I read a sentence that used the past perfect tense, and I’m trying to understand why it was necessary. The sentence was ‘By the time she arrived, the meeting had already started.’ Why can’t we just use the simple past for both actions and say ‘By the time she arrived, the meeting already started’? How does the meaning change with the past perfect?
2 Likes
Good question. As an English speaker I honestly don’t know, but the second sentence sounds very awkard to me and I’m not sure it’s grammatically correct. Hopefully there’s someone that can give a proper explanation.
I asked ChatGPT (for what it’s worth) and here’s its explanation.
Both sentences convey the idea that the meeting began before she arrived, but they differ in grammatical structure and, to some extent, in the nuance of the timing they express.
-
First Sentence: “By the time she arrived, the meeting had already started.”
- This sentence uses the past perfect tense (“had already started”) to indicate that the action of the meeting starting occurred before another action in the past (her arrival). This is the standard and grammatically correct way to express that one past event happened before another past event.
-
Second Sentence: “By the time she arrived, the meeting already started.”
- This sentence uses the simple past tense (“already started”) which is not typically used in this context. While it might be understood by most speakers, it’s not considered grammatically standard in formal English to express the sequence of events. The past perfect tense is preferred when emphasizing that an action was completed before another took place in the past.
In summary, the first sentence is grammatically correct for showing the sequence of past events, making it the more appropriate choice in formal writing and speaking. The second sentence might be encountered in casual conversation, but it’s not the standard form for expressing the idea that one event occurred before another in the past.
3 Likes
I agree. To me the second sentence is not grammatically correct.
By the time she arrived, the meeting started.
It doesn’t make sense as it suggests that each event occurred at the same time i.e. her arriving and the meeting starting, which conflicts with By the time. This would be grammatically correct but with a different meaning:
When she arrived, the meeting started.
Thus the meeting starts when she arrives. Arrived and started are both in the same tense, hence refer to the same timeframe. This is also correct:
When she arrived, the meeting had already started.
Thus the meeting started, and then afterwards she arrived. The following has almost the same meaning:
By the time she arrived, the meeting had started.
Hopefully I have not confused the original poster.
2 Likes
Two actions that happened in the past. One action happened before the other. The older action is expressed in the past perfect.
By the time she arrived, the meeting had already started.
When she arrived, the meeting had already started.
However using the past perfect is not always necessary!
You are correct. In order to communicate the same thing you do not need to use the past perfect to indicate the “older” action.
The meeting started before she arrived.
is equal in meaning to
Before she arrived, the meeting started.
You will not be misunderstood if you use the simple past for both actions as illustrated in the example above.
The key is “by the time” vs “before”. If you use “by the time” then the older action must be written in the past perfect.
Natural language comes from the people, then the grammarians come along and take notes and codify patterns. 
I hope this helps, Manio_o.
2 Likes
Yes, It helps me Thanks a ton. 
1 Like
Wonderful. Thank you for the feedback, Maniao_o!
You already got some good input, but here’s one more way to think about it:
Past perfect is how English expresses the idea of “already” in the past. In other words, you could leave away “already” and the sentence would mean the same thing:
“By the time she arrived, the meeting had started” means “already”. The word simply emphasizes what the grammar says.
On the other hand, if you leave away the past perfect but keep “already” (“By the time she arrived, the meeting already started”), then you have a conflict in the sentence: the grammar says that she arrived and then the meeting started, but the words say the opposite. That sentence is in conflict in the same way as the sentence: “Yesterday, I will go to school.”