Hindi, Urdu: plusquamperfect, perfect past, distant past, whatever

[MonsieurGonzalito]

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.

 

[littlepond]

1.jab pariikSHA kaa din aayaa, meN_ne kam paRhaa thaa

...maiN ne paRhaaii zyaadaa nahiiN kar rakhii thii

3.aaj tak rahii thii ki jis desh ne inheN baapuu kahaa usii apne desh ne inheN sab_se kam paRhaa thaa

this sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

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"

unheN veh paihle bhi uThaa chukaa hai OR unheN usne paihle bhii uThaayaa thaa

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.

Actually, if you want to say (note that it's weird to use both "also" and "already" from an English point of view, but I am ignoring that)

"when I arrived home, Mother also had arrived already"

you should say, "jab maiN ghar pauhaNchaa, maaN paihle hii aa chukii thiiN" unless her reaching was very much a dangerous or surprising affair. Arriving is "aanaa," not "pauhaNchnaa." A simple "aanaa" or somthing like "maaN vahaaN paihle se hii thiiN" would be better otherwise.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

I keep hearing "it makes no sense" and "I am trying to shoehorn the plusquamperfect", but still don't understand why when sometimes "that tense" is correct to use when referring to an even earlier event, and when it isn't.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

So, if I understand correctly, in the context of a past action mentioned "before the time of the narration", one can use [past participle] + [honaa in the past] when the the perfection of the previous action doesn't have an evident, immediate effect on the later action.
In other words, the relationship between the completion of the two past events in question needs to be more casual:

If so, a sentence like this would be valid?
pulis ne un jagahoN kaa dauraa kiyaa jahaaN sab_se zyaadaa chorii huii thiiN

It is also worth noting that in expressions like:
chor ke bhaagne se pɛhle police aa gayii thii
or
maiN_ne vo(h) kaam kiyaa jo pɛhle kisii ne nahiiN kiyaa thaa.
one of the actions is actually not occurring. That contributes to the vagueness and disconnection between the "perfection" of both actions.

 

[littlepond]

If so, a sentence like this would be valid?
pulis ne un jagahoN kaa dauraa kiyaa jahaaN sab_se zyaadaa chorii huii thiiN

Yes, except that it would be "chorii huii thii" or "choriyaaN huii thiiN."

But as you have now understood, when the two actions' completeness is defined, you have to use the chuknaa kind of option. For example,
jab tak puulis ne vahaaN dauraa kiyaa, (tab tak) chorii ho chukii thii (or ... ho gayii thii).

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

when the two actions' completeness is defined

It is when the two actions are perfective, or only when the first (the farthest back in time) is perfective, what matters?

Do I still need chuknaa to say "The police used to patrol (daurtii, or some other imperfective tense) where thefts had happened"?

[EDIT]
For example, can I say something like:
jahaaN choriyaaN ho chukii haiN, vahaaN pulis lagaataar daur rahtii hai?
(with just one of the actions being perfective), or it has to be something like:
jahaaN choriyaaN huii thiiN, vahaaN pulis lagaataar daur rahtii hai?

 

[littlepond]

[EDIT]
For example, can I say something like:
jahaaN choriyaaN ho chukii haiN, vahaaN pulis lagaataar daur rahtii hai?
(with just one of the actions being perfective), or it has to be something like:
jahaaN choriyaaN huii thiiN, vahaaN pulis lagaataar daur rahtii hai?

You can say both, but note that there is no "dauR raihtii hai": rather, that should be "dauRtii raihtii hai" though that means "keeps running around." I think you rather meant "dauraa lagaatii raihtii hai" (keeps patrolling).

"dauRnaa" (to run) and "dauraa karnaa/lagaanaa" (to make a tour, round) are different things from each other.

 

[MonsieurGonzalito]

What is the difference (if any) between using "pɛhle hii" and "pɛhle se" (or even "pɛhle se hii") to underscore the perfectiveness?

pulis tab aaii jab chor pɛhle [hii/se] bhaag chukaa thaa.

 

[littlepond]

What is the difference (if any) between using "pɛhle hii" and "pɛhle se" (or even "pɛhle se hii") to underscore the perfectiveness?

pulis tab aaii jab chor pɛhle [hii/se] bhaag chukaa thaa.

The perfectiveness is indicated by "chukaa thaa" without needing anything more. "paihle hii" and "paihle se" add an "already," emphasising the done deed. The "hii" makes it slightly more emphatic than with "se" (as, after all, you could also use the sentence with just "paihle," no "hii.")