In the sentence ‘When Columbus discovers America, he thought that he arrived in India, so he called the people he met Indians,’ the use of ‘arrived’ in the past tense may seem correct at first glance. However, the proper form here is ‘had arrived.’ But why is this the case? This article explains the reason behind using ‘had arrived’ instead of ‘arrived’ and the distinction between the two tenses in such contexts.
Understanding the Difference Between ‘Arrived’ and ‘Had Arrived’
The key to understanding this grammar issue lies in the difference between the simple past tense (‘arrived’) and the past perfect tense (‘had arrived’). The simple past tense is used to describe an action that happened and was completed at a specific point in the past, while the past perfect tense describes an action that happened before another action in the past.
In the context of Columbus’s discovery of America, the past perfect tense (‘had arrived’) is used because the event of arriving in America happened before his realization that he had reached the wrong continent. The thought process of Columbus, recognizing his mistake, came after the event of his arrival, making the past perfect tense more appropriate.
Why ‘Had Arrived’ is Correct in This Context
In this case, ‘When Columbus had arrived in America, he thought that he had arrived in India’ is the correct form. The past perfect tense is needed because Columbus’s arrival in America occurred before his realization, which is described as a thought in the past. The use of ‘had arrived’ indicates that this action happened first, providing clarity in the timeline of events.
By using the past perfect tense, we avoid confusion about the sequence of events and make the meaning clearer: Columbus first arrived in America, then mistakenly believed he was in India, and subsequently called the people he met Indians.
Simultaneous Actions in the Past
While it may seem plausible to interpret ‘arrived’ and ‘call’ as simultaneous actions, it is important to remember that these two actions are actually not occurring at the same time. The key point is that Columbus’s realization and labeling of the people as Indians occurred after his arrival, not simultaneously. Hence, the past perfect tense (‘had arrived’) is necessary to show that one action happened before the other.
If both actions were truly simultaneous, it would make sense to use the simple past tense for both verbs. However, in this case, the sequence of events requires the use of the past perfect tense to indicate that the arrival occurred first, and then Columbus made his mistaken identification.
Summary
The use of ‘had arrived’ in the sentence about Columbus is correct because it indicates that his arrival in America happened before his thought process of mistakenly identifying the people as Indians. The past perfect tense is necessary to show the correct order of events in this context. Understanding the difference between the simple past and past perfect tenses helps clarify the timeline of actions and ensures accurate grammar usage.
コメント