When I …. my dinner, I went to bed.
options:
a)had b)have had c)had had
My approach:
I am here unable to use any form of the verb.
Can anyone please explain which form of usage can be used here and why other cannot be used here?
Learn English – When I …. the dinner.I went to bed
past-perfectpresent-perfect
Related Solutions
The truth is that there are many situations and sentences which allow for either the past perfect tense or the past simple tense, with very little change to the sentence. The key difference between the past perfect and past simple tenses is the explicit order of two (or more) events in the past. There are of course many nuances in usage that make this a fairly complex topic, which I can only partly cover here. First, here is a brief overview of some of the relevant usages and rules of past simple and past perfect:
Past Simple
- A completed action or condition in the past.
- Must have a time reference, but this may be implied.
- May be used for a sequence of multiple events, but only for chronological order or explicit times.
The third point is where the past simple tense overlaps with the past perfect tense, and is what I will be focusing on.
Simple tenses are often represented as a single dot on a timeline, such as the one below. In the case of past simple, this represents that the event is completed entirely in the past. If past simple is used to list multiple events, then we represent it with multiple unconnected dots in the past, arranged in chronological order.
e.g. I ate breakfast this morning and then my brother arrived.
Past Perfect
Perfect tenses are often represented by two dots with a connecting "bridge" on the timeline. This represents both the order (past perfect clause = left dot; past simple clause = right dot) and linking of the two events.
e.g. I had already eaten breakfast when my brother arrived.
Note: I find that timelines such as this often help my students understand tense usage better. This particular timeline is one I use often and is from this site.
The past perfect is not necessary if we are not 'going back' to the earlier past, and simply moving from one event to another.
This is correct. Past simple can be used to list multiple events in the past, but they should always be in order of occurrence, from longest ago to most recent (or have some other way of explicitly stating the order of events).
Yesterday I went to work, and then did some shopping.
If we use the past perfect tense instead, then we have more flexibility in the sentence structure while still being grammatically correct.
I had gone to work yesterday before I did some shopping.
or
I did some shopping yesterday after I had gone to work.
You can see that when using the past perfect tense we can list events in whichever order we prefer, rather than being restricted to chronological order.
If the sequence is clear, the past perfect is not needed.
Again, this is correct. However, there are nuances here. For the sequence to be "clear" you must either list events in chronological order as I mentioned before, or explicitly state the order or time in the sentence. This is often ignored by native speakers because the order of events can usually be inferred from the sentence without it being explicitly stated. In fact your example sentence shows this phenomena. I will again denote longest ago and most recent.
We showed the result of the survey we did.
We can in this case correctly infer that the survey was completed before the results were shown, it is simple logic. However, if you wish to be more clear (and grammatically correct) then it is better to write it in the past perfect tense.
We showed the result of the survey we had done.
I recommend my students to always use explicit ordering of events for the sake of clarity, so that the reader/listener does not need to use logic to deduce the order. Most prefer to do this by using the past perfect tense, or chronological order of events in the past simple tense.
The past perfect is optional [i.e. may be replaced by past simple] only when talking about an action at a specific time.
This "rule" is a combination of the usage rules for past simple and past perfect. As I mentioned before, one of the rules of past simple is that it must include a time, which can be either implied or specified. However, when the past simple is used to replace the past perfect, more information (i.e. a specific time) is needed to provide the same information to the reader/listener that the past perfect tense would have given.
SHORT ANSWER:
The present perfect is used to describe an action which causes a present state.
The past perfect is used to describe an action which caused a past state.
LONG ANSWER:
The verb form usually employed to signify your started-and-finished in the past is the simple past.
I ate dinner.
This says nothing about what went before or came after. It is a complete 'historical' action, what grammarians call perfective (not 'perfect').
The perfect constructions in English signify something different. Although they name actions which occurred in the past, they define that past action as still relevant at a later time, as causing a state which endures into that later time.
The present perfect construction employs the present form of HAVE to signal that the later time is now, Speech Time, the time when you speak or write the sentence. You use this construction to describe your present state:
I have eaten dinner (so I'm not hungry now or so I can see you immediately without having to eat dinner first, or whatever the consequence is).
The past perfect construction employs the past form of HAVE to signal that the later time is then, Reference Time, the 'historical' time defined in the sentence's larger context by your use of simple past forms. You use this construction to describe your state at that time:
I had eaten dinner (so I wasn't hungry then).
Note that perfect constructions require a context. The context for using the present perfect construction need not be specified: it 'defaults' to the present, Speech Time. But you use the past perfect only when you are narrating past events: a Reference Time must be established by using one or more past forms.
Employing the present perfect makes a statement about Speech Time, the present.
Employing the past perfect makes a statement about Reference Time, a specific point in the past.
Note also that because the present perfect construction is a statement about the present, you are not permitted to use it with an adverbial referring to a point in the past:
✲ I have eaten dinner yesterday. This must be expressed as
I ate dinner yesterday.
✲ marks a usage as unacceptable
Best Answer
Apparent from "went", the statement is about the past. The action in the conditional clause (which begins with "when") is simultaneous with the main clause. You cannot simultaneously have your dinner and go to bed, hence the act of having dinner must be complete by the time the statement is made.
There are two choices: Past tense and Perfect tense. Past tense would point to a particular time, and there isn't such in your sentence. Hence you need the Perfect tense. Since the entire sentence is in the past, so should be the Perfect tense: Past Perfect: