in the past [which] took place at a specific time" though. I see no difference in the examples, and disagree with the analysis. –  Andrew Leach Nov 6 '12 at 10:06
    
@AndrewLeach: I guess you are right. Changed that. –  Noah Nov 6 '12 at 10:38
    
@AndrewLeach: Moving to CA is, but seeing is not. –  Noah Nov 6 '12 at 10:50
1  
I still reckon the sentence you have starred is perfectly OK. –  Andrew Leach Nov 6 '12 at 10:51
    
@AndrewLeach: Could be. englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html –  Noah Nov 6 '12 at 10:53
add comment

There is no difficulty. The sequence of events in the first is (1) speaker sees documentary, (2) speaker and others visit the ‘Whydah’. One event happened before the other. The same is true in the second example: (1) Drake works for the British Navy, (2) he becomes a pirate. Before is required in both sentences. You can’t write two clauses without linking them in some way, and before is the appropriate conjunction in each of these cases.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.