ETA: Improved concision based on OP comment:
Though it doesn't dive into the comparisons I have highlighted, the
answer I was looking for is conveyed here: Past simple or past
perfect in a subordinate clause
-- OP from the comments
From the linked ELL answer:
Once the 'background' anteriority of waiting has been established, the
narrator has a choice of constructions for continuing the … narrative.
There is no “rule” to say that one choice is the better than the
other. The difference is one of focus:
- with pasts, the focus is on the prior events as narrative
- with perfects, the focus is on the prior events as explanation
When applicable:
Rule: Past perfect shows an action that occurs prior to an action in the simple past (EF: Offers a less succinct description).
If the simple past breaks the rule that informs the appropriate order of occurrence as described, in this rule, then it is necessary to use care when choosing the correct tense.
Case Wet Boyfriend
The example sentence:
After an hour my boyfriend arrived! His clothes were soaking wet and he was covered in mud.
Apparently, he had been waiting at a bus stop,
when a car had driven straight through a puddle
and had splashed him from head to toe.
Although it does not follow the if-then structure of the examples in the original question, nevertheless its expression, in the form of a compound sentence, provides a good opportunity to isolate contextual clues that can guide a reader to a writer’s intention. The use of an irregular verb heightens the contrast between using a past perfect phrase and a simple past under the circumstances of analyzing an ordered series.
Establishment of anteriority:
- Apparently, he had been waiting at a bus stop
When introduces a series of subsequent events executed by a car:
The structure of the sentence dictates that subsequent to the action defined by when, first A then B occurred. Changing the order of A and B requires a change in temporal identifiers to describe the series of events as they occurred in the example.
Apparently, he had been waiting at a bus stop, when a car:
- had driven straight through a puddle and had splashed him from head to toe.
- drove straight through a puddle and splashed him from head to toe.
- had driven straight through a puddle and splashed him from head to toe.
- drove straight through a puddle and had splashed him from head to toe.
The rule that governs our understanding of the description of a past perfect event, dictates that all events must occur subsequent to the boyfriend waiting at a bus stop.
Example 1: explains the series of events that occurred after the event of the when clause consistently with little or no emphasis on any one event.
Example 2: narrates the latter events of the series using the simple past, which serves to off-set these events with somewhat equal importance over the event of the when clause.
Example 3: This mixed tense sentence aligns with the rule that the past perfect event must express an action that occurs prior to the action in the simple past. Choosing this structure, will allow the reader to interpret the prior events (presented in the past perfect) as context in the service of bringing focus to the event written in the simple past: splashed him from head to toe.
Example 4: This sentence breaks the rule that the past perfect must express an action that occurs prior to the action in the simple past. In this series of events, the drove inappropriately happens before the had splashed event, thus running afoul of the rule. Readers might receive this sentence anywhere in the range from awkward to wrong.
It's been said that the past perfect is not required so long as the temporal shift is apparent, either through a temporal adjunct (such as 'the day before' or 'before he left') or implied context.
Perhaps, it may be easier to conceptualize that the past perfect is only required when the simple past breaks the rules of order of occurrence for the past perfect/simple past structure, as in Example 4. If it is grammatical for the simple past to occupy a place in the construction of a sentence, then that it can be used at any time based on the intention of the writer.
Case m'Lord
from the Original Question:
This is taken from another published work…the meaning, as I understand
it, can be construed in two different ways. First, the lord returned
at the moment when 'I' arrived...Second (in my opinion, the most
logical interpretation), the lord returned before 'I' arrived.
M'Lord had returned when I arrived last night.
Examine the inverse:
- When I arrived last night, m’Lord had returned.
- When I arrived last night, m’Lord returned.
This inversion removes some of the ambiguity by exposing the nuances of what each sentence actually conveys. Had returned and returned are two distinct concepts when set in opposition to arrived.
- M’Lord had returned when I arrived last night.
- M’Lord returned when I arrived last night
Of the two possible interpretations that are listed in the question:
A. the lord returned at the moment when 'I' arrived
B. the lord returned before 'I' arrived
Examining them in isolation shows us that sentence 1 better supports the B interpretation; the A interpretation is more clearly expressed in sentence 2. This example shows that the choice between past perfect/simple past constructions can unexpectedly alter the meaning by a more significant degree based on their relation to each other. In this case, it appears that the connotations of arrived/returned may interfere with a straightforward interpretation of events.
Case Style
Having read quite a few threads on this site talking about the use of
past perfect, I'm still unsure whether I should follow the structure
of the first group of examples (1 and 2) or the second (3 and 4).
- (1 and 2) These follow a past perfect matrix clause with a simple-past subordinate clause introduced by the temporal prepositions
'when' and 'as.'
- (3 and 4)These use a past perfect matrix clause followed by a past perfect subordinate clause introduced by the prepositions 'when' and
'as.'
(1 and 2): Might read more dynamic
(3 and 4): Might read more neutral
