I gave him the money by 6 PM.
I had given him the money by 6 PM.
I can't spot the difference between them and both seem right, but I was told the first one is wrong. Can anyone say, why?
Here is a another set of sentences with the same issue:
By 5 PM I gave him the book.
By 5 PM I had given him the book.
In both the sentences the book was given before 5 PM and no later than 5 PM. But I can't understand then what the difference between them is.
Is it right to use simple past with 'by' at all? If yes, then why and if not, then why is it incorrect to use simple past with 'by'?
Best Answer
I gave him the money is simple past. You can use it to specify something that happened in the past: you can also specify when it happened, either exactly:
or approximately:
or not at all:
I had given him the money is past perfect simple. We use this when we are talking about something that had already happened before some event or action in the past. The event isn't usually a specific time: it is a part of the story, for example:
Here is some more information about simple past and past perfect.
The first sentence, using simple past, is the idiomatic way of saying this. The second sentence doesn't sound right, because after you have said it I am waiting for the event that it happened before: I am not impressed by by 6pm: I want to know what happened next!
The second pair of questions present a different problem.
Starting with by 5 pm makes these sentences look odd on their own: the seem to need a clause before or after them, for example: