By the time

[Magnolia1984]

Hi,
I know that with the expression 'by the time' I have to use past perfect.

For example: By the time we got to the station, the train had already left.

Anyway I'm doing grammar exercises and the book suggests this solution:
By the time they got there, they were tired.

Does it sound well?
Is it a mistake or is there a different rule for stative verbs?

 

[Toby Sherman]

I know that with the expression 'by the time' I have to use past perfect.

This statement is incorrect. For example:
By the time we got to the station, the train was already accepting passengers.
By the time we get to the station, we will be hungry.

(Also note that you want to know if the sentence sounds good, and not "well".)

 

[Magnolia1984]

Thank you so much for your explanation and correction 😄

Anyway I would like to know how to use "by the time" for past action.
In the first example you have changed the meaning because I wanted to point out that the train had already left before I got to the station. I'm quite sure that it's correct.
In the second example you have changed the sentence into a future action, but I would like to talk in the past.

 

[lingobingo]

You do have to use the past perfect in the OP sentence. But that’s because of the context.

By the time we got to the station, our train had already left.

(dynamic verb, denoting one past action that happened before another)​

By the time we arrived at the station, our train was already halfway to London.

(linking verb, introducing a subject complement; time adverbial and main clause are simultaneous)​

By the time they got there, they were tired.

(linking verb, introducing a subject complement; time adverbial and main clause are simultaneous)​

By the time they got there, the baby had fallen asleep.

(dynamic verb, denoting one past action that happened before another)​

 

[Magnolia1984]

Clear, thank you very much.

But is it possibile to say "By the time I got there, we had been tired?" to underline that we started to feel tired before getting to the destination?

 

[lingobingo]

It’s possible to say that, but it doesn’t make sense in the way that you seem to think (if at all). It would have to be a situation in which someone had been tired but no longer was (using the past perfect as a backshift from the simple past, not from the present perfect).

 

[PaulQ]

is it possibile to say "By the time I got there, we had been tired?" to underline that we started to feel tired before getting to the destination?

No. That would mean "By the time I got there, we had been tired but we were no longer tired." It is also strange that the first clause has "I" and the second "we."

 

[Magnolia1984]

It’s possible to say that, but it doesn’t make sense in the way that you seem to think (if at all). It would have to be a situation in which someone had been tired but no longer was (using the past perfect as a backshift from the simple past, not from the present perfect).

Ok perfect, it's all clear. Thank you so much 🙂

 

[Magnolia1984]

Thank you for your reply, it's all clear now. (I've used the wrong subject)

 

[Forero]

Hi,
I know that with the expression 'by the time' I have to use past perfect.

This is not true. Both of the following are valid:

Ex. 1: The train left by the time we got to the station.
Ex. 2: They were already tired by the time they got there.

Is it a mistake or is there a different rule for stative verbs?

The "stative verb" concept is probably relevant here, but be aware that the term "stative verbs" can mislead when not carefully defined to apply to the type of sentence in question.

Anyway I would like to know how to use "by the time" for past action.
In the first example you have changed the meaning because I wanted to point out that the train had already left before I got to the station. I'm quite sure that it's correct.

Yes, it is correct. And so are the following:

Ex. 3: The train left before I got to the station. [simple past in both clauses]
Ex. 4: By the time I had reached the station, the train was long gone. [past perfect in the "by the time" clause and simple past in the main clause]

In the second example you have changed the sentence into a future action, but I would like to talk in the past.

As you may know, the perfect is an aspect, not a tense. The tense of the leading verb in a subordinate "by the time" clause always matches the tense of the leading verb in the clause to which it is subordinate. In fact, any* correct example of "by the time" in present tense can be converted into a correct example of "by the time" in past tense just by changing the two leading present tense verbs (e.g. "get", "will") to past tense (e.g. "got", "would", respectively):

Ex. 5: By the time we got to the station, we would be hungry. [Past tense example based on Toby Sherman's second example]

*The exceptions to this are few, but they stem from the fact that predicates with certain verbs do not work readily, if at all, in past tense. These verbs are "must" and "ought", "need" and "dare" without a following "to", and the present tense forms of "got" (i.e. "have got", "has got", and dialectal "got" by itself) when concerned with having rather than getting.

But is it possibile to say "By the time I got there, we had been tired?" to underline that we started to feel tired before getting to the destination?

Yes, if you drop that extra "?", even if we were still tired.

That sentence is unusual for two reasons:

1. The reader needs time information to see the reason for the perfect, either from context or contained in the sentence itself, e.g. "By the time I got there, we had all been tired for hours", and
2. You can just use "before", if that is what you mean: "We were all tired before I got there."

"By the time" means "at or before the time when", which is the exact opposite of "after (the time when)". It does not require the use of perfect aspect, but it allows the perfect for various purposes.

Be aware that past perfect does not always imply that something happened before something else. It always refers to time before something else, but it is used both for things that do happen during the indicated time and for things that do not happen during the indicated time.

For example, ex. 4 above does not mean that I reached the station first and the train was gone only after that. "By the time" is still the opposite of "after", and the perfect "had reached" has the same purpose in ex. 4 that it has in the following:

I had scarcely reached the station when the train was gone.
No sooner had I reached the station than the train was gone.
I hadn't reached the station until the train was gone.

I hope this helps.

 

[lingobingo]

Ex. 1: The train left by the time we got to the station.

Doesn’t work in BE.

 

[User With No Name]

Doesn’t work in BE.

It doesn't work in (my version of) Texas English either.

Maybe it's different for the folks up north in Arkansas.

 

[Forero]

Doesn’t work in BE.

It doesn't work in (my version of) Texas English either.

I am surprised you would say that. Maybe we are thinking of different contexts.

Would either of you have a problem with any of the following three statements?

Ex. 6: The train left before we got to the station.
Ex. 7: The train left when we got to the station.
Ex. 8: The train left after we got to the station.

 

[kentix]

It doesn't work for me either.

The train had left by the time we got to the station.
The train was gone by the time we got to the station.

 

[lingobingo]

Would either of you have a problem with any of the following three statements?

Ex. 6: The train left before we got to the station.
Ex. 7: The train left when we got to the station.
Ex. 8: The train left after we got to the station.

No. Those don’t need the perfect aspect.

The train left before we got to the station.

so:​

The train had [already] left when/by the time we got there.​

The train was no longer there when/by the time we arrived.​

 

[Forero]

Would any of the following be a problem?

Ex. 9: The train must leave by 3 o'clock.
Ex. 10: The train did leave by 3 o'clock.
Ex. 11: The train left by 3 o'clock.

 

[PaulQ]

Ex. 9: The train must leave by 3 o'clock.
Ex. 10: The train did leave by 3 o'clock. Emphatic
Ex. 11: The train left by 3 o'clock. It needs more context. What would be the difference between this and The train left at 3 o'clock?

 

[lingobingo]

But by a specific time is anyway quite different from by the time [that] something else [subsequently] happened.

 

[Forero]

Ex. 9: The train must leave by 3 o'clock.
Ex. 10: The train did leave by 3 o'clock. Emphatic
Ex. 11: The train left by 3 o'clock. It needs more context. What would be the difference between this and The train left at 3 o'clock?

To me, by means "no later than" = "at or before" (as in e.g. definition 7 for the preposition by in WordReference Random House Learner's Dictionary of American English, definition 6 in WordReference Random House Unabridged Dictionary of American English, definition 7 in Collins Concise English Dictionary).

But by a specific time is anyway quite different from by the time [that] something else [subsequently] happened.

To me, "by the time that" simply means "no later than the time when" = "at or before the time when". If 3 o'clock is when we got to the station, then "by the time we got to the station" means "by 3 o'clock".

So as I see it, substituting "when" for "by the time", as I think you suggested in #15, leaves out the "or before" part of the meaning and necessitates the need for past perfect, while including "subsequently" in a "by the time" clause, as I think you are now suggesting, leaves out the "when" = "at the time" part of the meaning.

 

[PaulQ]

Thanks. For me, there is something about "by the time that" that requires a past tense/form other than the simple past, as there is a heavily implied "already".

The train left by the time we got to the station.
The train had [already] left by the time we got to the station.

1. The past perfect can be used because "The train had [already] left" is
(a) an event that had ceased and was complete at the time referred to and
(b) is context/background that modifies information about the time that you arrived.

Of course, the two events can coincide:

The train was leaving by the time we got to the station.

2. The simple past continuous can be used because it allows two things to happen at the same time: the train was leaving and you were travelling/arriving.

 

[Forero]

So you can always replace "by the time (that)" with "at the time (that)" = "when" without changing the meaning?

I could say "You must arrive by 3 pm in order to catch the afternoon train." Would you have to say "must [already] have arrived" instead of "must arrive"?

And I could say "The cook always had dessert ready by the time we had eaten the main course." Would you instead have to say something like "had always [already] had" instead of "always had"?

Maybe my view of what by means was influenced by the teachers I had, who said "If want credit for your work, you must turn it in by 3 pm on Friday" and would give anyone a scary look who waited till Friday to turn it in.

 

[PaulQ]

So you can always replace "by the time (that)" with "at the time (that)" with "at the time (that)"

I don't think I implied that, nor should it be inferred. "Rules" (and always and never create rules) don't really exist (other than as ever-evolving guidance with myriad exceptions).

I could say "You must arrive by 3 pm in order to catch the afternoon train."

Indeed.

Would you have to say "must [already] have arrived" instead of "must arrive"?

No - "by 3pm" seems to differ from "by the time that <insert relative clause>".

 

[Forero]

For me, by means the same thing with a specified time and with "the time that", and all of the following are equally correct:

You must arrive by 3pm in order to catch the afternoon train.
You must arrive by the time the clock strikes 3 in order to catch the afternoon train.
We had to arrive by the time the clock struck 3.
We did arrive by the time the clock struck 3.

(I am still a little surprised that no one is agreeing with me.)

 

[PaulQ]

To my ear, your four examples above are fine.

"by 3pm" seems to differ from "by the time that <insert relative clause>".

I'm therefore sure the problem is not "by". The problem is "the time that we got to the station." This
(i) implies an action (getting to the station) that was completed at the time referred to.*
(ii) It adds background/context to the train's leaving.
These two effects point to the past perfect (or a past continuous form).

"3 p.m." is not an action - so it cannot be "completed" - it is a location in time. This does not require a past perfect.

*Consider
I had washed the car when my brother arrived.
I washed the car when my brother arrived.

 

[lingobingo]

For me, by means the same thing with a specified time and with "the time that", and all of the following are equally correct:

You must arrive by 3pm in order to catch the afternoon train.
You must arrive by the time the clock strikes 3 in order to catch the afternoon train.
We had to arrive by the time the clock struck 3.
We did arrive by the time the clock struck 3.

(I am still a little surprised that no one is agreeing with me.)

Like those in #13, your first example above doesn’t even use the phrase by the time. And the 2nd and 3rd both relate to a future requirement, not to a completed action, so the perfect aspect is not appropriate. The 4th does sort-of work, but only in that same context, as an emphatic statement confirming that the requirement was indeed met. It’s not directly comparable to basic statements, such as the one in the OP, describing the earlier of two events in relation to, and from the perspective of, a time reference in the form of a later event — in effect, answering the question “What was it that had happened by then?”.

 

[Forero]

To my ear, your four examples above are fine.

I'm therefore sure the problem is not "by". The problem is "the time that we got to the station." This
(i) implies an action (getting to the station) that was completed at the time referred to.*
(ii) It adds background/context to the train's leaving.
These two effects point to the past perfect (or a past continuous form).

"3 p.m." is not an action - so it cannot be "completed" - it is a location in time. This does not require a past perfect.

You seem to be making a case for "by the time we had arrived at the station".

*Consider
I had washed the car when my brother arrived.
I washed the car when my brother arrived.

Yes, past perfect in a clause with a "when" (= "at the time") subordinate clause is like past simple in a clause with a "before" (= "before the time") subordinate clause.

And this means that past perfect in a clause with a "by the time" (= "at or before the time") subordinate clause also forces "by" to mean "before" rather than "at or before".

When I say "The train left by the time we got to the station", I leave open the possibility that the train left just as/when we arrived; but "The train had left by the time we got to the station" means that the train definitely left before we arrived.

 

[lingobingo]

That’s not how it works. By a specific time means that when that time comes, the action has – or will need to have – already been completed.

 

[Forero]

That’s not how it works. By a specific time means that when that time comes, the action has – or will need to have – already been completed.

Now you see the need for a perfect infinitive? And, by the way, I have not been able to find a dictionary entry for "by" (with a time as its object) or "by the time" (followed by a relative clause) that does not include "before" or "no later" in the definition.

But is it possibile to say "By the time I got there, we had been tired?" to underline that we started to feel tired before getting to the destination?

It’s possible to say that, but it doesn’t make sense in the way that you seem to think (if at all). It would have to be a situation in which someone had been tired but no longer was (using the past perfect as a backshift from the simple past, not from the present perfect).

This sounds bizarre to me. "By the time we get there, we were tired" (simple past) just sounds wrong, but I have no problem with "By the time we get there, we have been tired for hours" (present perfect). And that is with no indication as to whether we are still tired or are no longer tired.

And the following, with different aspects in the "by the time" clause, sound fine to me too:

Ex. 12: By the time we were stepping onto the platform, the train was well on its way. (subordinate progressive)
Ex. 13: By the time we had arrived at the station, the train was well on its way. (subordinate perfect)

Why would "by the time" mean "when" with some verbs and "before" with others? For me, it always means "at or before the time" and all the verb forms used with it so far in this thread jibe with that meaning.

 

[lingobingo]

To be tired is a state, not an action. That’s why it’s standard usage to say we were tired by the time we arrived. What it means, of course, is that by then we had become tired (a dynamic verb) and so were tired now – not that we had been tired but now weren’t.