MonsieurGonzalito
Senior Member
Castellano de Argentina
Friends,
I had the impression that the verbal construction consisting of: [perfect participle] + [honaa in the past] (let's leave aside how it is called), could be used to refer to an action occurring in the past before another past action.
These are examples I picked randomly from the Internet. What I did is simply inputting some verb following this pattern (for example paRhaa thaa), and obtain sentences long enough to analyze what verb tenses were used before.
Here are some results, with the structure [perfect participle] + [honaa in the past] having a counterpart which is a past tense.
1.jab pariikSHA kaa din aayaa, meN_ne kam paRhaa thaa
"when the day of the exam came, I had studied little"
2.meraa junuun ek tarfaa nahiiN tha, thoRii-siii aaNch tum tak bhii pahuNchii thii
"my passion wasn't one-sided, a little warmth had also reached you"
3.aaj tak rahii thii ki jis desh ne inheN baapuu kahaa usii apne desh ne inheN sab_se kam paRhaa thaa
"... the country that called him «Father» was precisely the country that had read him the least"
4.raajyapaal ne jin binduoN ko uThaayaa haim vo(h) pɛhle bhii uThaa thaa
"... the points that the governor has raised, he also had raised (them) before"
These are from other threads in this forum (by respected members):
5. "chakit to maiN baRaa huaa thaa, par phir koii dhyaan nahiN diyaa"
"I had become quite surprised, but then I did not pay much attention"
6. maiN_ne vo(h) kaam kiyaa jo pɛhle kisii ne nahiiN kiyaa thaa.
"I did something that nobody had done before".
Now, I understand that, in order to underscore the finality of the first past action (in the context of many successive actions), it is preferable to use the chuknaa auxiliary verb, for example:
7. DakTar ke aane se pɛhle hii mariiz kii maut ho chukii thii
"right before the doctor's arrival, the patient had died"
And I also understand that speakers sometimes (very often, actually) use the structure [perfect participle] + [honaa in the past] simply to stress the passing of time in relation to the time of the narration, but without another past action being necessarily present. All of this has already been discussed before.
8. kyaa tum ne use kal maaraa thaa?
"Did you beat him yesterday?"
However, what I still don't understand, is what is wrong with saying, for "when I arrived home, Mother also had arrived already":
7. jab meN ghar pahuNchaa, maaN bhii pahuNchii thii
instead of
8. jab meN ghar pahuNchaa, maaN bhii pahuNch chukii thii.
I understand why #8 would be preferable, but I don't understand why #7 is wrong, and what conceptually differentiates #7 from all the examples #1 through #6, which seem to be valid.
Thanks in advance for any comments or clarification.
I had the impression that the verbal construction consisting of: [perfect participle] + [honaa in the past] (let's leave aside how it is called), could be used to refer to an action occurring in the past before another past action.
These are examples I picked randomly from the Internet. What I did is simply inputting some verb following this pattern (for example paRhaa thaa), and obtain sentences long enough to analyze what verb tenses were used before.
Here are some results, with the structure [perfect participle] + [honaa in the past] having a counterpart which is a past tense.
1.jab pariikSHA kaa din aayaa, meN_ne kam paRhaa thaa
"when the day of the exam came, I had studied little"
2.meraa junuun ek tarfaa nahiiN tha, thoRii-siii aaNch tum tak bhii pahuNchii thii
"my passion wasn't one-sided, a little warmth had also reached you"
3.aaj tak rahii thii ki jis desh ne inheN baapuu kahaa usii apne desh ne inheN sab_se kam paRhaa thaa
"... the country that called him «Father» was precisely the country that had read him the least"
4.raajyapaal ne jin binduoN ko uThaayaa haim vo(h) pɛhle bhii uThaa thaa
"... the points that the governor has raised, he also had raised (them) before"
These are from other threads in this forum (by respected members):
5. "chakit to maiN baRaa huaa thaa, par phir koii dhyaan nahiN diyaa"
"I had become quite surprised, but then I did not pay much attention"
6. maiN_ne vo(h) kaam kiyaa jo pɛhle kisii ne nahiiN kiyaa thaa.
"I did something that nobody had done before".
Now, I understand that, in order to underscore the finality of the first past action (in the context of many successive actions), it is preferable to use the chuknaa auxiliary verb, for example:
7. DakTar ke aane se pɛhle hii mariiz kii maut ho chukii thii
"right before the doctor's arrival, the patient had died"
And I also understand that speakers sometimes (very often, actually) use the structure [perfect participle] + [honaa in the past] simply to stress the passing of time in relation to the time of the narration, but without another past action being necessarily present. All of this has already been discussed before.
8. kyaa tum ne use kal maaraa thaa?
"Did you beat him yesterday?"
However, what I still don't understand, is what is wrong with saying, for "when I arrived home, Mother also had arrived already":
7. jab meN ghar pahuNchaa, maaN bhii pahuNchii thii
instead of
8. jab meN ghar pahuNchaa, maaN bhii pahuNch chukii thii.
I understand why #8 would be preferable, but I don't understand why #7 is wrong, and what conceptually differentiates #7 from all the examples #1 through #6, which seem to be valid.
Thanks in advance for any comments or clarification.